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 Amendment
The Amendment filed 24 February 2026 has been entered. Claims 1 and 9 are amended; claim 15 is cancelled; claim 16 is added. Accordingly, claims 1-9, 11-14, and 16 remain pending in the application.
Examiner’s Note
The status identifier for claim 6, listed as “Currently Amended”, should be labelled “Previously Presented”, as no amendments appear to be made to claim 6. Please make these changes in the next correspondence.
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 1-9, 11-14, and 16 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.
Claim 1, line 14, into the combustion reactor.
Claims 2-9, 11-14, and 16 are indefinite as they depend from an indefinite base and fail to cure the deficiencies of the base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1, 5, 7-8, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lu et al. (US 11,285,437) in view of Skocek (US 2022/0212992) and Chirkov (US 2014/0335585) and Bareis (US 2016/0281654) as evidenced by Kring et al. (US 3,852,169).
Regarding Claim 1, Lu discloses a method of processing exhaust gas containing CO2 and O2 (flue gas containing CO2 and O2 meets the limitation of exhaust gas; Col. 4, line 66-Col. 5, line 6) comprising introducing the exhaust gas into a combustion reactor (while not described as such, the reactor of Lu carries out combustion and therefore meets the limitation of a combustion reactor; Col. 4, lines 64-65), burning fuel in the combustion reactor with the O2 content of the exhaust gas being used as an oxidizing agent (Col. 4, line 64-Col. 5, line 6), and controlling combustion of the burning fuel in the combustion reactor so that the exhaust gas from the combustion reactor contains about 30% to about 90% CO2 by weight (the kiln of Lu carries out combustion and therefore meets the limitation of a combustion reactor; Col. 13, line 66-Col. 14, line 2).
Lu is silent to the exhaust gas from the combustion reactor containing a mixture of CO and CO2.
Lu, however, discloses the oxidant stream may be adapted to provide for at least 95% molar combustion of the fuel (Col. 9, lines 62-66).
Kring discloses varying the rate of fuel combustion varies the CO content (Col. 10, lines 5-20).
Therefore, 95% combustion would constitute as incomplete combustion, and would include CO necessarily.
Regarding the vol. % of CO2 in claim 1, it appears that about 30% to about 90% by weight taught by Lu, in the alternative, overlaps the claimed range of at least 80 vol. % of a mixture of CO and CO2 such that the range taught by Lu obviates the claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Regarding the vol. % of oxygen in claim 1, it appears that about 30% to about 90% CO2 by weight taught by Lu would result in, at most, about 10% to about 70% oxygen by weight, which, in the alternative, overlaps the claimed range of less than 10 vol. % of oxygen such that the range taught by Lu obviates the claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Lu is further silent to the exhaust gas introduced into the combustion reactor being received from a cement production plant.
Lu, however, discloses the flue gas (used as the oxidizing agent; claim 1) is from a different process (claim 30).
Skocek discloses a method for sequestering CO2 (Abstract). Skocek further discloses sources of the carbon dioxide containing gas include exhaust gases directly received from a plant, e.g. a cement plant [0016]. Skocek further discloses the source gas can be exhaust gas having been concentrated in CO2, wherein several methods for concentrating carbon dioxide in gases are known, for example supplementary firing (aka combustion in a second combustion reactor) [0019].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lu to incorporate the teachings of Skocek to introduce an exhaust gas received from a cement production plant into a combustion reactor, because the flue gas (oxidizing agent) of Lu is not particularly limited (see claim 30), such that the flue gas may be from a cement plant, as increasing the CO2 concentration of a flue gas from a cement production plant using supplementary firing (aka secondary combustion) is a process well-known in the art of carbon sequestration in the cement industry, as recognized by Skocek (Abstract, [0016], [0019]).
Lu is further silent to feeding the exhaust gas from the combustion reactor into a CO2/CO conversion reactor to convert the CO2 and optionally the CO contained in the exhaust gas into a hydrocarbon fuel.
Lu, however, teaches purified CO2 can be exported (the exported CO2 of Lu necessarily requires recovering an exhaust gas exiting the combustion reactor) for sequestration, EOR (enhanced oil recovery), and/or chemical production to increase revenue and claim CO2 tax credits (Col. 26, lines 42-45).
