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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 7/2/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Applicant has amended claim 1 and canceled claim 11. Claims 1-6, 7-10, 12-13, 18-34, 36-46, 50-54, and 56-74 are pending.
The claims are rejected under 103 on new grounds over the prior art previously relied upon. See 103 rejections below.
Examiner notes the new 103 rejections over Wretborn in view of Brown, Despen, and Agblevor.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/2/2026, with respect to the 103 rejections of record have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant has argued that “a finding that amended claim 1 is obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 necessitates a seven-reference obviousness rejection (Despen + Wretborn + Stafford + Agblevor + Brown + Walty + Gangwal),” (page 2 of Remarks).
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
After further evaluation of the prior art references, Examiner has found that adding condenser liquid to a biomass will necessarily result in adsorption of the condenser liquid onto a surface of biomass, as is evidenced by the disclosure of Wretborn (see rejection of claim 1, and Examiner’s responses to Applicant’s further arguments below for details). In the alternative, Wretborn at least suggests adding condenser liquid to a biomass feed in a manner which will result in adsorption (see rejection of claim 1, and Examiner’s response to Applicant’s Further arguments below for details). Thus, Examiner finds that reliance on Gangwal is NOT required. Accordingly, claim 1 is rejected using only six references rather than seven.
Nevertheless, Examiner notes that reliance on a large number of references in a rejection does not, without more, weigh against the obviousness of the claimed invention. See In re Gorman, 933 F.2d 982, 18 USPQ2d 1885 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
Examiner acknowledges Applicant’s citation of an oral preceding in CPI CARD GROUP-MINNESOTA, INC. v. MULTI PACKAGING SOLUTIONS, INC., No. 2019-1616 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 16, 2020). Applicant’s citation describes a Judge Newman as calling “a six-reference combination "striking" due to the large number of references being applied to find obviousness,” and a Judge Moore as agreeing Judge Newman on this point. Applicant makes this citation with the Apparent purpose of painting a six-refernce combination as unreasonable.
Examiner finds this citation thoroughly unconvincing for at least the following reasons:
First, Examiner understands CPI CARD GROUP-MINNESOTA, INC. v. MULTI PACKAGING SOLUTIONS, INC. to be nonprecedential. Thus, Examiner sees no reason to take the proceedings of said case into account when considering how many references it would be appropriate to combine.
Regardless, Examiner is not possessed of the details of CPI CARD GROUP v. MULTI PACKAGING SOLUTIONS, and the only information Applicant has provided is an assertion that one judge (Newman) called a six-reference rejection “striking”. Applicant’s argument does not elaborate at all on the context of Newman’s comment, nor does it provide any detail on the court’s final decision in the case. Calling a rejection “striking” on account of relying on a large number of references does not equate to asserting that said rejection is somehow unreasonable or invalid. Given the lack of detail in the record, Examiner is not inclined to interpret Newton calling a six-reference rejection “striking” as indicative of an opinion that any rejection relying on that many references is necessarily unreasonable or invalid.
Furthermore, Newton is only one of the judges involved in the CPI CARD GROUP v. MULTI PACKAGING SOLUTIONS. Even if arguendo Newton did argue that a six-reference rejection is necessarily unreasonable/invalid, his opinion as expressed in an oral preceding is not necessarily indicative of the opinions of the other judges, of the court’s final decision in the case, or even of Newton’s own opinion at the conclusion of proceedings.
As a final note, though Applicant characterizes a Judge Moore as agreeing with Newman, it does not appear Judge Moore was actually involved in the CPI CARD GROUP-MINNESOTA, INC. v. MULTI PACKAGING SOLUTIONS. From what Examiner is able to determine from information available online, Judges Newman, Lourie, and O’Malley were involved in said case, but not a Judge Moore. Thus, Applicant’s assertion that Judge Moore agreed with Newman appears to be Applicant’s opinion, based on a statement made by Judge Moore in the oral proceedings of a different case (IN RE ANOVA HEARING LABS, INC. No. 2019-1507 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 7, 2020).
Examiner acknowledges Applicant’s citation of an oral preceding in IN RE ANOVA HEARING LABS, INC., No. 2019-1507 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 7, 2020). Applicant’s citation describes a Judge Moore as stating, in reference to a five-reference combination “I feel like the Board's opinion, for me, is troubling because it's five references... I don't understand why it's motivated to go to some of those references... what I'm worried about in a five-reference rejection is the hindsight bias concern of just picking and choosing elements from lots of different random prior art and saying they work together." Applicant makes this citation with the Apparent purpose of painting combinations of five or more refences as unreasonable.
Examiner finds this citation unconvincing for similar reasons as those discussed above with respect to the CPI CARD GROUP v. MULTI PACKAGING SOLUTIONS
First, Examiner understands IN RE ANOVA HEARING LABS, INC., No. 2019-1507 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 7, 2020) to be nonprecedential. Thus, Examiner sees no reason to take the proceedings of said case into account when considering how many references it would be appropriate to combine.
Regardless, Examiner is not possessed of all of the details of IN RE ANOVA HEARING LABS, and the only information Applicant has provided is an isolated statement made by a single judge (Judge Moore) during oral proceedings. Nevertheless, Examiner acknowledges that the Court vacated the Board’s five-reference rejection and remanded the case to the court “to give the Board the opportunity to explain its reasoning” (see page 6 of the Court’s Opinion; available online at https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/4-07-2020-19-1507-in-re-anova-hearing-labs-inc-opinion-19-1507-opinion-4-7-2020_1564970/).
However, the Court’s reasoning for vacating the rejection appears to have had little to do with the fact that said rejection relied upon five references. The Court’s Opinion explains that the rejection was vacated because the court failed to properly explain the motivation for combining the five references relied upon (pages 5-6). The Court’s Opinion further notes that “It is also unclear precisely what the Board was using the different references for in this five-reference rejection,” (page 6). Thus, the Court did not vacate the Board’s rejection because it found the use of five references to be unreasonable or invalid. Rather, the Court vacated the rejection because the Board did not sufficiently communicate the motivation for combining the references.
In the interest of abundant clarity, Examiner reiterates that the Court remanded the case to the Board so that the Board could explain its reasoning behind the rejection. Thus, it is clear the Court did not find the Board’s rejection to be necessarily invalid, merely inadequately explained.
Applicant has argued that amended claim 1 is allowable over the prior art on the basis of the limitation to the first feedstock comprising condenser liquid adsorbed onto the surface of the biomass. Said limitation has been incorporated into claim 1 from now canceled claim 11.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
As an initial matter, Examiner notes that the term “adsorbed” merely refers to one substance being adhered to a surface of another. Thus, for the first feedstock to comprise the condenser liquid adsorbed onto a surface of the biomass, all that is required is for a portion of the condenser liquid to be adhered to a surface of the biomass.
As discussed in the rejection below, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Despen in view of Wretborn by adding a step of contacting a second feedstock with the condenser liquid, wherein the second feedstock comprises biomass, thereby generating the first feedstock, in order to increase the carbon content of the biogenic reagent (and thus also the biocarbon composition) by recycling carbon in the condenser liquid back to the feedstock.
It is understood that contacting a condenser liquid with a second feedstock (i.e. biomass) to form a first feedstock, will necessarily result in at least a portion of said condenser liquid being adhered to, and thus adsorbed onto, one or more surfaces of the biomass. Evidence that condenser liquid necessarily adsorbs onto biomass to which it is applied can be found in at least at least the following portions of Wretborn:
Figure 8, which shows condenser liquid (bio-oil) adhered to (and thus adsorbed onto) a surface of biomass to which it has been applied;
Figure 14, which shows biomass (a wood chip) adhered to (and thus adsorbed onto) a surface of biomass to which it has been applied. Furthermore, the caption of Figure 14 describes the biomass therein as having a surface that has been “saturated” with condenser liquid (bio-oil). Because the surface is “saturated” with condenser liquid, it is understood that at least a portion of said condenser liquid is adhered to (and thus adsorbed onto) said surface.
Section 6.1.3, which describes biomass (wood chips) impregnated with condenser liquid (bio-oil) as having condenser liquid saturating the surfaces thereof. Because the surfaces are “saturated” with condenser liquid, it is understood that at least a portion of said condenser liquid is adhered to (and thus adsorbed onto) said surfaces.
If, for the sake of argument, adhesion (and thus absorption) does not necessarily result from contacting a condenser liquid and a biomass feedstock, Wretborn teaches contacting condenser liquid (bio-oil) with a biomass feedstock in a manner which involves applying the condenser liquid to at least one surface of the biomass (Section 5.3.3, Section 6.1.3, Figures 8 and 14). In doing so, at least a portion of the condenser liquid adsorbs onto the surface(s) of the biomass, as is evident from Figures 8 and 14 and Section 6.1.3 (see detailed discussion above). Thus, Wretborn at least suggests that one can suitably generate mixed feedstock of (wood impregnated with bio-oil) in a manner which results in adsorption of the condenser liquid onto said surface(s).
Thus, in modifying Despen in view of Wretborn by adding a step of contacting a second feedstock comprising biomass with the condenser liquid, said added step will necessarily result in the condenser liquid being adsorbed onto the biomass, or in the alternative, it would be obvious to conduct the added step in a manner which results in the condenser liquid being adsorbed onto the biomass.
Applicant’s arguments concerning Examiner’s rational applied to the 103 rejection of now canceled claim 11 have been considered, but are moot as said rational are not maintained in the rejection of claim 1 set forth below. Rather said rejection addresses the limitation concerning adsorption of the condenser liquid in the manner explained above and in the 103 rejections below.
Regardless, so that the record may be made clear, Examiner finds it necessary to comment on an aspect of said arguments.
As asserted by Applicant, Examiner’s rejection of claim 11 did state that “the first feedstock in Despen is comprised of biomass and the condenser liquid,” (page 39 of the 4/7/2026 Final Rejection). As Applicant argues, this is technically incorrect.
However, Examiner’s intent was to reference the first feedstock of modified Despen as outlined in the rejection of claim 1, i.e. Despen modified in view of Wretborn by adding a step of contacting a second feedstock with the condenser liquid, wherein the second feedstock comprises biomass, thereby generating the first feedstock (see pages 7-9 of 4/7/2026 Final Rejection). In Despen so modified, the first feedstock would be comprised of biomass and the condenser liquid.
Applicant has argued that independent claim 1 “requires many process steps and features that work together in an integrated (and non-obvious) manner.” Applicant follows this allegation with a description of several process steps recited in claim 1. Applicant further argues that “The combination of Despen + Arnold + Baldwin + Brown + Agblevor + Marsh + Gangwal does not reasonably make amended claim 1 obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 when the preponderance of evidence standard is applied.”
Applicant supports these arguments with a general allegation that the rejections rely on improper hindsight and by alleging that that the rejections rely on an excessive number of references.
Aside from these allegations, Applicant does argue that claim 1 is allowable over the prior art on account of the language to “wherein the first feedstock comprises the condenser liquid adsorbed onto a surface of the biomass”. However, as discussed above, this language does not distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art relied upon.
In response to Applicant's argument that the examiner has combined an excessive number of references, reliance on a large number of references in a rejection does not, without more, weigh against the obviousness of the claimed invention. See In re Gorman, 933 F.2d 982, 18 USPQ2d 1885 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
The 103 rejections made below only rely on knowledge which can be gleaned from the prior art relied upon and/or would have been otherwise possessed by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention. Therefore, Examiner respectfully asserts that said rejections do not rely on any improper hindsight.
As discussed above, Examiner finds the allegations of improper hindsight and reliance on an excessive number of references to be unpersuasive. Accordingly, Examiner maintains that the claims are unpatentable over the prior art. See 103 rejections below for details.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 8-10, 12, 13, 18, 19, 21-34, 36-41, 44, 46, 50-54, 56-60, 65, 66, and 70-74 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Despen et al. (US 2012/0285080), hereafter referred to as Despen, in view of Wretborn (“Pyrolysis of Wood Chips : Influence of Pyrolysis Conditions on Charcoal Yield and Charcoal Reactivity”), Stafford (US 1,609,097), Agblevor (US 2009/0031616), Brown et al. (US 8,476,480), hereafter referred to as Brown, and Walty (US 2010/0281768).
With regard to claims 1, 3, 8, 9, 13, 50, and 51: Despen teaches a process of producing a biocarbon composition (paragraphs [0441]-[0469]), the process comprising:
Pyrolyzing a first feedstock, in a first pyrolysis reactor (pyrolysis zone) thereby generating a biogenic reagent (pyrolyzed solids) and a pyrolysis vapor (paragraphs [0441]-[0469]).
