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 .
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, 2, 9, and 16–18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kasseris et al., WO 2018/119032 A1 in view of Wang et al., US 2012/0160191 A1 and in further view of Tulapurkar et al., US 2017/0089278 A1.
Regarding claim 1, Kasseris teaches a gasification system, which reads on the claimed “integrated system for producing power from solid fuels.” See Kasseris Fig. 3, p. 4, l. 17–18.
The system comprises a gasifier 101 to form producer gas from biomass. See Kasseris Fig. 3, p. 5, ll. 19–26, p. 12, ll. 1–11. The gasifier 101 reads on the “syngas generator to form producer gas from solid fuels.”
The system also comprises a clean-up engine 114 in communication with an outlet of the gasifier 101 to remove tar from the producer gas and created cleaned syngas. See Kasseris Fig. 3, p. 12, l. 18–p. 13, l. 17. The clean-up engine 114 reads on the “cleanup engine.” The clean-up engine 114 is configured to be operated under fuel-rich conditions of air being mixed with fuel such that there is between 5 to 50% of the stoichiometric amount of air, which overlaps with an air-to-fuel ratio of 0.1 to 0.5. Id. at p. 12, ll. 11–21.
The system further comprises a power engine 116 in communication with an outlet of the clean-up engine 114 to generate power. See Kasseris Fig. 3, p. 14, ll. 10–15. The power engine 116 reads on the “power producing engine.”
The system also comprises a source of air from air filter 103 to clean-up engine 114 to deliver air to the clean-up engine 114, which reads on the “oxidant source to deliver an oxidant, the oxidant selected from the group consisting of air and oxygen.” See Kasseris Fig. 3, p. 12, ll. 2–21.
The clean-up engine 114 comprises an intake valve to introduce air into it. See Kasseris Fig. 3, p. 12, ll. 23–26. The intake valve reads on the “cleanup air actuator in communication with the oxidant source and an inlet of the cleanup engine.”
The system also comprises a controller 107, which reads on the “controller.”. See Kasseris Fig. 3, p. 7, ll. 15–20. The controller 107 is in communication with the intake valve that supplies filtered air to the clean-up engine 114. Id.
PNG
media_image1.png
900
1476
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Kasseris differs from claim 1 because it is silent as to the system comprising a power engine fuel actuator disposed between the outlet of the clean-up engine 114 and the inlet of the power engine 116.
But the power engine 116 is an internal combustion engine that uses producer gas (generated by biomass gasifier 101) from the clean-up engine 114 as fuel. See Kasseris Fig. 3, p. 14, ll. 10–15.
With this in mind, Wang teaches an internal combustion engine 106 that uses process gas from a gasifier 102 as fuel. See Wang Fig. 1, [0014]. The engine 106 comprises an engine control valve 144 between the source of process gas and the engine. Id. at Fig. 1, [0021]. The engine control valve 144 operates similar to an engine throttle to control the amount of fuel provided to the engine 106, and therefore the speed and power of the engine 106. Id.
It would have been obvious for system of Kasseris to comprise an engine control valve between the clean-up engine 114 and the power engine 116 to control the amount of fuel provided to the power engine 116 to therefore control the speed and power of the power engine 116. With this modification, the engine control valve reads on the “power engine fuel actuator disposed between the outlet from the cleanup engine and an inlet of the power producing engine.”
Kasseris also differs from claim 1 because it is silent as to (1) a cleanup engine sensor comprising a knock sensor configured to monitor knock intensity in the cleanup engine 114 and (2) a cleanup exhaust temperature sensor for measuring a temperature of exhaust gas from the cleanup engine 114 with (3) the controller 107 being in communication with the cleanup engine sensor, the cleanup exhaust temperature sensor and the air intake valve of the cleanup engine 114 with the controller 107 being configured to determine upper and lower limits of an air-to-fuel ratio for the cleanup engine 114 based on a correlation of cleanup engine speed, exhaust temperature measured by the exhaust temperature sensor, and output from the knock sensor, and to maintain the air-to-fuel ratio within the predetermine limits.