Chirkov discloses burning fuel in a combustion reactor to produce exhaust gas containing CO2 (combustion chamber meets the limitation combustion reactor; [0014]), and feeding the exhaust gas from the combustion reactor into a bioreactor (bioreactor meets the limitation of CO2/CO conversion reactor), in which the CO2 contained in the exhaust gas is converted to methane (methane meets the limitation of hydrocarbon fuel; [0014]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lu to incorporate the teachings of Chirkov to feed the exhaust gas from the combustion reactor into a CO2/CO conversion reactor, in which the CO2 and optionally the CO contained in the exhaust gas is converted into a hydrocarbon fuel, because both Lu (Col. 8, lines 12-21) and Chirkov [0003] recognize the need to reduce CO2 emissions.
Lu is silent to controlling of the combustion of the burning fuel in the combustion reactor comprises controlling an amount of the fuel fed into the combustion reactor to maximize exhaust gas CO and CO2 content conversion within the conversion reactor.
Lu, however, discloses controlling the combustion of the burning fuel by adapting the oxidant stream (Col. 9, lines 62-66), various amounts of fuel input into the combustion reactor (Table in Col. 10, lines 15-28), and producing an exhaust gas containing up to about 90% CO2 by weight (Col. 13, line 66-Col. 14, line 2). Lu further discloses the CO2 can be exported for sequestration (Col. 26, lines 42-45).
Chirkov further discloses a majority of the nitrogen-containing gases are preferably removed by the nitrogen removal system prior to introduction into the bioreactor [0020], such that the exhaust gas of Chirkov fed into the conversion reactor has an increased CO and CO2 content, and therefore, a greater CO and CO2 content conversion within the conversion reactor. Additionally, Chirkov’s method of CO2 conversion is recognized as a carbon sequestration method [0028].
Bareis discloses increased fuel consumption in a combustion engine (combustion engine meets the limitation of a combustion reactor) increases the carbon dioxide emissions [0011], such that it is well known in the art of combustion that a combustion reactor should be fed more fuel to produce more CO2 in the exhaust gas.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lu to incorporate the teachings of Chirkov and Bareis to control the combustion of the burning fuel in the combustion reactor by controlling an amount of the fuel fed into the combustion reactor to maximize exhaust gas CO and CO2 content conversion within the conversion reactor, because Chirkov recognizes it is preferable to feed an exhaust gas with an increased CO2 content to the conversion reactor in the method of carbon sequestration ([0020], [0028]), Lu provides an exhaust gas with up to 90% CO2 which can be exported for carbon sequestration (Col. 13, line 66-Col. 14, line 2; Col. 26, lines 42-45), such that both Lu and Chirkov recognize the value in providing an exhaust gas with an high CO2 content for carbon sequestration, and increasing CO2 content in exhaust gas by controlling the amount of fuel fed into the combustion reactor is a process parameter well-known in the art of combustion, as recognized by Bareis.
Regarding Claim 5, Lu discloses purified CO2 can be exported for sequestration, EOR (enhanced oil recovery), and/or chemical production to increase revenue and claim CO2 tax credits (Col. 26, lines 42-45).
Lu is silent to the use of a conversion reactor, wherein the C02/CO conversion reactor is a bioreactor, a catalytic reactor or a power-to-fuel reactor.
Chirkov discloses the use of a CO2 conversion reactor, wherein the CO2 conversion reactor is a bioreactor [0014].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lu to incorporate the teachings of Chirkov to have a bioreactor as the CO2/CO conversion reactor, because both Lu (Col. 8, lines 12-21) and Chirkov [0003] recognize the need to reduce CO2 emissions.
Regarding Claim 7, Lu discloses purified CO2 can be exported for sequestration, EOR (enhanced oil recovery), and/or chemical production to increase revenue and claim CO2 tax credits (Col. 26, lines 42-45).
Lu is silent to feeding the exhaust gas from the combustion reactor into a CO2/CO conversion reactor, wherein the hydrocarbon fuel, obtained from the C02/CO conversion reactor is fed to a combustion process, as a fuel.
Chirkov discloses the methane obtained from the CO2/CO conversion reactor is fed to a combustion process [0028].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lu to incorporate the teachings of Chirkov wherein the hydrocarbon fuel, obtained from the CO2/CO conversion reactor is fed to a combustion process, as a fuel, as this would result in decreasing the consumption of primary fuel, as recognized by Chirkov [0028].