And recovering the biogenic reagent (pyrolyzed solids) as a biocarbon composition (high-carbon biogenic reagent) (paragraphs [0441]-[0469], especially paragraph [0450]).
The step of recovering the biogenic reagent (pyrolyzed solids) as a biocarbon composition (high-carbon biogenic reagent) also constitutes a step of recovering the biocarbon composition. The biocarbon composition (high-carbon biogenic reagent) of Despen may contain at least 90 wt% of more fixed carbon (paragraphs [0071] and [0165]). Accordingly, the method of Despen further comprises a step of recovering the biocarbon composition (the high-carbon biogenic reagent), wherein the biocarbon composition comprises at least 70 wt% carbon.
Despen teaches the following:
“The process may include various methods of treating or separating the vapors or gases prior to using them for carbon enrichment. For example, an intermediate feed stream consisting of at least a portion of the condensable vapors and at least a portion of the non-condensable gases, obtained from step (e), may be fed to a separation unit configured to generate at least first and second output streams. In certain embodiments, the intermediate feed stream comprises all of the condensable vapors, all of the non-condensable gases, or both. Separation techniques can include or use distillation columns, flash vessels, centrifuges, cyclones, membranes, filters, packed beds, capillary columns, and so on. Separation can be principally based, for example, on distillation, absorption, adsorption, or diffusion, and can utilize differences in vapor pressure, activity, molecular weight, density, viscosity, polarity, chemical functionality, affinity to a stationary phase, and any combinations thereof. In some embodiments, the first and second output streams are separated from the intermediate feed stream based on relative volatility. For example, the separation unit may be a distillation column, a flash tank, or a condenser,” (paragraphs [0455]-[0457]; emphasis added).
Furthermore, Despen teaches specific exemplary embodiments wherein pyrolysis vapor 120/124/220/224 from a first pyrolysis reactor 112/212 is fed into a “gas phase separator unit” 200 which produces a liquid separation product, i.e. a condensate 128 and 136, and a vapor product (enrichment gas) 204 (Figures 1, 2, and 5, paragraphs [0243]-[0244]).
In view of the above, it is understood that Despen comprises, in at least some embodiments, a step of introducing the pyrolysis vapor to a condenser, thereby generating a condenser liquid and a condenser vapor.
In the unlikely alternative, the disclosure of Despen (i.e. the portions described above) at least suggest a step of introducing the pyrolysis vapor to a condenser, thereby generating a condenser liquid and a condenser vapor.
If it were not already the case in Despen, it would have been obvious to modify Despen in view of Despen’s own suggestions by adding a step of introducing the pyrolysis vapor to a condenser, thereby generating a condenser liquid and a condenser vapor, in order to obtain a predictably functional method that is in congruence with the suggestions of Despen.
Despen (or modified Despen) is silent to a step of contacting a second feedstock with the condenser liquid, wherein the second feedstock comprises biomass, thereby generating the first feedstock, wherein the first feedstock comprises the second feedstock and the condenser liquid adsorbed onto a surface of the biomass.
However, it is known in the art to contact condensed pyrolysis vapor (bio-oil) with a biomass feedstock to generate mixed feedstock which comprises the biomass feedstock and the condensed pyrolysis vapor. For example, Wretborn teaches a method of pyrolyzing biomass to create a biocarbon composition (charcoal) the method comprising contacting condensed pyrolysis vapor (bio-oil) with a biomass feedstock (wood) to generate mixed feedstock (wood impregnated with bio-oil) which comprises the biomass feedstock and the condensed pyrolysis vapor (abstract). Wretborn teaches that by contacting the biomass (wood) with condensed pyrolysis vapor (bio-oil), the charcoal yield from pyrolyzing said impregnated biomass yields 37.7% more charcoal (abstract). Examiner notes that Wretborn’s teachings offer clear indication that the term “bio-oil” is used to refer to condensed pyrolysis vapor (Section 5.1.2). Regardless, Wretborn also explicitly describes a process of condensing tar from pyrolysis gas, contacting said tar with biomass feedstock to create a mixed feedstock comprised of the condensed tar and the biomass feedstock, and pyrolyzing said mixed feedstock in order to increase the charcoal yield of a pyrolysis process (abstract, sections 4.1 and 4.1.1, Figure 4, Section 7). In view of Wretborn’s teachings, a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that adding a condenser liquid formed from the pyrolysis vapor to the second feedstock (biomass) in Despen would advantageously increase the carbon content of the biogenic reagent (pyrolysis solids), and thus also the biocarbon composition (high-carbon biogenic reagent), by providing additional carbon formed by pyrolysis of the condenser liquid to carbon formed by pyrolysis of the biomass.
Furthermore, the method of Despen is clearly concerned with increasing the carbon content of the biogenic reagent (pyrolysis solids). Specifically, Despen teaches a step of carbon enrichment wherein a portion of pyrolysis vapors are deposited onto the biogenic reagent (pyrolysis solids) to increase the carbon content thereof and form the biogenic reagent into the biocarbon composition (the high-carbon biogenic reagent) (paragraphs [0089], [0449], [0451]-[0454]). Therefore, in view of Wretborn’s teachings, a person having ordinary skill in the art seeking to maximize the carbon content of the biogenic reagent (and also the biocarbon composition) in Despen would be motivated to incorporate a step of forming the first feedstock by adding a condenser liquid formed from the pyrolysis vapor to the second feedstock (biomass) in order to further increase the carbon content of the biogenic reagent (and thus also the biocarbon composition) by recycling carbon in the condenser liquid back to the feedstock.
As for the condenser liquid being adsorbed onto a surface of the biomass, Examiner notes that the term “adsorbed” merely refers to one substance being adhered to a surface of another. Thus, for the first feedstock to comprise the condenser liquid adsorbed onto a surface of the biomass, all that is required is for a portion of the condenser liquid to be adhered to a surface of the biomass. With the forgoing in mind, it is understood that contacting a condenser liquid with a second feedstock (i.e. biomass) to form a first feedstock, will necessarily result in at least a portion of said condenser liquid being adhered to, and thus adsorbed onto, one or more surfaces of the biomass. Evidence that condenser liquid necessarily adsorbs into can be found in at least at least the following portions of Wretborn:
Figure 8, which shows condenser liquid (bio-oil) adhered to (and thus adsorbed onto) a surface of biomass to which it has been applied;
Figure 14, which shows biomass (a wood chip) adhered to (and thus adsorbed onto) a surface of biomass to which it has been applied. Furthermore, the caption of Figure 14 describes the biomass therein as having a surface that has been “saturated” with condenser liquid (bio-oil). Because the surface is “saturated” with condenser liquid, it is understood that at least a portion of said condenser liquid is adhered to (and thus adsorbed onto) said surface.
Section 6.1.3, which describes biomass (wood chips) impregnated with condenser liquid (bio-oil) as having condenser liquid saturating the surfaces thereof. Because the surfaces are “saturated” with condenser liquid, it is understood that at least a portion of said condenser liquid is adhered to (and thus adsorbed onto) said surfaces.
If, for the sake of argument, adhesion (and thus absorption) does not necessarily result from contacting a condenser liquid and a biomass feedstock, Wretborn teaches contacting condenser liquid (bio-oil) with a biomass feedstock in a manner which involves applying the condenser liquid to at least one surface of the biomass (Section 5.3.3, Section 6.1.3, Figures 8 and 14). In doing so, at least a portion of the condenser liquid adsorbs onto the surface(s) of the biomass, as is evident from Figures 8 and 14 and Section 6.1.3 (see detailed discussion above). Thus, Wretborn at least suggests that one can suitably generate mixed feedstock of (wood impregnated with bio-oil) in a manner which results in adsorption of the condenser liquid onto said surface(s).
Furthermore, it is noted that Despen describes impregnating the biogenic reagent with additional carbon by adsorbing condensable constituents of pyrolysis gas thereon (paragraphs [0322], [0348], [0463]). Thus, Despen provides further showing that one could successfully impregnate a solid with a condenser liquid (condensed pyrolysis gases) in a manner which results in adsorption.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Despen in view of Wretborn by adding a step of contacting a second feedstock with the condenser liquid, wherein the second feedstock comprises biomass, thereby generating the first feedstock, wherein the first feedstock comprises the second feedstock and the condenser liquid adsorbed onto a surface of the biomass, in order to increase the carbon content of the biogenic reagent (and thus also the biocarbon composition) by recycling carbon in the condenser liquid back to the feedstock.
Modified Despen does not explicitly teach thermally treating the biogenic reagent in a second pyrolysis reactor, wherein the thermally treating comprises pyrolysis and occurs at a second pyrolysis temperature of at least 250 °C. Modified Despen also does not explicitly teach pelletizing the biogenic reagent, wherein the thermally in the second pyrolysis reactor is carried out before or during the pelletizing.
However, Despen teaches an embodiment comprising steps of combining the biogenic reagent (the pyrolysis solids), which has already been formed into and recovered as the biocarbon composition (the high-carbon biogenic reagent) with a binder, thereby forming a carbon-binder mixture (paragraph [0512]), and pelletizing the carbon-binder mixture thereby forming the second biogenic reagent into structural objects comprising pressed, binded, or agglomerated particles by mechanical pressing or other forces with a binder (paragraph [0512]).
Despen is silent to the specifics of the binder and the pelletizing step. Therefore, a person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to search the prior art for suitable methods of pelletizing.
Stafford teaches a method of creating charcoal pellets (briquettes), the method comprising mixing charcoal powder with a binder comprised of wood tar/pitch and starch, forming the mixture into briquettes, drying the briquettes (e.g. in a warm room or drying shed), and thermally treating the dried briquettes in a pyrolysis reactor by heating them to a temperature of 300-400 °C in order to pyrolyze the tar/pitch into charcoal/coke, thereby forming briquettes that are stable and strong at high temperatures (Page 2 Lines 70-105).
Because said step of thermally treating the dried briquettes in Stafford is critical to making the tar/pitch an effective binder and to forming briquettes that are stable and strong at high temperature, said step of thermally treating can be fairly characterized as being carried out during the briquetting/pelletizing step of Stafford. In other words, because said step of thermally treating the dried briquettes in Stafford is critical to making the tar/pitch an effective binder and to forming briquettes that are stable and strong at high temperature, Stafford can be fairly characterized as teaching a pelletizing step which beings with mixing the charcoal powder with the binder comprised of wood tar/pitch and starch and does not end until after the charcoal pellets/briquettes are thermally treated at a temperature of 300-400 °C in order to pyrolyze the tar/pitch into charcoal/coke. Accordingly, said step of thermally treating the dried briquettes is fairly characterized as occurring during said pelletizing step.
Furthermore, it is understood that a pyrolysis process will necessarily form an off-gas, i.e. a pyrolysis gas and/or vapor. Thus, it is understood that that, in Stafford, the heat treatment of the briquettes at a temperature of 300-400 °C, in order to pyrolyze the tar/pitch into charcoal/coke, will necessarily produce an off-gas.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Despen in view of Safford by: adding a step of pelletizing the biogenic reagent (pyrolysis solids) after said biogenic reagent has already been formed into and recovered as the biocarbon composition (the high-carbon biogenic reagent), the step of pelletizing including: i) adding a starch binder; ii) adding a wood tar/pitch binder; iii) forming the biogenic reagent, i.e. the biocarbon composition, into biogenic reagent pellets; iv) drying the biogenic reagent pellets in a dryer; and v) thermally treating the biogenic reagent pellets in a second pyrolysis reactor at a second pyrolysis temperature of 300-400 °C in order to pyrolyze the wood tar/pitch charcoal/coke, thereby generating biocarbon pellets that are stable and strong at high temperatures, and generating an off gas (i.e. pyrolysis gas/vapor) from the second pyrolysis reactor, in order to obtain a method which produces pellets that are advantageously stable and strong at high temperatures.
Important Note: The term “biogenic reagent pellets” as used by Examiner in this rejection is used to refer to pellets formed from the biogenic reagent after said biogenic reagent has already been formed into and recovered as the biocarbon composition (high-carbon biogenic reagent). Accordingly, the “biogenic reagent pellets” described by Examiner in this rejection are also biocarbon composition pellets, i.e. pellets formed from the biocarbon composition (high-carbon biogenic reagent).
Further Important Note: In this rejection, specifically the “high-carbon biogenic reagent” is relied upon to teach the claimed “biocarbon composition”. In the context of this rejection, it is not the biogenic reagent pellets that are relied upon as the biocarbon composition, but rather it is “the high-carbon biogenic reagent” that has been formed into said pellets. For the purposes of this rejection, other components of the pellets (e.g. the binder and/or derivatives of the binder) are not considered to be part of the “biocarbon composition”.
