DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/12/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The art rejections still apply as presented previously. New claim 12 invokes a new rejection and objection.
Applicant asserts in paragraph 1 on page 6 of the Remarks that “with respect to the Office Action dated December 10, 2024, Harmon teaches a different starting material” and discusses the claimed C/N ratio. But the most recent Non-Final Rejection was mailed on 8/11/25 and addresses this limitation via evidentiary support. This updated rejection has not been addressed by these arguments and they are therefore moot.
Applicant asserts in paragraph 2 that Harmon and Boukis operate at different temperatures and thus teach away from using the pressure of Boukis in Harmon. This argument is not found persuasive. The claim temperatures and pressure, as recited in the claims, are so as to maintain sub- or supercritical conditions. It is an established fact that the supercritical temperature for water is 374.31 °C and 22.1 (paragraph 896 of Harmon). Thus, the temperature and pressures claimed and taught in the prior art are relevant to the sub or supercritical conditions of water in the hydrothermal gasification process. Boukis provides means and motivation for operating at higher temperatures and/or pressures than supercritical. It is the Office’s position that both references are concerned with the temperature and pressure as it relates to sub and supercritical conditions. Thus, one of ordinary skill could maintain either and both variables while still operating in the context of the remaining process steps of the claim(s).
Claim Objections
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 12 further limits claim 1 by narrowing the temperature of 375-400 °C but the remaining limitations are duplicative of those in claim 1. The duplicative language should be removed for clarity since it seems to reintroduce elements already claimed. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-6 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harmon (US 2017/0107478 A1) in view of Boukis (DE 10 2006 044 116 B3). Massetti (US 2016/0245508 A1) and Miyoshi (US 2006/0260190 A1) are used as evidentiary support. A machine translation has been provided for Boukis and is used for citation purposes.
Regarding claims 1 and 6, Harmon discloses a method comprising: providing a carbonaceous material (paragraph 145) in the form of wastewater sludge (paragraph 178); subjecting the carbonaceous material to hydrothermal gasification (paragraph 148) operated at temperatures of 350 °C and pressures of 22 MPa (220 bar) (Paragraph 156), thereby directly producing an inorganic solid residue, a first gaseous fraction comprising CH4, CO, CO-2 and H2 (paragraph 156), and a filtrate containing readily biodegradable carbons (paragraph 578); and subjecting at least part of the filtrate to an anaerobic treatment step, leading to a digestate (paragraph 879). Harmon does not disclose performing the hydrothermal gasification at 280 to 300 bar but does disclose supercritical pressures above 22.1 MPa to substantially accelerate the reaction rate (paragraph 896), establishing supercritical pressures as a result-effective variable. See MPEP 2144.05. Boukis—in an invention for a hydrothermal gasification process of biomass—discloses a means by which hydrothermal gasification can occur using supercritical pressures of 28 MPa (280 bar) (Table 1) “for the energetic use of wet biomass as they are characterized by high chemical and energetic efficiencies as well as good quality and composition of the product gases obtained.” It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to raise the pressure at which the hydrothermal gasification in Harmon occurs so as to increase efficiency as disclosed in Boukis.
Neither Harmon nor Boukis explicitly discloses the nitrogen content of the carbonaceous material. The instant specification details that the claimed nitrogen content is a result of the sludge feedstock used which has a humidity content of 75-97% (page 4, lines 9-21). Harmon discloses sludge as the feedstock as stated above. Both Massetti and Miyoshi cited to provide evidence that sludge feedstocks have nitrogen contents within the range claimed. Massetti discloses that refinery sludge of 30-80% humidity has a carbon content of 5-50% and a nitrogen content of 0-5% (claim 10). Miyoshi disclose that sewage sludge of 77% humidity has a carbon content of 9.8% and a nitrogen content of 1.2% (paragraph 85). A C/N ratio 0≤40 ratio means that nitrogen must simply be present and not in proportions of greater than 40 times nitrogen to carbon, which by Applicant’s own admission, is not the case for sludge (Specification, page 2, lines 26-35).
Regarding claims 3-5, Harmon discloses separating the products of the digestion into a variety of liquid and solid products (paragraph 1138) and recycling the products to the hydrothermal gasification process (paragraph 219).
Regarding claims 2 and 12, Harmon discloses temperatures of 200-500 °C (paragraph 896).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IMRAN AKRAM whose telephone number is (571)270-3241. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9a-5p.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Basia Ridley can be reached at 571-272-1453. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/IMRAN AKRAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725