Regarding Claim 8, Lu further discloses the exhaust gas from the combustion reactor (exhaust gas from the combustion reactor meets the limitation of exhaust gas before being fed into the CO2/CO conversion reactor) is conducted through a heat exchanger to cool the exhaust gas to a temperature of about 20°C to about 150°C (about 20°C to about 150°C meets the limitation of 20-300°C; Col. 5, lines 16-18).
Regarding Claim 16, Lu discloses burning fuel in the combustion reactor with the O2 content of the exhaust gas being used as an oxidizing agent (Col. 4, line 64-Col. 5, line 6), wherein the oxygen content is configured to provide complete combustion of the input fuel (Col. 9, lines 62-65), such that the burning fuel consumes the O2 content of the exhaust gas. Lu further discloses the CO2 generated can be derived from the fuel and oxidant input into the reactor (Col. 13, lines 54-58), wherein the fuel is carbon-containing (Col. 9, lines 45-54), such that the carbon content from the fuel converts into CO2, which necessarily increases the CO2 content in the exhaust gas exiting the combustion reactor.
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lu et al. (US 11,285,437) in view of Skocek (US 2022/0212992) and Chirkov (US 2014/0335585) and Bareis (US 2016/0281654) and Vitse et al. (US 2020/0300454).
Regarding Claim 2, Lu, Skocek, Chirkov, and Bareis teach the elements as described above with regards to claim 1.
Lu discloses a method for processing exhaust gas can incorporate driers (Col. 12, lines 49-52). Lu further discloses the fuel source may be any suitable material (Col. 9, lines 34-35).
Lu is silent to at least a part of the exhaust gas, before being introduced into the combustion reactor, being used to dry a solid fuel, in a first drying unit, thereby obtaining a dried fuel, whereupon the dried fuel is optionally ground to obtain a ground fuel.
Vitse discloses an exhaust gas (flue gas meets the limitation of exhaust gas), before being introduced into the combustion reactor (exhaust gas recycled back to the combustion reactor meets the limitation of exhaust gas before being introduced into the combustion reactor; Fig. 3, [0028]; and combusting the fuel with a firing system meets the limitation of a combustion reactor; claim 11) is used to dry a solid fuel in a first drying unit, thereby obtaining a dried fuel, whereupon the dried fuel is ground to obtain a ground fuel (reducing the size of the fuel particles in a mill meets the limitation of grinding; claim 11).
O’Hagan discloses many heated gases are suitable for drying, and flue gases from almost any combustion process are suitable for drying, provided they have sufficient heat (Col. 5, line 67-Col. 6, line 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lu to incorporate the teachings of Vitse wherein at least a part of the exhaust gas, before being introduced into the combustion reactor, is used to dry a solid fuel, in a first drying unit, thereby obtaining a dried fuel, whereupon the dried fuel is optionally ground to obtain a ground fuel. Regarding using exhaust gas to dry a solid fuel in claim 2, using the hot exhaust gas to dry the fuel prior to grinding (pulverizing meets the limitation of grinding) enables the removal of moisture without requiring expensive heat transfer equipment such as conventional rotary and fluidized bed dryers, as recognized by Vitse [0040].
Regarding the exhaust gas used for drying claim 2, it would have been obvious to use the exhaust gas before being introduced into the combustion chamber, rather than recirculated exhaust gas, because many heated gases are suitable for drying, and flue gases from almost any combustion process are suitable for drying, provided they have sufficient heat, as recognized by O’Hagan (Col. 5, line 67-Col. 6, line 2), in the absence of evidence that the claimed feature is significant (MPEP 2144.04 IV B)].
Regarding Claim 3, Vitse further discloses the dried and ground fuel is used as fuel in a combustion reactor (claim 11).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lu to incorporate the teachings of Vitse wherein the dried and optionally ground fuel is used as the fuel in the combustion reactor. The moisture content of solid fuels is known to have an effect on efficiency and emissions; and high moisture content in solid fuels can also lead to problems in areas such as fuel handling, fuel grinding, fan capacity, and exhaust gas flow rate, as recognized by Vitse [0003].
Claims 4 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lu et al. (US 11,285,437) in view of Skocek (US 2022/0212992) and Chirkov (US 2014/0335585) and Bareis (US 2016/0281654) and Flaßpöhler et al. (US 2016/0339381).
Regarding Claim 4, Lu, Skocek, Chirkov, and Bareis teach the elements as described above with regards to claim 1.