As discussed above, modified Despen (Despen modified in view of Stafford as described above) includes a step of thermally treating the biogenic reagent pellets in a second pyrolysis reactor at a temperature of 300-400 °C in order to pyrolyze the wood tar/pitch charcoal/coke, wherein said step of thermally treating in the second pyrolysis reactor occurs during said step of pelletizing, i.e. the step of thermally treating is part of the pelletizing step.
As discussed above, the thermally treating in modified Despen is carried out using the second pyrolysis reactor operated at a temperature of 300-400 °C, wherein the second pyrolysis reactor pyrolyzes the biogenic reagent pellets during the pelletizing.
Modified Despen does not explicitly teach that the thermally treating comprises utilizing an oxygen free environment, i.e. such that the second pyrolysis reactor contains an internal oxygen free environment and an inert gas.
However, it is notoriously well understood that pyrolysis must be carried out in an oxygen free environment, or at least an oxygen deficient environment. Attempting to carry out pyrolysis in an oxygen containing environment will result in the material to be pyrolysed combusting rather than pyrolysing. Despen’s disclosure affirms this notoriously well understood fact and teaches operating pyrolysis reactors (e.g. the “BPU”) such that they are “substantially free of molecular oxygen in the gas phase” (paragraphs [0335]-[0337]). Furthermore, Despen teaches operating pyrolysis reactors to pyrolyze “feedstock in the presence of a substantially inert gas,” (paragraph [0445]), as well as purging the system with an inert gas to remove oxygen from the system (paragraph [0410]).
If it were not already the case in modified Despen, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Despen by adding a step of introducing an inert gas to the second pyrolysis reactor, such that the step of thermally treating is carried out inside the second pyrolysis reactor under an oxygen-free atmosphere comprised of inert gas, in order to ensure that pyrolysis of the pellets is carried out as intended without causing undesirable combustion of the pellets.
Note: Because the step of thermally treating in modified Despen is carried out inside the second pyrolysis reactor under an oxygen-free atmosphere comprised of inert gas, said step of thermally treating is fairly characterized as utilizing an internal oxygen-free environment and an inert gas.
Modified Despen is silent to the condenser liquid comprising at most 1 wt% ash.
However, a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would be advantageous for the condenser liquid to have a low ash content because, as discussed above, the condenser liquid in modified Despen is combined with the second feedstock (biomass) to form the first feedstock (a combination of biomass and the condenser liquid). Thus, a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a lower ash content in the condenser liquid will result in a first feedstock having a lower ash content, and ultimately a biocarbon composition with a lower ash content. Despen teaches that ash is non-combustible, thereby indicating to one of ordinary skill in the art that a high ash content in the biocarbon composition is undesirable (paragraphs [0506]-[0508]).
Because the condenser liquid is obtained from a biomass pyrolysis process, it is understood that the condenser liquid is a bio-oil. Agblevor teaches that it is possible to obtain a bio-oil composition having merely 0.05 wt% ash (table 3, paragraph [0043]). Examiner notes that an ash content of merely 0.05 wt% can be fairly considered to be “essentially no ash” by one of ordinary skill in the art. Despen teaches that ash is non-combustible, thereby indicating to one of ordinary skill in the art that a high ash content in the biocarbon composition is undesirable (paragraphs [0506]-[0508]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify Despen in view of Agblevor by carrying out the process to form a condenser liquid comprising at most 1 wt% ash (e.g. 0.05 wt% ash), in order to ultimately obtain a biocarbon composition having a desirably low ash content.
Modified Despen is silent to the condenser comprising multiple condenser stages.
However, it is known in the art to provide a condenser with multiple condenser stages. For example, Brown teaches a pyrolysis method which comprises the use of a condenser comprising multiple stages to fractionally condense bio oil (abstract, Column 3). Brown teaches that out of five condenser stages, the first four generate fractions which are mostly bio-oil, whereas the fifth and final stage generates a fraction that is mostly water (Figures 3-7, Column 10 Line 29-Column 11 line 55). In view of Brown’s teachings, a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a condenser having multiple condenser stages could be used to obtain multiple fractions from the first few condenser stages, said multiple fractions being comprised of mostly organic (carbonaceous) liquid suitable for combination with one another and use as tarry condenser liquid in the pelletizing method of modified Despen, as well as a watery fraction from the final stage of the multiple condenser stages, said watery fraction containing a large percentage of water contained within a pyrolysis vapor being condensed in the condenser, to thereby obtain a low water condenser liquid.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Despen in view of Brown by configuring the condenser to be a multi-stage condenser comprising a plurality of condenser stages, wherein the multi-stage condenser produces the condenser liquid as a condensed product of the first few condenser stages (i.e. a plurality of the condenser stages), and wherein the multi-stage condenser produces a watery condensed fraction from the final condenser stage which is not used as the condenser liquid, such that the condenser liquid is ultimately formed as a condensed product of a plurality of stages of the multiple condenser stages wherein said plurality of stages of the multiple condenser stages does not include the final stage of the multiple condenser stages, in order to obtain a method wherein the condenser produces a low water condenser liquid, i.e. a condenser liquid having a low water content.
As discussed above, the step of thermally treating the biogenic reagent pellets by pyrolysing said pellets in the system pyrolysis reactor produces an off gas, wherein said off gas is a pyrolysis gas/vapor.
Modified Despen is silent to recycling the off gas to the condenser.
However, as discussed above, the step of thermally treating the biogenic reagent pellets by pyrolysing said pellets in the system pyrolysis reactor produces an off gas, wherein said off gas is a pyrolysis gas/vapor. Furthermore, as discussed in detail above, it is clear at least from Wretborn that a pyrolysis vapor can be supplied to a condenser, and subsequently condensed to form a condenser liquid which can then be blended with a feedstock prior to pyrolysis (Wretborn: abstract, Section 5.1.2, sections 4.1 and 4.1.1, Figure 4, Section 7; see rejection of claim 1 above for further discussion). Additionally, as detailed above, the condenser liquid in modified Despen is formed by steps of introducing the pyrolysis vapor to a condensing system, thereby generating a condenser liquid by condensing a portion of said pyrolysis vapor.
Because: i) it is known in the art (e.g. in view of Wretborn) that one can condense a pyrolysis vapor to form a condenser liquid which can be blended with a biogenic reagent, ii) in the method of modified Despen, the condenser liquid is formed introducing the pyrolysis vapor to condensing system, thereby generating a condenser liquid by condensing a portion of said pyrolysis vapor, and iii) the off gas from the step of thermally treating in the second pyrolysis reactor is a pyrolysis gas, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation that it would possible to introduce at least a portion of the off gas (which is a pyrolysis vapor) from the second pyrolysis reactor to the condenser system to generate additional condenser liquid therefrom.
In addition, a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that introducing at least a portion of the off gas from the second pyrolysis reactor to condenser system so at to condense at least a portion of said off-gas would advantageously allow for at least a portion of said off gas to be recovered and further utilized as additional condenser liquid.
Furthermore, as discussed in detail above, in modified Despen, the step of thermally treating is a pyrolysis step which follows a pelletizing step. It is known in the art to introduce off gas from a pyrolysis thermal treatment step following a pelletizing step in order to condense a portion of said off gas into a condenser liquid which is subsequently added to material to be pelletized in the pelletizing step. For example, Walty teaches a method of forming pelletized solid fuel comprising a step of pelletizing 316 followed by steps of drying the pelletized fuel in dryer 326 and pyrolyzing the dried pelletized solid fuel in first and second pyrolyzers 330 and 334, wherein the step of pyrolyzing produces an off gas (oil) which is condensed in a condenser (oil recovery unit) 336 to form a condenser liquid (oil product) 338, and wherein a portion of the condenser liquid can be returned to earlier in the process to be mixed with material to be pelletized (Figure 3, paragraphs [0066]-[0069]). The teachings of Walty would, to one of ordinary skill in the art, further reenforce the reasonable expectation that it would possible to introduce at least a portion of the s off gas (which is a pyrolysis vapor) from the second pyrolysis reactor to the condenser to generate additional condenser liquid therefrom.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Despen in view of Wretborn and Walty by introducing the off gas from the step of thermally treating in the second pyrolysis reactor to the condenser to generate additional condenser liquid therefrom.
With regard to claim 2: In modified Despen, the feedstock may include one or more materials selected from: timber harvesting residues, softwood chips, hardwood chips, tree branches, tree stumps, knots, leaves, bark, sawdust, off-spec paper pulp, cellulose, corn, corn stover, wheat straw, rice straw, sugarcane bagasse, switchgrass, miscanthus, animal manure, municipal garbage, municipal sewage, commercial waste, grape pumice, almond shells, pecan shells, coconut shells, coffee grounds, grass pellets, hay pellets, wood pellets, cardboard, paper, carbohydrates, plastic, and cloth (Despen: paragraph [0326]).
With regard to claims 4 and 5: In the process of modified Despen (Despen modified in view of Stafford as discussed in the 103 rejection of claims 1, 3, 13, 47, 48, 50 and 51 above, the pelletizing the biogenic reagent comprises introducing a binder to the biogenic reagent, wherein said binder is starch (see rejection of claims 1, 3, 13, 47, 48, 50 and 51 above).
With regard to claim 6: In modified Despen, the step of pelletizing the biogenic reagent does not include the introduction of an external binder, i.e. a binder which is external to, i.e. not used in, the method of modified Despen.
With regard to claim 6: In modified Despen, the step of pelletizing the biogenic reagent does not include the introduction of an external binder, i.e. a binder which is external to, i.e. not used in, the method of modified Despen.
With regard to claim 10: Modified Despen is silent to the contacting comprising spraying the condenser liquid onto the biomass.
However, the combination of Despen and Wretborn is silent to a specific method of contacting the condenser liquid and the biomass. Therefore, a person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to search the prior art for a suitable specific method of contacting the condenser liquid and the biomass. A person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that having a specific method by which to carry out the contacting is preferable to not having a specific method. As non-specific method, i.e. methods which lack any specific form, are not possible to implement in reality. In order to implement a method in reality, said method must have a specific form.
Despen does teach adding chemical additives to biomass feedstocks as a spray, e.g. a liquid spray (paragraph [0387]). Despen teaches adding said additives for several reasons which include increasing the yield of the carbonaceous product (paragraph [0389]).
As discussed in the rejection of claims 1, 3, 13, 47, 48, 50 and 51 above, a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that adding the condenser liquid formed from the pyrolysis vapor to the second feedstock (biomass) in Despen would advantageously increase the carbon content of the biogenic reagent by providing additional carbon formed by pyrolysis of the condenser liquid to carbon formed by pyrolysis of the biomass (see rejection of claims 1, 3, 13, 47, 48, 50 and 51 above for details). Because the biogenic reagent is a carbon product (see rejection of claims 1, 3, 13, 47, 48, 50 and 51 above) a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that increasing the carbon content of the biogenic reagent constitutes increasing the yield of said biogenic reagent. Taking into consideration Despen’s teachings regarding the addition of chemical additives to biomass feedstocks as a liquid spray and the addition of chemical additives to increase the yield of carbonaceous product, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation that spraying is a suitable method by which to contact the condenser liquid with the biomass.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Despen by carrying out the step of contacting the biomass and the condenser liquid by spraying the condenser liquid onto the biomass, in order to obtain a process having a specific and predictably functional method of contacting the biomass and the condenser liquid.
With regard to claim 12: Modified Despen does not explicitly teach that the first feedstock comprises the condenser liquid absorbed into a bulk phase of the biomass. In other words, modified Despen does not explicitly teach that the condenser liquid is absorbed into a bulk phase of the biomass during the step of contacting. However, it is known in the art that bio-oil will absorb into a bulk phase of biomass material. As evidence, Examiner points to Wretborn, which describes creating an impregnated biomass by absorbing bio-oil into wood chips for subsequent pyrolysis (Section 6.1.3). Because the first feedstock in modified Despen is comprised of biomass and the condenser liquid, biomass in Despen is biomass, and the condenser liquid in Despen is bio-oil, i.e. condensed vapors of pyrolysis, it is understood that the fist biomass will necessarily comprise condenser liquid absorbed into a bulk phase of the biomass.
In the alternative, the teachings of Wretborn clearly demonstrated that it is possible to absorb the condenser liquid of modified Despen into a bulk phase of the biomass. Furthermore, Wretborn indicates that biomass which has been impregnated with bio-oil such that bio-oil is absorbed into a bulk phase thereof will produce a greater yield of charcoal when pyrolyzed (abstract, Section 6.1.3, section 7).
