DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
1. In response to the amendment received on 12/5/25:
claims 1-15 are presently pending, with claims 7-10 and 15 being withdrawn
the objection to the drawings in withdrawn in light of the amended drawings filed 12/5/25
all prior art grounds of rejection are withdrawn in light of the amendments to the claims
new grounds of rejection are presented herein below
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 5, 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 5 and 13 each recite the limitation "a solid oxide fuel cell" in the claims. However, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. As amended, claim 1 now includes a fuel cell (see claim 1 at line 4), but claims 5 and 13 don’t clearly refer back to the previously set forth fuel cell and instead just requires the step be carried out in a solid oxide fuel cell (“SOFC”). As such, it is unclear whether a second fuel cell is being set forth or if, as it would seem the intent was to further limit/require the fuel cell of claim 1 as set forth to be a SOFC as referenced in claims 5 and 13.
Please note, for purposes of claim interpretation the examiner will be treating claims 5 and 13 as requiring the previously set forth fuel cell of claim 1 to be a SOFC. It is additionally noted that claim 14 is included herein only due to its dependency upon claim 13.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 6 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “High Temperature Solid Oxide H2O/CO2 Co-Electrolysis for Syngas Production” by Wang et al., Fuel Processing Tech. 161, pages 248-258 (2017) (hereinafter referred to as “WANG”) in view of US Pub. No. 2020/0024204 to Hammond (hereinafter referred to as “HAMMOND”), US Pub. No. 2018/0112142 to Foody et al., (hereinafter referred to as “FOODY”), US Pub. No. 2020/0153013 to Herrmann et al., (hereinafter referred to as “HERRMANN”), and “Solid Oxide Fuel Cells Fuelled with Biogas: Potential and Constraints” by Saadabadi et al., Renewable Energy 134, pages 194-214 (2019) (hereinafter referred to as “SAADABADI”).
Regarding claim 1, WANG teaches a method for production of a synthesis gas comprising carbon monoxide and hydrogen (see generally WANG at Abstract and page 249 section titled “introduction” first full paragraph on the left-side column), comprising: in an electrolysis cell having an anode and a cathode, which are separated from one another at least by an electrolyte, and a cathode space adjoining the cathode (see WANG at page 249 with Fig. 1 depicting an electrolysis cell with anode and cathode separated by an electrolyte and having a cathode space as claimed), converting a gas comprising carbon dioxide and water vapor into the synthesis gas comprising carbon monoxide and hydrogen by means of electrolysis (see WANG at page 249, section 2.1 titled “Working principle” and Fig. 1 teaching CO2 and H2O reacting at the cathode in order to form synthesis gas, i.e. CO and H2).
While WANG teaches the use of carbon dioxide and water vapor to form the synthesis gas (see teachings of WANG set forth above), WANG fails though to explicitly teach: (i) providing a feedstock gas comprising methane and carbon dioxide; (ii) in a fuel cell having an anode and a cathode as claimed and converting the feedstock gas into an intermediate product gas comprising carbon dioxide and water vapor that is then used in the electrolysis step to form the synthesis gas; and, (iii) wherein the anode space of the fuel cell is connected to the cathode space of the electrolysis cell as claimed.
However, as to (i), HAMMOND teaches that biogas is a known mixture of methane and carbon dioxide that is obtained from anaerobic digestion (see HAMMOND at ¶32). HAMMOND also teaches that biogas can be used as a source feed gas (see HAMMOND at ¶33 and ¶35). Moreover, FOODY teaches biogas is considered a renewable energy source (see FOODY at ¶5). As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would have readily appreciated the benefit of using a renewable feed gas such as biogas as a starting material that would be good for the environment.
Additionally, as to (ii) and (iii), HERRMANN teaches a process of operating a fuel cell (see HERRMANN at Abstract; see also HERRMANN at ¶4-¶5 teaching the fuel cell having an anode, cathode, and electrolyte and teaching the anode having an exhaust stream such that there must be some anode space as claimed) in which the fuel stream or feedstock gas is biogas (see HERRMANN at ¶5 teaching biogas as a suitable fuel stream). Furthermore, HERRMANN teaches the operation of the fuel cell such that the anode exhaust stream of the fuel cell is fully converted into products like water and CO2 (see HERRMANN at ¶5 teaching fully converted products being in the exhaust anode outlet). Furthermore, SAADABADI also teaches the use of biogas as the fuel in SOFC operating at high temperatures (see SAADABADI at Abstract and page 196, section 1.1 titled “Working Principle of Solid Oxide Fuel Cell”, first paragraph). Moreover, SAADABADI also teaches the use of typical energy conversion devices such as gas burners, internal combustion engines and combined heat/power systems resulting in efficiencies less than 50%, but that SOFCs can be significantly more efficient (see SAADABADI at page 196, section titled “Introduction”, left side column, first three paragraphs teaching low efficiency for conventional processing and net efficiencies greater than 50% for a SOFC or high efficiency energy conversion device; see also SAADABADI at page 197, section 2 titled “Towards Integrated Anaerobic Digestors – Solid Oxide Fuel Cells”, right hand col.).
As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that a possible way of increasing the energy efficiency of the process of WANG instead of using a combustion process to form the carbon dioxide and water from the biogas as taught by HAMMOND and FOODY (see HAMMOND at ¶33 and ¶35; see FOODY at ¶5), would be to instead of combusting the biogas to form CO2 and water vapor, to use the biogas as the fuel for a SOFC as taught by HERRMANN and SAADABADI so as to generate electrical power more efficiently that can then be used in the electrolysis portion of the process.