Lu discloses a method for processing exhaust gas can incorporate driers (Col. 12, lines 49-52).
Lu is silent to using at least part of the exhaust gas to dry cement raw meal in a second drying unit, thereby obtaining a dried raw meal, wherein the dried raw meal is ground to obtain a ground raw meal, which is fed into a preheater of a cement production plant.
Flaßpöhler discloses a system to produce cement clinker in which the exhaust gas from the preheater is used to dry cement raw meal in a combined grinding and drying system, thereby obtaining a dried and ground raw meal, which is fed into a preheater of a cement production plant (a combined grinding and drying system meets the limitation of a drying unit followed by grinding; [0019]).
O’Hagan discloses many heated gases are suitable for drying, and flue gases from almost any combustion process are suitable for drying, provided they have sufficient heat (Col. 5, line 67-Col. 6, line 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lu to incorporate the teachings of Flaßpöhler wherein at least part of the exhaust gas, before being introduced into the combustion reactor, is used to dry cement raw meal in a second drying unit, thereby obtaining a dried raw meal, wherein the dried raw meal is ground to obtain a ground raw meal, which is fed into a preheater of a cement production plant. In cement plants, the exhaust gases leaving the preheater conventionally have a temperature of approximately from 300 to 400° C, and it is desirable to use the heat of the exhaust gas as far as possible, as recognized by Flaßpöhler [0002].
Regarding the exhaust gas used for drying claim 4, it would have been obvious to use the exhaust gas before being introduced into the combustion chamber, rather than recirculated exhaust gas, because many heated gases are suitable for drying, and flue gases from almost any combustion process are suitable for drying, provided they have sufficient heat, as recognized by O’Hagan (Col. 5, line 67-Col. 6, line 2), in the absence of evidence that the claimed feature is significant (MPEP 2144.04 IV B)].
Regarding Claim 9, Lu discloses the kiln in a cement plant can be retrofitted for operation according to the present disclosure in order to capture CO2 from the cement plant (Col. 11, lines 62-65).
Lu is silent to the exhaust gas being taken from a cement raw meal preheater of a cement production plant.
Flaßpöhler discloses the exhaust gas is taken from a cement raw meal preheater of a cement production plant [0019].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lu to incorporate the teachings of Flaßpöhler wherein the exhaust gas is taken from a cement raw meal preheater of a cement production plant. In cement plants, the exhaust gases leaving the preheater conventionally have a temperature of approximately from 300 to 400° C, and it is desirable to use the heat of the exhaust gas as far as possible, so operations are therefore carried out as far as possible in a so-called interconnected operation, in which the hot exhaust gas from the preheater is used in a combined grinding and drying system, as recognized by Flaßpöhler [0002].
Claims 6 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lu et al. (US 11,285,437) in view of Skocek (US 2022/0212992) and Chirkov (US 2014/0335585) and Bareis (US 2016/0281654) and Gaddy (US 6,340,581) and Larson et al. (US 2019/0284491).
Regarding Claim 6, Lu, Skocek, Chirkov and Bareis teach the elements as described above with regards to claim 1.
Lu discloses the fuel source may be any suitable material (Col. 9, lines 34-35).
Lu is silent to by-products produced in the CO2/CO conversion reactor are fed to a combustion process, as a fuel.
Chirkov discloses feeding exhaust gas from a combustion reactor into a bioreactor [0014].
Gaddy discloses feeding exhaust gas (waste gas containing CO2, CO meets the limitation of exhaust gas; Col. 3, lines 34-40) into a bioreactor (bioreactor meets the limitation of CO2/CO conversion reactor; Abstract), in which the CO2 and optionally the CO contained in the exhaust gas is converted into methanol (Col. 3, lines 42-48). Methanol is recognized by applicant as a hydrocarbon fuel per the specification (pg. 8, lines 10-13). Gaddy further discloses single cell protein by-products are produced in the CO2/CO conversion reactor (fermentation meets the limitation of CO2/CO conversion reactor as fermentation takes place within a bioreactor; Abstract and Col. 1, lines 39-47).