If it were not already the case in modified Despen, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Despen in view of Wretborn by adsorbing the condenser liquid into a bulk phase of the biomass, i.e. such that the first feedstock were to comprise the condenser liquid absorbed into a bulk phase of the biomass, in order to obtain a predictably functional method of producing a biogenic reagent from a biomass.
With regard to claim 18: Modified Despen does not teach that the thermally treating comprises operating under a vacuum.
However, as discussed in the rejection of claims 1, 3, and 13 above, the thermally treating is carried out using the second pyrolysis reactor operated at a temperature of 300-400 °C, wherein the second pyrolysis reactor pyrolyzes the biogenic reagent pellets during the pelletizing (see Rejection of claims 1, 3, and 13 above).
Despen teaches vacuum operation to draw volatiles out of the system quickly (paragraph [0360]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Despen by operating the second pyrolysis reactor under a vacuum, such that the thermally treating comprises operating under said vacuum, in order to draw volatiles (off gas) out of the second pyrolysis reactor quickly.
With regard to claim 19: As discussed in the rejection of claims 1, 3, and 13 above, modified Despen includes a step of pelletizing including: i) adding a starch binder; ii) adding a wood tar/pitch binder; iii) forming the biogenic reagent into biogenic reagent pellets; iv) drying the biogenic reagent pellets in a dryer; and v) thermally treating the biogenic reagent pellets in a second pyrolysis reactor at a temperature of 300-400 °C in order to pyrolyze the wood tar/pitch charcoal/coke, thereby generating biocarbon pellets that are stable and strong at high temperatures.
Though it is not explicitly taught, it is understood that following the drying of the biogenic reagent pellets in a dryer during the pelletizing, said biogenic reagent pellets will necessarily contain at least a residual amount of moisture not evaporated in the dryer. Because the thermally treating step is carried out at the high temperature of 300-400 °C, it is further understood that, at least a portion of said residual moisture will necessarily be evaporated in the early portions of said thermally treating step. Accordingly, the step of thermally treating in modified Despen necessarily comprises an aspect of drying the biogenic reagent.
With regard to claim 21: Modified Despen does not explicitly teach that the that the first pyrolysis reactor is distinct from the second pyrolysis reactor, nor does modified Despen explicitly teach that the first pyrolysis reactor and the second pyrolysis reactors are the same unit, wherein the pyrolyzing and the thermally treating are conducted at different times.
Because modified Despen does not explicitly teach either option, a person having ordinary skill in the art would be not only motivated to, but ultimately forced to choose one or the other. A person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that both options have advantages, and therefore, would be obvious variations on modified Despen.
Regarding the option wherein the first pyrolysis reactor is distinct from the second pyrolysis reactor, a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize said option as advantageous because it would allow for material to be processed in the second pyrolysis unit while feedstock is processed in the first, thus improving the timewise efficiency of Despen’s process.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Despen by configuring the first pyrolysis reactor and the second pyrolysis reactor to be distinct reactors, in order to allow for material to be processed in the second pyrolysis unit while feedstock is processed in the first, thus improving the timewise efficiency of Despen’s process.
With regard to claim 22: Modified Despen does not explicitly teach that the that the first pyrolysis reactor is distinct from the second pyrolysis reactor, nor does modified Despen explicitly teach that the first pyrolysis reactor and the second pyrolysis reactors are the same reactor, wherein the pyrolyzing and the thermally treating are conducted at different times.
However, because modified Despen does not explicitly teach either option, a person having ordinary skill in the art would be not only motivated to, but ultimately forced to choose one or the other. A person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that both options have advantages, and therefore, would be obvious variations on modified Despen.
Regarding the option wherein the first pyrolysis reactor and the second pyrolysis reactors are the same unit, wherein the pyrolyzing and the thermally treating are conducted at different times, a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize said option as advantageous because it would remove the need for multiple pyrolysis units, thus reducing the initial capital required to enact Despen’s process.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Despen by configuring the first pyrolysis reactor and the second pyrolysis reactor to be the same reactor, such that the pyrolyzing and the thermally treating are not conducted simultaneously, i.e. such that the pyrolyzing and the thermally treating are conducted at different times, in order to reduce the initial capital required to enact Despen’s process.
In modified Despen, because the first pyrolysis reactor and the second pyrolysis reactor are the same reactor, the first pyrolysis reactor and the second pyrolysis reactor are the same unit.
With regard to claim 23: In modified Despen, it is understood that the condenser liquid comprises total carbon, i.e. a total carbon content (see rejection of claim 1 above for details). Furthermore, it is understood that, in modified Despen, the total carbon content in the condenser liquid is added to the total carbon comprised within the biogenic reagent, i.e. by pyrolyzing the first feedstock comprised of the second feedstock (biomass) and the condenser liquid, modified Despen adds at least some of the total carbon content in the condenser liquid to the biogenic reagent formed from the first feedstock. Furthermore, it is understood that at least some of the total carbon content in the condenser liquid will be converted to fixed carbon within the biogenic reagent via the step of pyrolyzing. As evidence, Examiner points to: 1) paragraph [0348] of Despen which discusses pyrolysis of liquid carbon containing components condensed from the gas phase to form additional fixed carbon; and 2) paragraph [0310] of Despen which points out that “carbon-containing components that are in the gas phase can decompose to form additional fixed carbon”.
Despen does not explicitly teach that at least 25 wt% of the total carbon comprised within the condenser liquid is converted to fixed carbon within the biogenic reagent.
However, as discussed above, it is understood that at least some of the total carbon content in the condenser liquid will be converted to fixed carbon within the biogenic reagent via the step of pyrolyzing. As evidence, Examiner points to: 1) paragraph [0348] of Despen which discusses pyrolysis of liquid carbon containing components condensed from the gas phase to form additional fixed carbon; and 2) paragraph [0310] of Despen which points out that “carbon-containing components that are in the gas phase can decompose to form additional fixed carbon”.
Furthermore, Despen teaches that the fixed carbon content of the biocarbon composition can be manipulated by manipulating various process conditions (Despen: Figures 14-16, Paragraphs [0213]-[0215], [0256], [0278], [0310], [0330], [0334], [0348]). Furthermore, Despen teaches that it is possible to obtain high-quality carbon compositions having a high fraction of fixed carbon from his method (paragraph [0324]). Despen further teaches that an increase in energy content can be achieved by an increase in the fixed carbon (paragraph [0384]), thereby providing clear indication that higher fixed carbon contents are advantageous.
In view of the above, a person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to maximize the extent to which total carbon in the condenser liquid is converted to fixed carbon in the biogenic reagent. "[When] 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," (see MPEP 2144.05 II A).
If it were not already the case within modified Despen, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Despen by configuring the method of Despen such that at least 25 wt% of the total carbon comprised within the condenser liquid is converted to fixed carbon within the biogenic reagent, in order maximize the fixed carbon content in the biogenic reagent so as to obtain a biocarbon composition having an increased energy content.
With regard to claim 24: In modified Despen, it is understood that the condenser liquid comprises total carbon, i.e. a total carbon content (see rejection of claim 1 above for details). Furthermore, it is understood that, in modified Despen, the total carbon content in the condenser liquid is added to the total carbon comprised within the biogenic reagent, i.e. by pyrolyzing the first feedstock comprised of the second feedstock (biomass) and the condenser liquid, modified Despen adds at least some of the total carbon content in the condenser liquid to the biogenic reagent formed from the first feedstock. Furthermore, it is understood that at least some of the total carbon content in the condenser liquid will be converted to fixed carbon within the biogenic reagent via the step of pyrolyzing. As evidence, Examiner points to: 1) paragraph [0348] of Despen which discusses pyrolysis of liquid carbon containing components condensed from the gas phase to form additional fixed carbon; and 2) paragraph [0310] of Despen which points out that “carbon-containing components that are in the gas phase can decompose to form additional fixed carbon”.
Despen does not explicitly teach that at least 50 wt% of the total carbon comprised within the condenser liquid is converted to fixed carbon within the biogenic reagent.
However, as discussed above, it is understood that at least some of the total carbon content in the condenser liquid will be converted to fixed carbon within the biogenic reagent via the step of pyrolyzing. As evidence, Examiner points to: 1) paragraph [0348] of Despen which discusses pyrolysis of liquid carbon containing components condensed from the gas phase to form additional fixed carbon; and 2) paragraph [0310] of Despen which points out that “carbon-containing components that are in the gas phase can decompose to form additional fixed carbon”.
Furthermore, Despen teaches that the fixed carbon content of the biocarbon composition can be manipulated by manipulating various process conditions (Despen: Figures 14-16, Paragraphs [0213]-[0215], [0256], [0278], [0310], [0330], [0334], [0348]). Furthermore, Despen teaches that it is possible to obtain high-quality carbon compositions having a high fraction of fixed carbon from his method (paragraph [0324]). Despen further teaches that an increase in energy content can be achieved by an increase in the fixed carbon (paragraph [0384]), thereby providing clear indication that higher fixed carbon contents are advantageous.
In view of the above, a person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to maximize the extent to which total carbon in the condenser liquid is converted to fixed carbon in the biogenic reagent. "[When] 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," (see MPEP 2144.05 II A).
If it were not already the case within modified Despen, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Despen by configuring the method of Despen such that at least 50 wt% of the total carbon comprised within the condenser liquid is converted to fixed carbon within the biogenic reagent, in order maximize the fixed carbon content in the biogenic reagent so as to obtain a biocarbon composition having an increased energy content.
With regard to claim 25: In modified Despen, it is understood that the condenser liquid comprises total carbon, i.e. a total carbon content (see rejection of claim 1 above for details). Furthermore, it is understood that, in modified Despen, the total carbon content in the condenser liquid is added to the total carbon comprised within the biogenic reagent, i.e. by pyrolyzing the first feedstock comprised of the second feedstock (biomass) and the condenser liquid, modified Despen adds at least some of the total carbon content in the condenser liquid to the biogenic reagent formed from the first feedstock. Furthermore, it is understood that at least some of the total carbon content in the condenser liquid will be converted to fixed carbon within the biogenic reagent via the step of pyrolyzing. As evidence, Examiner points to: 1) paragraph [0348] of Despen which discusses pyrolysis of liquid carbon containing components condensed from the gas phase to form additional fixed carbon; and 2) paragraph [0310] of Despen which points out that “carbon-containing components that are in the gas phase can decompose to form additional fixed carbon”.
Despen does not explicitly teach that at least 75 wt% of the total carbon comprised within the condenser liquid is converted to fixed carbon within the biogenic reagent.
However, as discussed above, it is understood that at least some of the total carbon content in the condenser liquid will be converted to fixed carbon within the biogenic reagent via the step of pyrolyzing. As evidence, Examiner points to: 1) paragraph [0348] of Despen which discusses pyrolysis of liquid carbon containing components condensed from the gas phase to form additional fixed carbon; and 2) paragraph [0310] of Despen which points out that “carbon-containing components that are in the gas phase can decompose to form additional fixed carbon”.
Furthermore, Despen teaches that the fixed carbon content of the biocarbon composition can be manipulated by manipulating various process conditions (Despen: Figures 14-16, Paragraphs [0213]-[0215], [0256], [0278], [0310], [0330], [0334], [0348]). Furthermore, Despen teaches that it is possible to obtain high-quality carbon compositions having a high fraction of fixed carbon from his method (paragraph [0324]). Despen further teaches that an increase in energy content can be achieved by an increase in the fixed carbon (paragraph [0384]), thereby providing clear indication that higher fixed carbon contents are advantageous.
In view of the above, a person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to maximize the extent to which total carbon in the condenser liquid is converted to fixed carbon in the biogenic reagent. "[When] 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," (see MPEP 2144.05 II A).
If it were not already the case within modified Despen, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Despen by configuring the method of Despen such that at least 75 wt% of the total carbon comprised within the condenser liquid is converted to fixed carbon within the biogenic reagent, in order maximize the fixed carbon content in the biogenic reagent so as to obtain a biocarbon composition having an increased energy content.