But, while the cleanup engine 114 can operate by auto-ignition (see Kasseris p. 13, ll. 1–6), the gas-air mixture is controlled to avoid catastrophic auto-ignition that leads to knock (id. at p. 6, ll. 29–31).
With this in mind, Tulapurkar teaches a system for controlling an engine air-fuel ratio comprising a controller that receives signals from a knock sensor, exhaust manifold temperature sensors, and an engine speed sensor to correlate this information to determine an air-fuel ratio that allows the engine to operate within a knock misfire window. See Tulapurkar [0033]–[0035]. The determined air-fuel ratio includes upper and lower limits of the air-fuel ratio because the determined air-fuel ratio is within acceptable/desirable levels. Id. at [0024]. The controller maintains the air-fuel ratio within the acceptable/desirable levels. Id. at [0048]. The controller is in communication with a valve for increasing or decreasing the amount of airflow to the engine, and operates this valve as part of maintaining the air-fuel ratio. Id. at [0049]. The system of Tulapurkar is beneficial because it allows the engine to operate between knock and misfire thresholds to reduce engine misfire and knock events thereby increasing engine efficiency. Id. at [0047].
It would have been obvious for the gasification system of Kasseris to comprise a knock sensor for measuring the knock intensity of the cleanup engine 114 and exhaust temperature sensors for measuring the temperature of exhaust gas in the cleanup engine 114 with the controller 107 being in communication with the knock sensor, exhaust temperature sensors, and the air intake valve of the cleanup engine 114, and with the controller 107 being configured to determine upper and lower limits of an air-to-fuel ratio for the cleanup engine 114 based on a correlation of engine speed of the cleanup engine 114, exhaust temperature measured by the exhaust temperature sensors, and output of the knock sensor, and to maintain the air-fuel ratio of the cleanup engine 114 within the acceptable/desirable levels to reduce engine misfire and knock events thereby increasing engine efficiency.
Regarding claim 2, Kasseris teaches the limitations of claim 1, as explained above.
Kasseris differs from claim 1 because it is silent as to the dimensions of the system. Therefore, the reference fails to provide enough information to teach that a distance between the outlet of the gasifier 101 (the “syngas generator”) and the input of the clean-up engine 104 is less than 36 inches.
But Kasseris teaches that the system is a small scale biomass-to-power system, which allows biomass to be consumed locally. See Kasseris p. 2, ll. 17–20, p. 3, ll. 5–7. Therefore, it would have been obvious to use routine experimentation to determine the optimal distance between the outlet of the gasifier 101 and the input of the clean-up engine 104 depending on the size requirements needed for the system to be a small scale biomass-to-power system usable in a local environment. See MPEP 2144.05, subsection II (where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation).
Regarding claim 9, Kasseris teaches a gasification system, which reads on the claimed “integrated system for producing power from solid fuels.” See Kasseris Fig. 3, p. 4, l. 17–18.
The system comprises a gasifier 101 to form producer gas from biomass. See Kasseris Fig. 3, p. 5, ll. 19–26, p. 12, ll. 1–11. The gasifier 101 reads on the “syngas generator to form producer gas from solid fuels.”
The system also comprises a clean-up engine 114 in communication with an outlet of the gasifier 101 to remove tar from the producer gas and created cleaned syngas. See Kasseris Fig. 3, p. 12, l. 18–p. 13, l. 17. The clean-up engine 114 reads on the “cleanup engine.” The clean-up engine 114 is configured to be operated under fuel-rich conditions of air being mixed with fuel such that there is between 5 to 50% of the stoichiometric amount of air, which overlaps with an air-to-fuel ratio of 0.1 to 0.5. Id. at p. 12, ll. 11–21.
The system further comprises a power engine 116 in communication with an outlet of the clean-upending 114 to generate power. See Kasseris Fig. 3, p. 14, ll. 10–15. The power engine 116 reads on the “power producing engine.”
The system also comprises a source of air from air filter 103 to clean-up engine 114 to deliver air to the clean-up engine 114, which reads on the “oxidant source to deliver an oxidant, the oxidant selected from the group consisting of air and oxygen.” See Kasseris Fig. 3, p. 12, ll. 2–21.