Larson discloses a process for combusting a high protein organic material [0014]. Larson further discloses high protein organic materials present great potential for reducing operating costs of fuel operated systems, conserving use of other fuel sources and for disposing unwanted materials [0004].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lu to incorporate the teachings of Chirkov, Gaddy, and Larson wherein by-products produced in the CO2/CO conversion reactor are fed to a combustion process as fuel, because both Chirkov and Gaddy teach using a bioreactor as a CO2/CO conversion reactor, and the bioreactor produces single cell protein by-products, as recognized by Gaddy (Abstract and Col. 1, lines 39-47), and high protein organic materials present great potential for reducing operating costs of fuel operated systems, conserving use of other fuel sources and for disposing unwanted materials, as recognized by Larson [0004].
Regarding Claim 12, Gaddy discloses a by-product produced in the CO2/CO conversion reactor (fermentation meets the limitation of CO2/CO conversion reactor as fermentation takes place within a bioreactor; Abstract) are proteins (Col. 1, lines 39-47).
Larson discloses a process for combusting a high protein organic material (paragraph [0014]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lu to incorporate the teachings of Chirkov, Gaddy, and Larson wherein the by-products produced in the CO2/CO conversion reactor are proteins, as high protein organic materials present great potential for reducing operating costs of fuel operated systems, conserving use of other fuel sources and for disposing unwanted materials, as recognized by Larson [0004].
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lu et al. (US 11,285,437) in view of Skocek (US 2022/0212992) and Chirkov (US 2014/0335585) and Bareis (US 2016/0281654) and Vitse et al. (US 2020/0300454) and Vaseghi et al. (“A review of energy efficiency and CO2 emissions in the US cement industry”).
Regarding Claim 11, Lu, Skocek, Chirkov, Bareis and Vitse teach the elements as described above with regards to claim 2.
Lu teaches the fuel source may be any suitable material such as a solid fuel, for example, biomass (Col. 9, lines 34-39).
Vitse further discloses the solid fuel is a biomass fuel [0002]. Biomass is recognized by applicant as a solid renewable fuel per the specification (pg. 5, lines 20-25).
Additionally, Vaseghi teaches that biomass can be burned as an alternative fuel to reduce CO2 emissions (page 5, lines 8-10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lu to incorporate the teachings of Vitse wherein the solid fuel is a solid renewable fuel as alternative fuels such as biomass reduce CO2 emissions, as recognized by Vaseghi (page 5, lines 8-10).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lu et al. (US 11,285,437) in view of Skocek (US 2022/0212992) and Chirkov (US 2014/0335585) and Bareis (US 2016/0281654) and Gaddy (US 6,340,581) and Larson et al. (US 2019/0284491) and Theulen (US 2019/0071351).
Regarding Claim 13, Lu, Skocek, Chirkov, Baris, Gaddy, and Larson teach the elements as described above with regards to claim 6.
Lu discloses the kiln in a cement plant can be retrofitted for operation according to the present disclosure in order to capture CO2 from the cement plant (Col. 11, lines 62-65).
Lu is silent to the combustion process taking place in a burner of a cement kiln, a pre-calciner burner and/or a combustion reactor burner of a cement production plant.
Theulen discloses a cement plant wherein the combustion process is a burner of a cement kiln, a pre-calciner burner (burner by combustion of a fuel in the kiln or calciner meets the limitation of burner of a cement kiln and pre-calciner burner) and/or a combustion reactor burner (burner by combustion meets the limitation of combustion reactor burner) of a cement production plant (claim 9).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lu to incorporate the teachings of Theulen wherein the combustion process is a burner of a cement kiln, a pre-calciner burner and/or a combustion reactor burner of a cement production plant, as fuel is a necessary component of combustion, and combustion of a fuel takes place in a burner of a cement kiln, a pre-calciner burner, and a combustion reactor burner of a cement production plant, as recognized by Theulen.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lu et al. (US 11,285,437) in view of Skocek (US 2022/0212992) and Chirkov (US 2014/0335585) and Bareis (US 2016/0281654) and Theulen (US 2019/0071351).
Regarding Claim 14, Lu, Skocek, Chirkov, and Bareis teach the elements as described above with regards to claim 7.
Lu discloses the kiln in a cement plant can be retrofitted for operation according to the present disclosure in order to capture CO2 from the cement plant (Col. 11, lines 62-65).
Lu is silent to the combustion process taking place in a burner of a cement kiln, a pre-calciner burner and/or a combustion reactor burner of a cement production plant.