With regard to claim 26: In modified Despen, it is understood that the condenser liquid comprises total carbon, i.e. a total carbon content (see rejection of claim 1 above for details). Furthermore, it is understood that, in modified Despen, the total carbon content in the condenser liquid is added to the total carbon comprised within the biogenic reagent, i.e. by pyrolyzing the first feedstock comprised of the second feedstock (biomass) and the condenser liquid, modified Despen adds at least some of the total carbon content in the condenser liquid to the biogenic reagent formed from the first feedstock. Furthermore, it is understood that at least some of the total carbon content in the condenser liquid will be converted to fixed carbon within the biogenic reagent via the step of pyrolyzing. As evidence, Examiner points to: 1) paragraph [0348] of Despen which discusses pyrolysis of liquid carbon containing components condensed from the gas phase to form additional fixed carbon; and 2) paragraph [0310] of Despen which points out that “carbon-containing components that are in the gas phase can decompose to form additional fixed carbon”. Thus, it is understood that at a portion of the fixed carbon in the biogenic reagent will be derived from the condenser liquid.
Modified Despen is silent to at least about 10 wt% to at most about 80 wt% of fixed carbon in the biogenic reagent being derived from the condenser liquid.
However, as discussed above, it is understood that at least some of the total carbon content in the condenser liquid will be converted to fixed carbon within the biogenic reagent via the step of pyrolyzing. As evidence, Examiner points to: 1) paragraph [0348] of Despen which discusses pyrolysis of liquid carbon containing components condensed from the gas phase to form additional fixed carbon; and 2) paragraph [0310] of Despen which points out that “carbon-containing components that are in the gas phase can decompose to form additional fixed carbon”. Thus, it is understood that at a portion of the fixed carbon in the biogenic reagent will be derived from the condenser liquid.
Furthermore, Despen teaches that the fixed carbon content of the biocarbon composition can be manipulated by manipulating various process conditions (Despen: Figures 14-16, Paragraphs [0213]-[0215], [0256], [0278], [0310], [0330], [0334], [0348]). Furthermore, Despen teaches that it is possible to obtain high-quality carbon compositions having a high fraction of fixed carbon from his method (paragraph [0324]). Despen further teaches that an increase in energy content can be achieved by an increase in the fixed carbon (paragraph [0384]), thereby providing clear indication that higher fixed carbon contents are advantageous.
In view of the above, a person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to maximize the extent to which the addition of the condenser liquid to the second feedstock (biomass) to form the first feedstock increases the fixed carbon content of the biogenic reagent formed from the first feedstock, e.g. by increasing the amount of the total carbon in the condenser liquid converted to fixed carbon so as to increase the total percentage of fixed carbon originating form the condenser liquid in the biogenic reagent. "[When] 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," (see MPEP 2144.05 II A).
If it were not already the case within modified Despen, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Despen by maximizing the extent to which the fixed carbon content of the biogenic reagent is increased due to the addition of the condenser liquid, i.e. by configuring the method of Despen such that at least about 10 wt% to at most about 80 wt% of fixed carbon in the biogenic reagent was derived from the condenser liquid, in order maximize the fixed carbon content in the biogenic reagent so as to obtain a biocarbon composition having an increased energy content.
With regard to claim 27: In modified Despen, it is understood that the condenser liquid comprises total carbon, i.e. a total carbon content (see rejection of claim 1 above for details). Furthermore, it is understood that, in modified Despen, the total carbon content in the condenser liquid is added to the total carbon comprised within the biogenic reagent, i.e. by pyrolyzing the first feedstock comprised of the second feedstock (biomass) and the condenser liquid, modified Despen adds at least some of the total carbon content in the condenser liquid to the biogenic reagent formed from the first feedstock. Furthermore, it is understood that at least some of the total carbon content in the condenser liquid will be converted to fixed carbon within the biogenic reagent via the step of pyrolyzing. As evidence, Examiner points to: 1) paragraph [0348] of Despen which discusses pyrolysis of liquid carbon containing components condensed from the gas phase to form additional fixed carbon; and 2) paragraph [0310] of Despen which points out that “carbon-containing components that are in the gas phase can decompose to form additional fixed carbon”. Thus, it is understood that at a portion of the fixed carbon in the biogenic reagent will be derived from the condenser liquid.
Modified Despen is silent to at least about 20 wt% to at most about 60 wt% of fixed carbon in the biogenic reagent being derived from the condenser liquid.
However, as discussed above, it is understood that at least some of the total carbon content in the condenser liquid will be converted to fixed carbon within the biogenic reagent via the step of pyrolyzing. As evidence, Examiner points to: 1) paragraph [0348] of Despen which discusses pyrolysis of liquid carbon containing components condensed from the gas phase to form additional fixed carbon; and 2) paragraph [0310] of Despen which points out that “carbon-containing components that are in the gas phase can decompose to form additional fixed carbon”. Thus, it is understood that at a portion of the fixed carbon in the biogenic reagent will be derived from the condenser liquid.
Furthermore, Despen teaches that the fixed carbon content of the biocarbon composition can be manipulated by manipulating various process conditions (Despen: Figures 14-16, Paragraphs [0213]-[0215], [0256], [0278], [0310], [0330], [0334], [0348]). Furthermore, Despen teaches that it is possible to obtain high-quality carbon compositions having a high fraction of fixed carbon from his method (paragraph [0324]). Despen further teaches that an increase in energy content can be achieved by an increase in the fixed carbon (paragraph [0384]), thereby providing clear indication that higher fixed carbon contents are advantageous.
In view of the above, a person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to maximize the extent to which the addition of the condenser liquid to the second feedstock (biomass) to form the first feedstock increases the fixed carbon content of the biogenic reagent formed from the first feedstock, e.g. by increasing the amount of the total carbon in the condenser liquid converted to fixed carbon so as to increase the total percentage of fixed carbon originating form the condenser liquid in the biogenic reagent. "[When] 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," (see MPEP 2144.05 II A).
If it were not already the case within modified Despen, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Despen by maximizing the extent to which the fixed carbon content of the biogenic reagent is increased due to the addition of the condenser liquid, i.e. by configuring the method of Despen such that at least about 20 wt% to at most about 60 wt% of fixed carbon in the biogenic reagent was derived from the condenser liquid, in order maximize the fixed carbon content in the biogenic reagent so as to obtain a biocarbon composition having an increased energy content.
With regard to claim 28: As discussed in the rejection of claims 1, 3, and 13 above, modified Despen comprises a step of contacting the condenser liquid with the second feedstock.
Modified Despen does not explicitly teach contacting all of the condenser liquid with the second feedstock, nor does modified Despen explicitly teach contacting less than all of the condenser liquid with the second feedstock.
However, a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the step of contacting the condenser liquid with the second feedstock must necessarily involve either contacting all of the condenser liquid or contacting less than all of the condenser liquid. Therefore, a person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to choose one or the other. Furthermore, a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that contacting all of the condenser liquid with the second feedstock and contacting less than all of the condenser liquid with the second feedstock both have advantages, and therefore, would be obvious variations on modified Despen.
In particular, a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that contacting all of the condenser liquid would advantageously lead to the greatest increase in carbon content in the biogenic reagent. On the other hand, contacting less than all of the condenser liquid would allow a portion of said condenser liquid to be used for other purposes.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Despen by contacting all of the condenser liquid with the second feedstock, in order to achieve the greatest increase in carbon content in the biogenic reagent.
With regard to claim 29: As discussed in the rejection of claims 1, 3, and 13 above, modified Despen comprises a step of contacting the condenser liquid with the second feedstock.
Modified Despen does not explicitly teach contacting all of the condenser liquid with the second feedstock, nor does modified Despen explicitly teach contacting less than all of the condenser liquid with the second feedstock.
However, a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the step of contacting the condenser liquid with the second feedstock must necessarily involve either contacting all of the condenser liquid or contacting less than all of the condenser liquid. Therefore, a person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to choose one or the other. Furthermore, a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that contacting all of the condenser liquid with the second feedstock and contacting less than all of the condenser liquid with the second feedstock both have advantages, and therefore, would be obvious variations on modified Despen.
In particular, a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that contacting all of the condenser liquid would advantageously lead to the greatest increase in carbon content in the biogenic reagent. On the other hand, contacting less than all of the condenser liquid would allow a portion of said condenser liquid to be used for other purposes.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Despen by contacting less than all of the condenser liquid with the second feedstock, in order to reserve a portion of said condenser liquid for some other use.
With regard to claim 30: There is no explicit indication that modified Despen does not include any step of subjecting the condenser liquid to intermediate chemical processing prior to contacting it with the second feedstock.
However, there is no teaching or suggestion in any of Despen or Wretborn which indicates that such intermediate chemical processing would be necessary. The absence of such a teaching would indicate to one of ordinary skill in the art that such intermediate chemical processing is not necessary, and would give one of ordinary skill in the art a reasonable expectation that the method of modified Despen would be successful without such a step of intermediate chemical processing.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Despen by carrying out the method thereof without any step of subjecting the condenser liquid to intermediate chemical processing prior to contacting it with the second feedstock, in order to obtain a predictably functional method which is congruent with the teachings of Despen and Wretborn.
With regard to claim 31: Modified Despen does not explicitly teach that the condenser liquid is chemically processed prior to contacting with the second feedstock.
However, base Despen suggests that condensable and/or non-condensable vapors obtained from pyrolysis may be subjected to treatment or separation steps such as distillation (paragraphs [0455]-[0456]). This teaching would serve as at least a suggestion to one of ordinary skill in the art that the condenser liquid derived from said vapor stream could be chemically processed (i.e. subjected to a purification step such as distillation) prior to contacting with the second feedstock, such that the condenser liquid contacted with the second feedstock were a thermally treated condenser liquid.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Despen by adding a step of chemically processing (i.e. purifying such as by distillation) the condenser liquid prior to contacting with the second feedstock, such that the condenser liquid contacted with the second feedstock were a purified condenser liquid, in order to obtain a predictably functional method congruent with the suggestions of Despen.
With regard to claim 32: Modified Despen does not explicitly teach that the condenser liquid is subjected to a purification step prior to contacting with the second feedstock.
However, base Despen suggests that condensable and/or non-condensable vapors obtained from pyrolysis may be subjected to treatment or separation steps such as distillation (paragraphs [0455]-[0456]). This teaching would serve as at least a suggestion to one of ordinary skill in the art that the condenser liquid derived from said vapor stream could be chemically processed (i.e. subjected to a purification step such as distillation) prior to contacting with the second feedstock, such that the condenser liquid contacted with the second feedstock were a thermally treated condenser liquid.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Despen by adding a step of chemically processing, i.e. a step of purifying by distillation, the condenser liquid prior to contacting with the second feedstock, such that the condenser liquid contacted with the second feedstock were a purified condenser liquid, in order to obtain a predictably functional method congruent with the suggestions of Despen.
With regard to claim 33: As discussed in the rejection of claim 32 above, modified Despen includes a step of step of purifying the condenser liquid prior to contacting with the first biogenic reagent, wherein said step of purifying is a step of purifying the condenser liquid by distillation (see rejection of claim 32 above). It is understood that the step of purifying the condenser liquid by distillation necessarily involves partial evaporation of the condenser liquid. Thus, it is understood that said step of purifying the condenser liquid by distillation is a reaction step, i.e. a step involving a physical reaction, the physical reaction being the partial evaporation of the condenser liquid.
With regard to claim 34: Despen does not explicitly teach introducing a portion of the condenser liquid to the biogenic reagent.
However, Despen at least suggests introducing a portion of a condenser liquid into the biogenic reagent. In particular Despen teaches a “step (h)” of “subsequently passing at least a portion of the condensable vapors and/or at least a portion of the non-condensable gases from step (e) across the warm pyrolyzed solids and/or the cool pyrolyzed solids, to form enriched pyrolyzed solids with increased carbon content; and (i) in a carbon recovery unit, recovering a high-carbon biogenic reagent comprising at least a portion of the enriched pyrolyzed solids,” (paragraphs [0449]-[0450]). Despen further teaches that “In some embodiments, step (h) includes passing at least a portion of the condensable vapors from step (e), in vapor and/or condensed form, across the warm pyrolyzed solids, to produce enriched pyrolyzed solids with increased carbon content,” (paragraph [0451]). Despen further teaches that “The process may include various methods of treating or separating the vapors or gases prior to using them for carbon enrichment. For example, an intermediate feed stream consisting of at least a portion of the condensable vapors and at least a portion of the non-condensable gases, obtained from step (e), may be fed to a separation unit configured to generate at least first and second output streams. In certain embodiments, the intermediate feed stream comprises all of the condensable vapors, all of the non-condensable gases, or both. Separation techniques can include or use distillation columns, flash vessels, centrifuges, cyclones, membranes, filters, packed beds, capillary columns, and so on. Separation can be principally based, for example, on distillation, absorption, adsorption, or diffusion, and can utilize differences in vapor pressure, activity, molecular weight, density, viscosity, polarity, chemical functionality, affinity to a stationary phase, and any combinations thereof. In some embodiments, the first and second output streams are separated from the intermediate feed stream based on relative volatility. For example, the separation unit may be a distillation column, a flash tank, or a condenser,” (paragraphs [0455]-[0457]; emphasis added).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Despen by adding a step of introducing a portion of the condenser liquid to the biogenic reagent, in order to enrich the carbon and energy content of the biogenic reagent in accordance with Despen’s own express suggestions.