As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that biogas would be an appropriate renewable energy source that could be used as the feedstock to generate electricity and also provide the necessary carbon dioxide and water vapor for the co-electrolysis of WANG. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have appreciated the need through appropriate piping to connect the anode exhaust from the fuel cell of HERRMANN which has the carbon dioxide and water to the cathode space of WANG so as to provide the carbon dioxide and water vapor to the cathode chamber as depicted in Fig. 1. This fluid connection of the anode exhaust from the fuel cell of HERRMANN to the cathode inlet of the electrolysis cell of WANG would read on the limitation requiring the anode space of the fuel cell being “connected” to the cathode space of the electrolysis cell.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the biogas of HAMMOND, which is renewable energy source, as taught by FOODY, in a SOFC so as to convert the methane and carbon dioxide in the biogas to electricity, carbon dioxide and water, in the SOFC as taught by HERRMANN, in order to provide the gas stream usable by the co-electrolysis setup of WANG to form a synthesis gas for further processing or energy storage.
Regarding claim 2, WANG as modified by HAMMOND, FOODY, HERRMANN and SAADABADI teaches the method wherein the feedstock gas is a biogas (see HAMMOND at ¶32-¶33; see also HERRMANN at ¶5).
Regarding claims 3 and 11, WANG as modified by HAMMOND, FOODY, HERRMANN and SAADABADI teaches the method wherein the proportion of methane in the feedstock gas is within the range from 50 to 65 % (see HAMMOND at ¶32 teaching the vol. % of the methane being 55 to 60 vol. %) and/or the proportion of carbon dioxide in the feedstock gas is within the range from 30 to 45 % (see HAMMOND at ¶32 teaching the vol. % of the carbon dioxide being 40 to 45 vol. %).
Please note, the examiner is treating the percentages claimed in all claims as setting forth volume percents since in the art that appears to be the common notation.
Regarding claim 5, WANG as modified by HAMMOND, FOODY, HERRMANN and SAADABADI above teaches the method wherein the fuel cell is a SOFC as claimed (see HERRMANN at ¶5).
Regarding claim 6, WANG as modified by HAMMOND, FOODY, HERRMANN and SAADABADI above teaches the method wherein the feed biogas could be used to provide electricity (see rejection of claim 1 above setting forth the teachings of HAMMOND, FOODY, HERRMANN and SAADABADI as applied). Moreover, SAADABADI specifically notes that electricity will be generated from the fueling of a solid oxide fuel cell with biogas (see SAADABADI at Abstract and page 196 in section 1.1 teaching the fuel cell acting to convert the chemical energy of the fuel into electrical energy). Since the co-electrolysis of WANG necessarily requires electricity (see teachings of WANG cited above as to the reduced electrical energy requirements when operating at high-temperatures and see also WANG at Fig. 1 depicting an electrical energy source connected to the cathode and anode), one of ordinary skill in the art looking to make the process of WANG as modified by HAMMOND, FOODY, HERRMANN and SAADABADI as energy efficient as possible would have been motivated to have used the generated electrical energy as the source of power for the electrolysis.
Therefore, it would have been obvious based on the teachings of HAMMOND, FOODY, HERRMANN and SAADABADI in the process of WANG, as modified above in the rejection of claim 1, to further have the biogas fuel provide the electrical energy that is then recycled or used in the co-electrolysis portion of the process as a means of reducing the costs and allowing for the process to be as energy efficient as possible.
Claim(s) 4 and 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WANG in view of HAMMOND, FOODY, HERRMANN and SAADABADI as applied to claims 1, and also 1, 2, and 11 above, and further in view of US Pub. No. 2006/0000352 to Tower et al., (hereinafter referred to as “TOWER”).
Regarding claims 4 and 12, WANG as modified by HAMMOND, FOODY, HERRMANN and SAADABADI fails to explicitly teach the feedstock biogas also comprising water vapor having a proportion within the range from 2 to 10 % as claimed. However, while HAMMOND and FOODY teach the composition of biogas varying (see HAMMOND at ¶32 and see FOODY at ¶4), TOWER teaches a biogas composition and gives the typical concentrations ranging in vol. % as 35 to 70 vol. % methane; 30 to 65 vol. % CO2; and 2 to 8 vol. % water vapor (see TOWER at ¶103). As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use any known biogas in the method of WANG as modified by HAMMOND, FOODY, HERRMANN and SAADABADI since some water vapor would necessarily be present and since water can be used in the electrolysis step of forming the synthesis gas. Moreover, the use of one known biogas for another biogas would have been readily apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art (see MPEP §2144.06(II)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the biogas of TOWER having the water vapor composition in the range of 2 to 8 vol. % in the method of WANG as modified by HAMMOND, FOODY, HERRMANN and SAADABADI in order to arrive at the predictable result of having the method as claimed.
Regarding claim 13, see the rejection of claim 5 above which is hereby incorporated herein in its entirety.
Regarding claim 14, see the rejection of claim 6 above which is hereby incorporated herein in its entirety.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-6 and 11-14 have been considered and necessitated the new grounds of rejection as set forth herein. However, for at least the reasons as set forth above in the grounds of rejection, the examiner is still of the opinion that the references are reasonably combinable so as to read on the claims as amended.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 Bryan D. Ripa whose telephone number is (571)270-7875. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00AM-4:00PM ET.
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, James Lin can be reached at (571) 272-8902. 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.
/BRYAN D. RIPA/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1794