Theulen discloses a cement plant wherein the combustion process is a burner of a cement kiln, a pre-calciner burner (burner by combustion of a fuel in the kiln or calciner meets the limitation of burner of a cement kiln and pre-calciner burner) and/or a combustion reactor burner (burner by combustion meets the limitation of combustion reactor burner) of a cement production plant (claim 9).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lu to incorporate the teachings of Theulen wherein the combustion process is a burner of a cement kiln, a pre-calciner burner and/or a combustion reactor burner of a cement production plant, as fuel is a necessary component of combustion, and combustion of a fuel takes place in a burner of a cement kiln, a pre-calciner burner, and a combustion reactor burner of a cement production plant, as recognized by Theulen.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 24 February 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues Lu does not teach 1) recovering an exhaust gas for conversion to a hydrocarbon fuel as claimed, 2) controlling an amount of burning fuel to further concentrate a CO2 content in the exhaust gas to include at least 80 vol% of CO2, 3) nor doing so to increase the conversion of the exhaust gas to hydrocarbon fuel (“Remarks”, pg. 7, par. 1).
However, 1) Lu is not relied upon for teaching recovering an exhaust gas for conversion to a hydrocarbon fuel. Chirkov is relied upon for teaching this limitation [0014]. Additionally, 2) Lu discloses controlling combustion of the burning fuel in the combustion reactor so that the exhaust gas from the combustion reactor contains about 30% to about 90% CO2 by weight (Col. 13, line 66-Col. 14, line 2), and Bland (or Bareis) is relied upon for teaching controlling the amount of fuel to control combustion (Abstract). Further, 3) Lu is not relied upon for teaching controlling an amount of burning fuel to increase the conversion of the exhaust gas to hydrocarbon fuel. Chirkov is relied upon for teaching conversion of an exhaust gas to hydrocarbon fuel. Regarding the increase in conversion of the exhaust gas to hydrocarbon fuel, this newly added limitation is obvious in view of Lu and Chirkov and Bareis (see rejection of claim 1).
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicant argues the combination of secondary prior art with Lu would change the principle of Lu's teaching. Chirkov and Gaddy relate to methods of feeding exhaust gases to conversion bioreactors. By using an exhaust gas post-combustion for conversion to a hydrocarbon fuel would deplete Lu's stream of CO2. Lu's CO2 is intended for export or carbonation of quicklime to form limestone and for recycle of limestone into Lu's process (“Remarks”, pg. 7, par. 2).
However, Lu does not require the CO2 be exclusively used for carbonation of quicklime to form limestone, and Lu’s CO2 intended for export is not particularly limited as to how the CO2 is used. Lu discloses the CO2 can be exported for sequestration (Col. 26, lines 42-45), and Chirkov’s method of CO2 conversion is recognized as a carbon sequestration method [0028]. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the CO2 of Lu, exported for carbon sequestration, could be exported to Chirkov’s CO2 conversion reactor for carbon sequestration.
Applicant argues Bland does not teach or suggest the controlling step of the present claim. Bland teaches controlling combustion in gas turbine combustors. The parameters discussed in Bland are specific to flows of fuel to optimize performance of the turbine to recover energy and drive the compressor. Bland does not teach a relationship between controlling the amount of fuel burning in a combustion reactor as it relates to optimizing concentrations of O2 and CO2 in the exhaust gas nor how the amount of fuel relates to the conversion of the exhaust gas exiting the combustion reactor to form hydrocarbon fuel in a conversion reactor (“Remarks”, pg. 8, par. 1).
However, Bland is not relied upon for controlling combustion of the burning fuel in the combustion reactor so that the exhaust gas exiting the combustion reactor contains less than 10 vol.-% of oxygen and at least 80 vol.-%% a mixture of CO and CO2. Lu is relied upon for teaching this limitation (Col. 13, line 66-Col. 14, line 2). Bland (or Bareis) is relied upon as a general teaching for controlling combustion by controlling fuel fed into a combustion reactor. Regarding the controlling an amount of the burning fuel fed into the combustion reactor to maximize exhaust gas CO and CO2 content conversion within the conversion reactor, this newly added limitation is obvious in view of Lu and Chirkov and Bareis (see rejection of claim 1).
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
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 SLONE ELZABETH SIMKINS whose telephone number is (571)272-3214. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30AM-4:30PM.
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, KEITH WALKER can be reached at (571)272-3458. 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.
/S.E.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1735
/PAUL A WARTALOWICZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1735
Prosecution Insights