With regard to claim 36: In modified Despen, the pyrolyzing in the first pyrolysis reactor is conducted at a first pyrolysis temperature from about 250-700 °C (Despen: paragraph [0445]).
With regard to claim 37: In modified Despen, the pyrolyzing in the first pyrolysis reactor is conducted at a first pyrolysis temperature from about 250-700 °C (Despen: paragraph [0445]).
Modified Despen does not explicitly teach that the pyrolyzing in the first pyrolysis reactor is conducted at a first pyrolysis temperature from about 300-700 °C.
However, the claimed range lies entirely within the taught range. Thus, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have full expectation that the pyrolysis temperature range of 300-700 °C is workable in modified Despen. “In the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists,” (MPEP 2144.05 I). Furthermore, temperature is well understood to be a result effective variable in pyrolysis. "[When] 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," (see MPEP 2144.05 II A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Despen by operating the step of pyrolyzing the first pyrolysis reactor at a first pyrolysis temperature in the range of 300-700 °C, in order to obtain a predictably functional pyrolysis step in congruence with the teachings of Despen.
With regard to claim 38: As discussed in the rejection of claims 1, 3, and 13 and the rejection of claim 14 above, the thermally treating comprises pyrolysis in a second pyrolysis reactor at a temperature of 300-400 °C (see rejection of claims 1, 3, and 13 and rejection of claim 14 above). Thus, the second pyrolysis temperature is 300-400 °C.
With regard to claim 39: As discussed in the rejection of claims 1, 3, and 13 and the rejection of claim 14 above, the thermally treating comprises pyrolysis in a second pyrolysis reactor at a temperature of 300-400 °C (see rejection of claims 1, 3, and 13 and rejection of claim 14 above). Thus, the second pyrolysis temperature is 300-400 °C.
With regard to claim 40: Modified Despen does not explicitly teach that the pyrolyzing in the first pyrolysis reactor is conducted for a first pyrolysis time of at least about 10 second to at most about 24 hours.
However, Despen does teach that the pyrolyzing is carried out for at least 10 minutes (paragraph [0445]). The taught pyrolysis residence time range of at least 10 minutes overlaps the claimed range of at least about 10 seconds to at most about 24 hours. “In the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists,” (MPEP 2144.05 I).
Furthermore, residence time is well understood to be a result effective variable in pyrolysis. In particular, a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that if residence time is too low, the pyrolysis will not be achieved. On the other hand, if the residence time is too high, time and energy will be wasted, and the pyrolysis may proceed to a greater extent than desired. "[When] 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," (see MPEP 2144.05 II A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Despen by carrying out the pyrolysing in the first pyrolysis reactor for a first pyrolysis time of at least about 10 minutes to at most about 24 hours, in order to obtain a predictably functional pyrolysis step wherein the desired pyrolysis is achieved without wasting of time and energy.
With regard to claim 41: As discussed in the rejection of claims 1, 3, and 13 above, the thermally treating is carried out using the second pyrolysis reactor operated at a temperature of 300-400 °C, wherein the second pyrolysis reactor pyrolyzes the biogenic reagent pellets during the pelletizing (see Rejection of claims 1, 3, and 13 above).
Modified Despen is silent to the pyrolysing of the biogenic reagent being conducted for a second pyrolysis time of at least about 10 seconds and at most about 24 hours.
However, residence time is well understood to be a result effective variable in pyrolysis. In particular, a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that if residence time is too low, the pyrolysis will not be achieved. On the other hand, if the residence time is too high, time and energy will be wasted, and the pyrolysis may proceed to a greater extent than desired. "[When] 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," (see MPEP 2144.05 II A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Despen by conducting the pyrolysing of the biogenic reagent for a second pyrolysis time of a least about 10 seconds and at most about 24 hours, in order to obtain a predictably functional step of pyrolysing of the biogenic reagent pellets wherein the desired pyrolysis of the biogenic reagent pellets is achieved without wasting of time and energy.
With regard to claim 44: The method of modified Despen is silent to milling the biogenic reagent using a mechanical treatment apparatus, wherein the mechanical treatment apparatus is selected from a hammer mill, an extruder, an attrition mill, a disc mill, a pin mill, a ball mill, a cone crusher, a jaw crusher, or a combination thereof.
However, Despen does teach an embodiment which includes a step of mechanically treating the biogenic reagent (i.e. the intermediate material containing the first biogenic reagent) thereby generating a plurality of carbon-containing particles, i.e. performing particle-size reduction to obtain a powder form of the reagent which can be formed into pellets (paragraph [0512]). In other words, Despen at least suggests a step of milling the biogenic reagent using a mechanical treatment apparatus to create powdered first biogenic reagent in preparation for pelletizing thereof.
Despen does not explicitly teach that said step utilizes a mechanical-treatment apparatus selected from a hammer mill, an extruder, an attrition mill, a disc mill, a pin mill, a ball mill, a cone crusher, a jaw crusher, or a combination thereof.
A person having ordinary skill in the art would expect that the said step would need to be carried out using a mill or a crusher of some sort. Furthermore, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation that most common mills and crushers would be suitable for milling the biogenic reagent. Further still, the selection of suitable mills for milling a particular material is well within the level of ordinary skill in the art. Additionally, Despen teaches that “The solids may be fed to a unit to reduce particle size. A variety of size-reduction units are known in the art, including crushers, shredders, grinders, pulverizers, jet mills, pin mills, and ball mills,” (paragraph [0377]). This teaching is at least a suggestion that a device such as a pin mill or a ball mill may be used in step (c).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Despen by adding a step of milling the biogenic reagent using a mechanical treatment apparatus, wherein the mechanical treatment apparatus is selected from a hammer mill, an extruder, an attrition mill, a disc mill, a pin mill, a ball mill, a cone crusher, a jaw crusher, or a combination thereof, in order to prepare the biogenic reagent for pelletization.
With regard to claim 46: As discussed in the rejection of claims 1, 3, and 13 above, the method of modified Despen (Despen modified in view of Stafford as described in the rejection of claims 1, 3, and 13 above) comprises a step of drying the biogenic reagent, i.e. drying biogenic reagent pellets, and a step of pelletizing the biogenic reagent, wherein the pelletizing occurs, before, after, and during the drying.
With regard to claim 52: The biocarbon composition may contain less than 10 wt% ash (Despen: paragraph [0164]).
With regard to claim 53: The biocarbon composition may contain less than 5 wt% ash (Despen: paragraph [0164]).
With regard to claim 54: The biocarbon composition may contain less than 1 wt% ash (Despen: paragraph [0164]).
With regard to claim 56: Modified Despen is silent to the condenser liquid comprising less than 0.1 wt% ash.
However, a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would be advantageous for the condenser liquid to have a low ash content because, as discussed in the rejection of claim 1 above, the condenser liquid is combined with the second feedstock (biomass) to form the first feedstock (a combination of biomass and the condenser liquid). Thus, a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a lower ash content in the condenser liquid will result in a first feedstock having a lower ash content, and ultimately a biocarbon composition with a lower ash content. Despen teaches that ash is non-combustible, thereby indicating to one of ordinary skill in the art that a high ash content in the biocarbon composition is undesirable (paragraphs [0506]-[0508]).
Because the condenser liquid is obtained from a biomass pyrolysis process, it is understood that the condenser liquid is a bio-oil. Agblevor teaches that it is possible to obtain a bio-oil composition having merely 0.05 wt% ash (table 3, paragraph [0043]). Examiner notes that an ash content of merely 0.05 wt% can be fairly considered to be “essentially no ash” by one of ordinary skill in the art. Despen teaches that ash is non-combustible, thereby indicating to one of ordinary skill in the art that a high ash content in the biocarbon composition is undesirable (paragraphs [0506]-[0508]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify Despen in view of Agblevor by carrying out the process to form a condenser liquid comprising at most 0.1 wt% ash (e.g. 0.05 wt% ash), in order to ultimately obtain a biocarbon composition having a desirably low ash content.
With regard to claim 57: Modified Despen is silent to the condenser liquid comprising essentially no ash.
However, a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would be advantageous for the condenser liquid to have a low ash content because, as discussed in the rejection of claim 1 above, the condenser liquid is combined with the second feedstock (biomass) to form the first feedstock (a combination of biomass and the condenser liquid). Thus, a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a lower ash content in the condenser liquid will result in a first feedstock having a lower ash content, and ultimately a biocarbon composition with a lower ash content. Despen teaches that ash is non-combustible, thereby indicating to one of ordinary skill in the art that a high ash content in the biocarbon composition is undesirable (paragraphs [0506]-[0508]).
Because the condenser liquid is obtained from a biomass pyrolysis process, it is understood that the condenser liquid is a bio-oil. Agblevor teaches that it is possible to obtain a bio-oil composition having merely 0.05 wt% ash (table 3, paragraph [0043]). Examiner notes that an ash content of merely 0.05 wt% can be fairly considered to be “essentially no ash” by one of ordinary skill in the art. Despen teaches that ash is non-combustible, thereby indicating to one of ordinary skill in the art that a high ash content in the biocarbon composition is undesirable (paragraphs [0506]-[0508]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify Despen in view of Agblevor by carrying out the process to form a condenser liquid comprising essentially no ash, e.g. by using an ash free feedstock, in order to ultimately obtain a biocarbon composition having a desirably low ash content.
With regard to claims 58-60: Modified Despen teaches that in some embodiments substantially all of the carbon can in the biocarbon composition can be renewable carbon (Despen: paragraphs [0198] and [0546]).
Modified Despen does not explicitly teach that the carbon is renewable “as determined from a measurement of the 14C/12C isotopic ratio of the carbon. However, Despen indicates the following:
“Carbonaceous materials commonly include fossil resources such as natural gas, petroleum, coal, and lignite; and renewable resources such as lignocellulosic biomass and various carbon-rich waste materials,” (paragraph [0004]).
“biomass is the only renewable source of carbon,” (paragraph [0005]).
“For present purposes, "biogenic" is intended to mean a material (whether a feedstock, product, or intermediate) that contains an element, such as carbon, that is renewable on time scales of months, years, or decades. Non-biogenic materials may be non-renewable, or may be renewable on time scales of centuries, thousands of years, millions of years, or even longer geologic time scales. Note that a biogenic material may include a mixture of biogenic and non-biogenic sources,” (paragraph [0222]).
“In certain embodiments, the fixed carbon may be classified as non-renewable carbon (e.g., from coal) while the volatile carbon, which may be added separately, may be renewable carbon to increase not only energy content but also renewable carbon value,” (paragraph [0547]).
Together all of these teachings indicate that Despen is using the term “renewable” to refer to carbon which is from biomass (e.g. wood) and NOT fossilized biomass (e.g. coal). It is understood that one could determine whether or not a biomass is a fossilized biomass by carbon dating said biomass. Carbon dating is a process which determines the age of a material by measuring the carbon-14 content of said material. Older materials will have a lower carbon-14 content, and therefore, a lower 14C/12C isotopic ratio. Thus, “renewable”, i.e. non-fossilized, biomass such as wood could be distinguished from “non-renewable”, i.e. fossilized, biomass such as coal in terms of 14C/12C isotopic ratio, with renewable biomass having a 14C/12C isotopic ratio above a certain threshold, and non-renewable biomass having 14C/12C isotopic ratio below said certain threshold.
Because the teachings of Despen point to the term “renewable” as being used to refer to non-fossilized biomass, it is understood that, when Despen teaches that in some embodiments, substantially all of the carbon can in the biocarbon composition can be renewable carbon (paragraphs [0198] and [0546]), Despen is effectively teaching that in some embodiments, substantially all of the carbon in the biocarbon composition is from a non-fossilized biomass. Thus, it is understood that in some embodiments of Despen, the carbon in the biocarbon composition is fully renewable as determined from a measurement of the 14C/12C isotopic ratio of the carbon.
In the unlikely alternative, the teachings of Despen (see above) at least suggest forming a biocarbon composition having a carbon content that is fully renewable as determined from a measurement of the 14C/12C isotopic ratio of the carbon. Furthermore, Despen teaches that “There may be certain market mechanisms (e.g., Renewable Identification Numbers, tax credits, etc.) wherein value is attributed to the renewable carbon content within the high-carbon biogenic reagent,” (paragraph [0546]), thereby suggesting that there are certain advantages to the biogenic reagent being comprised fully of carbon.