The clean-up engine 114 comprises an intake valve to introduce air into it. See Kasseris Fig. 3, p. 12, ll. 23–26. The intake valve reads on the “cleanup air actuator in communication with the oxidant source and an inlet of the cleanup engine.”
The system additional comprises an electric generator 105 coupled to a drive shaft of the power engine 116. See Kasseris Fig. 3, p. 14, ll. 10–15. The electric generator 105 reads on the “electrical generator.”
The system also comprises a controller 107, which reads on the “controller.”. See Kasseris Fig. 3, p. 7, ll. 15–20. The controller 107 is in communication with the intake valve that supplies filtered air to the clean-up engine 114. Id.
PNG
media_image1.png
900
1476
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Kasseris differs from claim 9 because it is silent as to the system comprising a power engine fuel actuator disposed between the outlet of the clean-up engine 114 and the inlet of the power engine 116.
But the power engine 116 is an internal combustion engine that uses producer gas (generated by biomass gasifier 101) from the clean-up engine 114 as fuel. See Kasseris Fig. 3, p. 14, ll. 10–15.
With this in mind, Wang teaches an internal combustion engine 106 that uses process gas from a gasifier 102 as fuel. See Wang Fig. 1, [0014]. The engine 106 comprises an engine control valve 144 between the source of process gas and the engine. Id. at Fig. 1, [0021]. The engine control valve 144 operates similar to an engine throttle to control the amount of fuel provided to the engine 106, and therefore the speed and power of the engine 106. Id.
It would have been obvious for system of Kasseris to comprise an engine control valve between the clean-up engine 114 and the power engine 116 to control the amount of fuel provided to the power engine 116 to therefore control the speed and power of the power engine 116. With this modification, the engine control valve would read on the “power engine fuel actuator disposed between the outlet from the cleanup engine and an inlet of the power producing engine.”
Kasseris also differs from claim 9 because it is silent as to (1) a cleanup engine sensor comprising a knock sensor configured to monitor knock intensity in the cleanup engine 114 and (2) a cleanup exhaust temperature sensor for measuring a temperature of exhaust gas from the cleanup engine 114 with (3) the controller 107 being in communication with the cleanup engine sensor, the cleanup exhaust temperature sensor and the air intake valve of the cleanup engine 114 with the controller 107 being configured to determine upper and lower limits of an air-to-fuel ratio for the cleanup engine 114 based on a correlation of cleanup engine speed, exhaust temperature measured by the exhaust temperature sensor, and output from the knock sensor, and to maintain the air-to-fuel ratio within the predetermine limits.
But, while the cleanup engine 114 can operate by auto-ignition (see Kasseris p. 13, ll. 1–6), the gas-air mixture is controlled to avoid catastrophic auto-ignition that leads to knock (id. at p. 6, ll. 29–31).
With this in mind, Tulapurkar teaches a system for controlling an engine air-fuel ratio comprising a controller that receives signals from a knock sensor, exhaust manifold temperature sensors, and an engine speed sensor to correlate this information to determine an air-fuel ratio that allows the engine to operate within a knock misfire window. See Tulapurkar [0033]–[0035]. The determined air-fuel ratio includes upper and lower limits of the air-fuel ratio because the determined air-fuel ratio is within acceptable/desirable levels. Id. at [0024]. The controller maintains the air-fuel ratio within the acceptable/desirable levels. Id. at [0048]. The controller is in communication with a valve for increasing or decreasing the amount of airflow to the engine, and operates this valve as part of maintaining the air-fuel ratio. Id. at [0049]. The system of Tulapurkar is beneficial because it allows the engine to operate between knock and misfire thresholds to reduce engine misfire and knock events thereby increasing engine efficiency. Id. at [0047].
It would have been obvious for the gasification system of Kasseris to comprise a knock sensor for measuring the knock intensity of the cleanup engine 114 and exhaust temperature sensors for measuring the temperature of exhaust gas in the cleanup engine 114 with the controller 107 being in communication with the knock sensor, exhaust temperature sensors, and the air intake valve of the cleanup engine 114, and with the controller 107 being configured to determine upper and lower limits of an air-to-fuel ratio for the cleanup engine 114 based on a correlation of engine speed of the cleanup engine 114, exhaust temperature measured by the exhaust temperature sensors, and output of the knock sensor, and to maintain the air-fuel ratio of the cleanup engine 114 within the acceptable/desirable levels to reduce engine misfire and knock events thereby increasing engine efficiency.
Regarding claim 16, Kasseris teaches that the clean-up engine 114 can operates at 1200 RPM. See Kasseris p. 16, ll. 30–31. The prior art value of 1200 RPM is within the claimed range of 600 to 1500 RPM.
Regarding claim 17, Kasseris teaches the limitations of claim 9, as explained above.
Kasseris differs from claim 17 because it is silent as to a compression ratio of the clean-up engine 114 ranging from 11:1 to 22:1, as claimed.
But Kasseris teaches that the compression ratio of the clean-up engine 114 is result effective because it can be increased to increase the temperature of the clean-up engine 114. See Kasseris p. 17, ll. 2–6. Therefore, it would have been obvious to use routine experimentation to determine the optimal compression ratio depending on the desired temperature of the clean-up engine 114. See MPEP 2144.05, subsection II (where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation).
Regarding claim 18, Kasseris teaches the limitations of claim 9, as explained above.
Kasseris differs from claim 18 because it is silent as to a relative air-to-fuel ratio of the clean-up engine 114 being between 0.1 and 0.5.
But Kasseris teaches that the air-to-fuel ratio of the clean-up engine 114 is result effective because the temperature of the clean-up engine 114 can be increased by increasing the air/fuel ratio. See Kasseris p. 17, ll. 2–6. Therefore, it would have been obvious to use routine experimentation to determine the optimal air-to-fuel ratio of the clean-up engine 114 depending on the desired temperature. See MPEP 2144.05, subsection II.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kasseris et al., WO 2018/119032 A1 in view of Wang et al., US 2012/0160191 A1 in view of Tulapurkar et al., US 2017/0089278 A1 and in further view of Springer et al., US 5,534,659.
Regarding claim 3, Kasseris as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, as explained above.
Kasseris as modified differs from claim 3 because it is silent as to a manifold between the outlet of the gasifier 101 (the “syngas generator”) and an input to the clean-up engine 114 being thermally insulated.
But the temperature of the producer gas between the gasifier 101 and the clean-up engine 114 is maintained to prevent undesirable contaminants (e.g., tar) from forming. See Kasseris p. 6, ll. 10–14. Therefore, while the producer gas is cooled in a heat exchanger 106, its temperature is maintained above the tar dew point. Id.
With this in mind, Springer teaches a system of handling off-gas, where the off-gas is transported between a processing chamber and a quencher, where the off-gas is cooled. The piping 26 between the processing chamber and the quencher is thermally insulated to maintain the off-gas at an elevated temperature to prevent the formation of complex organic compounds until the off-gas can be cooled in the quencher. See Springer Fig. 1, col. 9, ll. 50–67, claim 1.
It would have been obvious for the pathway between the gasifier 101 and the heat exchanger 106 of Kasseris to be thermally insulated in order to ensure that the temperature of the producer gas is above the tar dew point to prevent tar from forming.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kasseris et al., WO 2018/119032 A1 in view of Wang et al., US 2012/0160191 A1 in view of Tulapurkar et al., US 2017/0089278 A1 and in further view of Idicheria et al., US 2018/0340507 A1.
Regarding claim 4, Kasseris as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, as explained above.
Kasseris as modified differs from claim 4 because it is silent as to each cylinder of the clean-up engine 114 having exactly one valve.
But Idicheria teaches an internal combustion engine where each cylinder can have either a single intake valve (for air and fuel) or can have multiple intake valves. See Idicheria [0014]. The internal combustion engine also has a throttle valve for controlling the airflow to the engine. Id. at [0004].
It would have been obvious for the each cylinder of the clean-up engine 114 of Kasseris to have exactly one intake valve because it is conventional for an internal combustion engine to have either a single or multiple intake valves.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kasseris et al., WO 2018/119032 A1 in view of Wang et al., US 2012/0160191 A1 in view of Tulapurkar et al., US 2017/0089278 A1 and in further view of Haller, US 5,494,011.