If it were not already the case in modified Despen, it would have bene obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Despen so as to yield a biocarbon composition having a carbon content that is fully renewable as determined from a measurement of the 14C/12C isotopic ratio of the carbon, in order to obtain biocarbon pellets having value that is attributed to a high renewable carbon content.
With regard to claim 65: Modified Despen does not explicitly teach that the pellets are characterized as non-self-heating when subjected to a self-heating test according to Manual of Tests and Criteria, Seventh revised edition 2019, United Nations, Page 375, 33.4.6 Test N.4: "Test method for self-heating substances". However, the method of modified Despen is identical to that of claim 65, i.e. modified Despen’s method anticipates all of the active method steps of claim 65. Therefore, the biocarbon pellet product of modified Despen’s method necessarily has the same properties as the biocarbon product produced by the method of claim 65. Thus, the biocarbon pellets of modified Despen are necessarily characterized as non-self-heating when subjected to a self-heating test according to Manual of Tests and Criteria, Seventh revised edition 2019, United Nations, Page 375, 33.4.6 Test N.4: "Test method for self-heating substances".
With regard to claim 66: The biocarbon composition in modified Despen is recovered in the form of a pellet, i.e. following the step of pelletizing the biogenic reagent in which the biocarbon composition (high-carbon biogenic reagent) is formed into a pellet (See 103 rejection of claims 1, 3, and 13 and rejection of claim 66 above).
With regard to claim 70: Modified Despen does not explicitly teach that the biocarbon pellets have an average Hardgrove Grindability Index of at least 30. However, the method of modified Despen is identical to that of claim 70, i.e. modified Despen’s method anticipates all of the active method steps of claim 70. Therefore, the biocarbon pellet product of modified Despen’s method necessarily has the same properties as the biocarbon pellet product produced by the method of claim 70. Thus, the biocarbon pellets of modified Despen necessarily have an average Hardgrove Grindability Index of at least 30.
With regard to claim 71: Modified Despen does not explicitly teach that the biocarbon pellets have an average Hardgrove Grindability Index of at least 50. However, the method of modified Despen is identical to that of claim 71, i.e. modified Despen’s method anticipates all of the active method steps of claim 71. Therefore, the biocarbon pellet product of modified Despen’s method necessarily has the same properties as the biocarbon pellet product produced by the method of claim 71. Thus, the biocarbon pellets of modified Despen necessarily have an average Hardgrove Grindability Index of at least 50.
With regard to claim 72: Modified Despen does not explicitly teach that the biocarbon pellets have an average Hardgrove Grindability Index of at least 70. However, the method of modified Despen is identical to that of claim 72, i.e. modified Despen’s method anticipates all of the active method steps of claim 72. Therefore, the biocarbon pellet product of modified Despen’s method necessarily has the same properties as the biocarbon pellet product produced by the method of claim 72. Thus, the biocarbon pellets of modified Despen necessarily have an average Hardgrove Grindability Index of at least 70.
With regard to claim 73: Modified Despen does not explicitly teach that the pellets are characterized by a pellet compressive strength at 25°C of at least 100 lbf/in2. However, the method of modified Despen is identical to that of claim 73, i.e. modified Despen’s method anticipates all of the active method steps of claim 73. Therefore, the biocarbon pellet product of modified Despen’s method necessarily has the same properties as the biocarbon pellet product produced by the method of claim 73. Thus, the biocarbon pellets of Despen necessarily characterized by a pellet compressive strength at 25°C of at least 100 lbf/in2.
With regard to claim 74: Modified Despen does not explicitly teach that the pellets are characterized by a pellet compressive strength at 25°C of at least 150 lbf/in2. However, the method of Despen is identical to that of claim 74, i.e. modified Despen’s method anticipates all of the active method steps of claim 74. Therefore, the biocarbon pellet product of modified Despen’s method necessarily has the same properties as the biocarbon pellet product produced by the method of claim 74. Thus, the biocarbon pellets of Despen necessarily characterized by a pellet compressive strength at 25°C of at least 150 lbf/in2.
Claim(s) 20, 42, 43, and 61-64 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Despen in view of Wretborn, Stafford, Agblevor, Brown, and Walty as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Marsh (US 2018/0208852).
With regard to claim 20: As discussed in the rejection of claims 1, 3, and 13 above, in modified Despen, the step of recovering the biogenic reagent as a biocarbon composition comprises recovering the biogenic reagent in the form of pellets obtained from the step of pelletizing the biogenic reagent (see rejection of claims 1, 3, and 13 above). Thus, in modified Despen, the biocarbon composition is in the form of a pellet.
Modified Despen is silent to drying the biocarbon composition after thermally treating.
However, a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would be advantageous for the biocarbon pellets to have a low water content. Specifically, a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a low water uptake is advantageous because the presence of water in the pellets will lower their value as a fuel, i.e. a greater moisture content will result in the pellets having a lower heating value. The teachings of Marsh affirm that it is desirable for biocarbon pellets to have a low water content by indicating that it is desirable for biocarbon pellets to be waterproof (abstract, paragraphs [0010], [0066], [0068], [0070], [0099]). It is noted that Marsh is drawn to a process for producing a pelletized biocarbon composition (abstract, Figure 3, paragraph [0110).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Despen in view of Marsh by drying the biocarbon composition after thermally treating in order to obtain advantageously dry pellets of biocarbon composition.
With regard to claim 42: Modified Despen does not explicitly teach oxidizing the condenser vapor to thereby generate heat.
However, Marsh teaches oxidizing in combustor 310 non-condensable gases from a condenser system for condensing pyrolysis vapor as well as off gas from a tar reheating step to generate heat for their process (Figure 3, paragraph [0110]). It is noted that Marsh is drawn to a process for producing a pelletized biocarbon composition (abstract, Figure 3, paragraph [0110). Thus, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation that it would possible to oxidize at least a portion of the condenser vapor to generate heat. Furthermore, a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would be advantageous to do so in order to recover energy from a byproduct (i.e. the condenser vapor) of the method.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Despen in view of Marsh by oxidizing the condenser vapor to generate heat in order to recover energy from a byproduct (i.e. the condenser vapor) of the method.
With regard to claim 43: Modified Despen does not explicitly teach oxidizing the off gas to generate heat.
However, as discussed above, the step of thermally treating is a step of pyrolysis, and therefore produces an off gas in the form of pyrolysis gas/vapor (see rejection of claims 1, 3, and 13 above). Furthermore, Despen suggests the use of a process gas heater for oxidizing pyrolysis gas/vapor (condensable vapors and non-condensable gases) (paragraphs [0436]). Likewise, Marsh teaches oxidizing in combustor 310 non-condensable gases from a condenser system for condensing pyrolysis vapor as well as off gas from a tar reheating step to generate heat for their process (Figure 3, paragraph [0110]). It is noted that Marsh is drawn to a process for producing a pelletized biocarbon composition (abstract, Figure 3, paragraph [0110). Thus, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation that it would possible to oxidize at least a portion of the off gas from the step of thermally treating to generate heat. Furthermore, a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would be advantageous to do so in order to recover energy from a byproduct (i.e. the off gas) of the method.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Despen in view of Marsh by oxidizing the off gas to generate heat in order to recover energy from a byproduct of the method (i.e. the off gas).
With regard to claim 61: The biocarbon composition in modified Despen is recovered in the form of a pellet, i.e. following the step of pelletizing the biogenic reagent (See 103 rejection of claims 1, 3, and 13 above).
Modified Despen is silent to the biocarbon composition having a bulk density of at least about 5 pounds per cubic foot on a dry basis.
However, a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it is advantageous for the bulk density of the pellets of the biocarbon composition to have a high bulk density, as pellets with a high bulk density will take up less space, and thus, will be easier to store and transport. Furthermore, a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that biocarbon pellets with a higher bulk density will have a higher energy density relative to otherwise identical pellets with a lower density. These advantages of higher density pellets are affirmed by the teachings of Marsh (paragraph [0005]). It is noted that Marsh is drawn to a process for producing a pelletized biocarbon composition (abstract, Figure 3, paragraph [0110). Marsh teaches that biocarbon composition pellets can be formed having a density of at least 830 kilograms per cubic meter (~ 52 pounds per cubic foot) (paragraph [0031]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Despen in view of Marsh by forming the biocarbon composition into biocarbon pellets having a bulk density of greater than 5 pounds per cubic foot (e.g. about 52 pounds per cubic foot) on a dry basis, in order to form advantageously dense biocarbon pellets which have a high energy density, and are easy to transport (relative to less dense pellets).
With regard to claim 62: The biocarbon composition in modified Despen is recovered in the form of a pellet, i.e. following the step of pelletizing the biogenic reagent (See 103 rejection of claims 1, 3, and 13 above).
Modified Despen is silent to the biocarbon composition having a bulk density of at least about 10 pounds per cubic foot on a dry basis.
However, a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it is advantageous for the bulk density of the pellets of the biocarbon composition to have a high bulk density, as pellets with a high bulk density will take up less space, and thus, will be easier to store and transport. Furthermore, a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that biocarbon pellets with a higher bulk density will have a higher energy density relative to otherwise identical pellets with a lower density. These advantages of higher density pellets are affirmed by the teachings of Marsh (paragraph [0005]). It is noted that Marsh is drawn to a process for producing a pelletized biocarbon composition (abstract, Figure 3, paragraph [0110). Marsh teaches that biocarbon composition pellets can be formed having a density of at least 830 kilograms per cubic meter (~ 52 pounds per cubic foot) (paragraph [0031]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Despen in view of Marsh by forming the biocarbon composition into biocarbon pellets having a bulk density of greater than 10 pounds per cubic foot (e.g. about 52 pounds per cubic foot) on a dry basis, in order to form advantageously dense biocarbon pellets which have a high energy density, and are easy to transport (relative to less dense pellets).
With regard to claim 63: The biocarbon composition in modified Despen is recovered in the form of a pellet, i.e. following the step of pelletizing the biogenic reagent (See 103 rejection of claims 1, 3, and 13 above).
Modified Despen is silent to the biocarbon composition having a bulk density of at least about 20 pounds per cubic foot on a dry basis.
However, a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it is advantageous for the bulk density of the pellets of the biocarbon composition to have a high bulk density, as pellets with a high bulk density will take up less space, and thus, will be easier to store and transport. Furthermore, a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that biocarbon pellets with a higher bulk density will have a higher energy density relative to otherwise identical pellets with a lower density. These advantages of higher density pellets are affirmed by the teachings of Marsh (paragraph [0005]). It is noted that Marsh is drawn to a process for producing a pelletized biocarbon composition (abstract, Figure 3, paragraph [0110). Marsh teaches that biocarbon composition pellets can be formed having a density of at least 830 kilograms per cubic meter (~ 52 pounds per cubic foot) (paragraph [0031]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Despen in view of Marsh by forming the biocarbon composition into biocarbon pellets having a bulk density of greater than 20 pounds per cubic foot (e.g. about 52 pounds per cubic foot) on a dry basis, in order to form advantageously dense biocarbon pellets which have a high energy density, and are easy to transport (relative to less dense pellets).
With regard to claim 64: The biocarbon composition in modified Despen is recovered in the form of a pellet, i.e. following the step of pelletizing the biogenic reagent (See 103 rejection of claims 1, 3, and 13 above).
Modified Despen is silent to the pellets of biocarbon composition being characterized by at most 20% water uptake at 25 °C after 24 hours of soaking in water.
However, a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would be advantageous for the biocarbon pellets to have a low water uptake. Specifically, a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a low water uptake is advantageous because the presence of water in the pellets will lower their value as a fuel, i.e. a greater moisture content will result in the pellets having a lower heating value. The teachings of Marsh affirm that it is desirable for biocarbon pellets to have a low water uptake by indicating that it is desirable for biocarbon pellets to be waterproof (abstract, paragraphs [0010], [0066], [0068], [0070], [0099]).
Marsh teaches biocarbon pellets which are characterized by water uptake below 20% after 36 hours of soaking in water (Table 6, paragraphs [0161]-[0162]). This teaching by Marsh would indicate to one of ordinary skill in the art that it is possible to make pellets of biocarbon composition characterized by at most 20% water uptake at 25 °C after 24 hours of soaking in water. It is noted that Marsh is drawn to a process for producing a pelletized biocarbon composition (abstract, Figure 3, paragraph [0110).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Despen in view of Marsh by forming the biocarbon composition into biocarbon pellets characterized by at most 20% water uptake at 25 °C after 24 hours of soaking in water, in order to obtain biocarbon pellets which have an advantageously low water uptake.