Regarding claim 5, Kasseris as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, as explained above.
Kasseris as modified differs from claim 5 because it is silent as to the structure of the intake runner of the clean-up engine 114. Therefore, the reference fails to provide enough information to teach the intake runner and port having straight designs with uniform inner diameters.
But Haller teaches an internal combustion engine where the intake manifold 10 includes a plurality of straight runner tubes 30 and associated ports with uniform inner diameters. See Haller Fig. 1, col. 3, ll. 35–45. The straight runner tubes 30 are beneficial because they provide improved strength, airflow and performance over standard curved tubes. Id. at col. 1, ll. 29–56. It would have been obvious for the intake manifold of the clean-up engine 114 of Kasseris to comprise the straight runner tubes of Haller to improve strength, airflow and performance of the engine.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kasseris et al., WO 2018/119032 A1 in view of Wang et al., US 2012/0160191 A1 in view of Tulapurkar et al., US 2017/0089278 A1 and in further view of Contreras Orellana, US 5,197,434.
Regarding claim 6, Kasseris as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, as explained above.
Kasseris as modified differs from claim 6 because it is silent as to an engine cylinder head of the clean-up engine 114 comprising a pent roof.
But Contreras Orellana teaches that a pent-roof combustion chamber for an internal combustion engine is advantageous because it allows for increased valve diameter. See Contreras Orellana col. 2, ll. 6–16. Therefore, it would have been obvious for the combustion chambers of the clean-up engine 114 of Kasseris to have a pent-roof to allow for increased valve diameter.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kasseris et al., WO 2018/119032 A1 in view of Wang et al., US 2012/0160191 A1 in view of Tulapurkar et al., US 2017/0089278 A1 and in further view of Tsuji, US 2005/0115531 A1.
Regarding claim 7, Kasseris as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, as explained above.
Kasseris differs from claim 7 because it is silent as to the system comprising a valve spring used to control an intake valve with the valve spring having a spring constant 20 to 80% greater than 300 lbs/in.
But Kasseris teaches that the system comprises clean-up engine 114, which is an internal combustion engine. See Kasseris Fig. 3, p. 12, l. 30–p. 13, l. 4.
With this in mind, Tsuji teaches that a conventional internal engine comprises an intake valve pressed against a valve seat by a spring. See Tsuji [0003]. The spring constant of the spring is result effective because it is set so as to have a strength such that the intake valve is inhibited from being opened due to the reaction of the collision of the valve when it is opened at closed at a high speed. Id.
It would have been obvious for the clean-up engine 114 of Kasseris to comprise an intake valve with a spring because this is a conventional arrangement for an internal combustion engine. It also would have been obvious to use routine experimentation to determine the optimal spring constant for the spring because the spring constant is result effective as the constant is set so as to have a strength such that the intake valve is inhibited from being opened due to the reaction of the collision of the valve when it is opened at closed at a high speed. See MPEP 2144.05, subsection II (where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kasseris et al., WO 2018/119032 A1 in view of Wang et al., US 2012/0160191 A1 in view of Tulapurkar et al., US 2017/0089278 A1 and in further view of Zhao, US 2017/0356403 A1.
Regarding claim 8, Kasseris as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, as explained above.
Kasseris as modified differs from claim 8 because it is silent as to the air being heated prior to entering the inlet of the clean-up engine 114.
But Zhao teaches that the air entering an engine can be preheated before entering the engine to reduce starting time. See Zhao [0018]–[0021].
It would have been obvious for the air entering the clean-up engine 114 to be preheated to reduce the starting time.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kasseris et al., WO 2018/119032 A1 in view of Wang et al., US 2012/0160191 A1 in view of Tulapurkar et al., US 2017/0089278 A1 and in further view of Matsuchima et al., US 2017/0350328 A1.
Regarding claim 13, Kasseris as modified teaches the limitations of claim 9, as explained above.
Kasseris as modified differs from claim 13 because Tulapurkar is silent as to the type of knock sensor that is used. Therefore, the reference fails to provide enough information to teach that the knock sensor is an accelerometer, an acoustic device, or both.
But Matsuchima teaches a knock sensor for an engine comprising an acoustic device. See Matsushima [0061]. It would have been obvious to use the knock sensor of Matsuchima as the knock sensor of Kasseris as modified because this would merely represent the simple substitution of one known element for another to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143, subsection I, B.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kasseris et al., WO 2018/119032 A1 in view of Wang et al., US 2012/0160191 A1 in view of Tulapurkar et al., US 2017/0089278 A1 and in further view of Blutke et al., US 2004/0251241 A1.
Regarding claim 14, Kasseris as modified teaches the limitations of claim 9, as explained above.
Kasseris as modified differs from claim 14 because it is silent as to the system comprising a syngas air actuator.
But Appel teaches a gasifier that comprises a valve that supplies air to the gasifier to assist in the gasifier starting up. See Appel [0042]. It would have been obvious for the system of Kasseris to comprise a valve that supplies air to the gasifier 101 to assist with it starting up. With this modification, the valve would read on the “syngas fuel actuator.”
Kasseris also differs from claim 14 because it is silent as to a load presented by the electrical generator 105 varying over time and the controller 107 varying a flow rate of solid fuel or air entering the gasifier 101 in response to a variation in load.
But Blutke teaches system of using fuel gas to generate electricity using an internal combustion engine as the electrical generator, where the electrical generator has a variable load to meet demand. See Blutke [0023]–[0024]. The system also comprises a load-based controller that increases the flow rate of carbonaceous material fuel to an ICP torch (which produces the fuel gas) when the variable load increases. Id. The load-based controller is beneficial because it is able to increase or decrease the amount of electricity produced by the generator to meet demand. Id.
It would have been obvious to modify the system of Kasseris to use the load-based controller of Blutke so that the controller 107 varies a flow rate of solid fuel entering the gasifier 101 in response to a variation in load on the electrical generator 105 in order to meet electricity demand.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kasseris et al., WO 2018/119032 A1 in view of Wang et al., US 2012/0160191 A1 in view of Tulapurkar et al., US 2017/0089278 A1 in view of Ahrens et al., 6,701,710 and in further view of Blutke et al., US 2004/0251241 A1.
Regarding claim 15, Kasseris teaches that the controller 107 controls the intake valve (the “cleanup air actuator”) to maintain an air-to-fuel ratio within a predetermined range to maintain a desired temperature in the clean-up engine 114. See Kasseris p. 17, ll. 2–6.
Kasseris as modified differs from claim 15 because it is silent as to an output gas from the power engine 116 being recirculated back to an input of the clean-up engine 114.
But Ahrens teaches an internal combustion engine comprising a turbocharger that recirculates exhaust air back to the engine to increase power. See Ahrens col. 1, ll. 6–12. It would have been obvious for exhaust gas from the power engine 116 to be recirculated to a turbocharger of the clean-up engine 114 to increase the power of the clean-up engine 114.
Kasseris as modified also differs from claim 15 because it is silent as to a load of the electrical generator 105 varying over time.
But Blutke teaches a system of using fuel gas to generate electricity where the electrical generator has a variable load so that the generator can meet demand. See Blutke [0023]. It would have been obvious for the electrical generator 105 to have a load that varies over time to be adjustable to meet demand.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed May 15, 2026 with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections over Kasseris WO 2018/119032 A1 in view of Wang et al., US 2012/0160191 A1 in view of Matsuchima et al., US 2017/0350328 A1 and in further view of either Hirson et al., US 2015/0275705 A1 or Kelly et al., US 2020/0271046 A1 have been fully considered and are persuasive, and are withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of Kasseris et al., WO 2018/119032 A1 in view of Wang et al., US 2012/0160191 A1 and in further view of Tulapurkar et al., US 2017/0089278 A1 as explained above.
The amendments also overcome the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues that were discussed in the interview dated May 12, 2026.
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 T. BENNETT MCKENZIE whose telephone number is (571)270-5327. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 7:30AM-6:00PM.
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, Jennifer Dieterle can be reached at 571-270-7872. 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.
T. BENNETT MCKENZIE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1776
/T. BENNETT MCKENZIE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1776
Prosecution Insights