Claim(s) 45 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Despen in view of Wretborn, Stafford, Agblevor, Brown, and Walty as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Stinson et al. (US 2011/0099887), hereafter referred to as Stinson.
With regard to claim 45: Despen is silent to the step of pelletizing the biogenic reagent using a pelletizing apparatus selected from an extruder, a ring die pellet mill, a flat die pellet mill, a roll compactor, a roll briquetter, a wet agglomeration mill, a dry agglomeration mill, or a combination thereof.
However, a person having ordinary skill in the art would expect that the said step would need to be carried out using a pelletizing apparatus of some sort. Furthermore, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation that most pelletizing apparatus would be suitable for milling the biogenic reagent. Further still, the selection of pelletizing apparatus for pelletizing a particular material is well within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Additionally, Stinson teaches a method of forming charcoal pellets (briquettes) (abstract). Stinson teaches that charcoal pellets (briquettes) can be formed by roll pressing or extruding (paragraph [0012]), thus indicating that roll compactors and extruders are suitable devices for use as pelletizing apparatus in formation of charcoal pellets. The biogenic reagent in modified Despen is charcoal, i.e. pyrolyzed/carbonized biomass (paragraphs [0495]-[0502]). Thus, a person having ordinary skill in the art would understand that roll compactors and extruders are both suitable pelletizing apparatus for use in Despen.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Despen in view of Stinson by carrying out the pelletizing of the biogenic reagent utilizing a pelletizing apparatus in the form of a roll compactor or an extruder to carry out pelletizing in Despen, in order to obtain a method wherein pelletizing carried out with predictable success.
Claim(s) 67-69 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Despen in view of Wretborn, Stafford, Agblevor, Brown, and Walty as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Marsh (US 2018/0208852).
With regard to claim 67: The biocarbon composition in modified Despen is recovered in the form of a pellet, i.e. following the step of pelletizing the biogenic reagent (See 103 rejection of claims 1, 3, and 13 and rejection of claim 66 above).
Modified Despen is silent to the biocarbon composition in the form of a pellet having a bulk density of at least about 10 pounds per cubic foot on a dry basis.
However, a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it is advantageous for the bulk density of the pellets of the biocarbon composition to have a high bulk density, as pellets with a high bulk density will take up less space, and thus, will be easier to store and transport. Furthermore, a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that biocarbon pellets with a higher bulk density will have a higher energy density relative to otherwise identical pellets with a lower density. These advantages of higher density pellets are affirmed by the teachings of Marsh (paragraph [0005]). It is noted that Marsh is drawn to a process for producing a pelletized biocarbon composition (abstract, Figure 3, paragraph [0110). Marsh teaches that biocarbon composition pellets can be formed having a density of at least 830 kilograms per cubic meter (~ 52 pounds per cubic foot) (paragraph [0031]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Despen in view of Marsh by forming the biocarbon composition into biocarbon pellets having a bulk density of greater than 10 pounds per cubic foot (e.g. about 52 pounds per cubic foot) on a dry basis, in order to form advantageously dense biocarbon pellets which have a high energy density, and are easy to transport (relative to less dense pellets).
With regard to claim 68: The biocarbon composition in modified Despen is recovered in the form of a pellet, i.e. following the step of pelletizing the biogenic reagent (See 103 rejection of claims 1, 3, and 13 and rejection of claim 66 above).
Modified Despen is silent to the biocarbon composition in the form of a pellet having a bulk density of at least about 25 pounds per cubic foot on a dry basis.
However, a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it is advantageous for the bulk density of the pellets of the biocarbon composition to have a high bulk density, as pellets with a high bulk density will take up less space, and thus, will be easier to store and transport. Furthermore, a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that biocarbon pellets with a higher bulk density will have a higher energy density relative to otherwise identical pellets with a lower density. These advantages of higher density pellets are affirmed by the teachings of Marsh (paragraph [0005]). It is noted that Marsh is drawn to a process for producing a pelletized biocarbon composition (abstract, Figure 3, paragraph [0110). Marsh teaches that biocarbon composition pellets can be formed having a density of at least 830 kilograms per cubic meter (~ 52 pounds per cubic foot) (paragraph [0031]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Despen in view of Marsh by forming the biocarbon composition into biocarbon pellets having a bulk density of greater than 25 pounds per cubic foot (e.g. about 52 pounds per cubic foot) on a dry basis, in order to form advantageously dense biocarbon pellets which have a high energy density, and are easy to transport (relative to less dense pellets).
With regard to claim 69: The biocarbon composition in modified Despen is recovered in the form of a pellet, i.e. following the step of pelletizing the biogenic reagent (See 103 rejection of claims 1, 3, and 13 and rejection of claim 66 above).
Modified Despen is silent to the biocarbon composition in the form of a pellet having a bulk density of at least about 35 pounds per cubic foot on a dry basis.
However, a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it is advantageous for the bulk density of the pellets of the biocarbon composition to have a high bulk density, as pellets with a high bulk density will take up less space, and thus, will be easier to store and transport. Furthermore, a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that biocarbon pellets with a higher bulk density will have a higher energy density relative to otherwise identical pellets with a lower density. These advantages of higher density pellets are affirmed by the teachings of Marsh (paragraph [0005]). It is noted that Marsh is drawn to a process for producing a pelletized biocarbon composition (abstract, Figure 3, paragraph [0110). Marsh teaches that biocarbon composition pellets can be formed having a density of at least 830 kilograms per cubic meter (~ 52 pounds per cubic foot) (paragraph [0031]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Despen in view of Marsh by forming the biocarbon composition into biocarbon pellets having a bulk density of greater than 35 pounds per cubic foot (e.g. about 52 pounds per cubic foot) on a dry basis, in order to form advantageously dense biocarbon pellets which have a high energy density, and are easy to transport (relative to less dense pellets).
Claim(s) 1-6, 7-10, 12-13, 18-34, 36-46, 50-54, and 56-74 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wretborn (“Pyrolysis of Wood Chips : Influence of Pyrolysis Conditions on Charcoal Yield and Charcoal Reactivity”), in view of Brown (US 8,476,480), Despen (US 2012/0285080), and Agblevor (US 2009/0031616).
With regard to claims 1, 2, 8, 9, 21, 50, 51: Wretborn teaches a process for producing a biocarbon composition, the process comprising:
Pyrolyzing in a first pyrolysis reactor, a first feedstock, thereby generating a biogenic reagent (charcoal) and a pyrolysis vapor (Figure 4, section 4.1.1, section 5.3.3, Table 1, Figure 8, Section 6.1.3, Figure 14).
Condensing, using a condenser, the pyrolysis vapor, thereby generating a condenser liquid and a condenser vapor (Figure 4, section 4.1.1, section 5.3.3, Table 1, Figure 8, Section 6.1.3, Figure 14).
Contacting a second feedstock with the condenser liquid, wherein the second feedstock comprises biomass (woodchips), thereby generating the first feedstock, wherein the first feedstock comprises the second feedstock and the condenser liquid, and wherein the first feedstock comprises the condenser liquid disposed on a surface of the biomass (Figure 4, section 4.1.1, section 5.3.3, Table 1, Figure 8, Section 6.1.3, Figure 14).
And after the pyrolysis, recovering the biogenic reagent (charcoal) as the biocarbon composition (a charcoal product) (Figure 4, section 4.1.1, section 5.3.3, Table 1, Figure 8, Section 6.1.3, Figure 14).
Wretborn does not explicitly describe the condenser liquid disposed on the surface of the biomass as being “adsorbed” on said surface. However, Examiner notes that the term “adsorbed” merely refers to one substance being adhered to a surface of another. Thus, for the first feedstock to comprise the condenser liquid adsorbed onto a surface of the biomass, all that is required is for a portion of the condenser liquid to be adhered to a surface of the biomass. With the forgoing in mind, it is understood that contacting a condenser liquid with a second feedstock (i.e. biomass) to form a first feedstock, will necessarily result in at least a portion of said condenser liquid being adhered to, and thus adsorbed onto, one or more surfaces of the biomass. Evidence that condenser liquid necessarily adsorbs into can be found in at least at least the following portions of Wretborn:
Figure 8, which shows condenser liquid (bio-oil) adhered to (and thus adsorbed onto) a surface of biomass to which it has been applied;
Figure 14, which shows biomass (a wood chip) adhered to (and thus adsorbed onto) a surface of biomass to which it has been applied. Furthermore, the caption of Figure 14 describes the biomass therein as having a surface that has been “saturated” with condenser liquid (bio-oil). Because the surface is “saturated” with condenser liquid, it is understood that at least a portion of said condenser liquid is adhered to (and thus adsorbed onto) said surface.
Section 6.1.3, which describes biomass (wood chips) impregnated with condenser liquid (bio-oil) as having condenser liquid saturating the surfaces thereof. Because the surfaces are “saturated” with condenser liquid, it is understood that at least a portion of said condenser liquid is adhered to (and thus adsorbed onto) said surfaces.
In view of the above, Wretborn’s step of contacting the second feedstock with the condenser liquid necessarily results in the condenser liquid being adsorbed onto a surface of the biomass in the second feedstock.
If, for the sake of argument, adhesion (and thus absorption) does not necessarily result from contacting a condenser liquid and a biomass feedstock, Wretborn teaches contacting condenser liquid (bio-oil) with a biomass feedstock in a manner which involves applying the condenser liquid to at least one surface of the biomass (Section 5.3.3, Section 6.1.3, Figures 8 and 14). In doing so, at least a portion of the condenser liquid adsorbs onto the surface(s) of the biomass, as is evident from Figures 8 and 14 and Section 6.1.3 (see detailed discussion above). Thus, Wretborn at least suggests that one can suitably generate mixed feedstock of (wood impregnated with bio-oil) in a manner which results in adsorption of the condenser liquid onto said surface(s).
Accordingly, if adsorption of the condenser liquid does not necessarily occur in Wretborn, then it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Wretborn in view of Wretborn’s own teachings/suggestions by contacting the second feedstock and the condenser liquid in a manner which results in adsorption of the condenser liquid onto the surface of the biomass, in order to obtain a method of impregnating biomass with condenser liquid (bio-oil) congruent with the teachings/suggestions of Wretborn.
Wretborn is silent to the condenser comprising multiple condenser stages.
However, it is known in the art to provide a condenser with multiple condenser stages. For example, Brown teaches a pyrolysis method which comprises the use of a condenser comprising multiple stages to fractionally condense bio oil (abstract, Column 3). Brown teaches that out of five condenser stages, the first four generate fractions which are mostly bio-oil, whereas the fifth and final stage generates a fraction that is mostly water (Figures 3-7, Column 10 Line 29-Column 11 line 55). In view of Brown’s teachings, a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a condenser having multiple condenser stages could be used to obtain multiple fractions from the first few condenser stages, said multiple fractions being comprised of mostly organic (carbonaceous) liquid suitable for combination with one another and use as tarry condenser liquid in the method of Wretborn, as well as a watery fraction from the final stage of the multiple condenser stages, said watery fraction containing a large percentage of water contained within a pyrolysis vapor being condensed in the condenser, to thereby obtain a low water condenser liquid.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Wretborn in view of Brown by configuring the condenser to be a multi-stage condenser comprising a plurality of condenser stages, wherein the multi-stage condenser produces the condenser liquid as a condensed product of the first few condenser stages (i.e. a plurality of the condenser stages), and wherein the multi-stage condenser produces a watery condensed fraction from the final condenser stage which is not used as the condenser liquid, such that the condenser liquid is ultimately formed as a condensed product of a plurality of stages of the multiple condenser stages wherein said plurality of stages of the multiple condenser stages does not include the final stage of the multiple condenser stages, in order to obtain a method wherein the condenser produces a low water condenser liquid, i.e. a condenser liquid having a low water content.
Modified Wretborn is silent to a step of pyrolyzing the biogenic reagent in a second pyrolysis reactor utilizing an internal oxygen-free environment and an inert gas at a temperature of at least about 250 °C to create a biocarbon composition comprising a fixed carbon content of at least 70 wt%.
However, the biogenic reagent and biocarbon composition in Wretborn is charcoal (Figure 4, section 4.1.1, section 5.3.3, Table 1, Figure 8, Section 6.1.3, Figure 14).
Wretborn teaches: “High quality charcoal is characterized by high carbon content and low volatile matter, properties best achieved in high pyrolysis temperatures where the yield is low. It is therefore desired to find methods how to produce charcoal with high yield and high carbon content,” (Section 3.2.2). Elsewhere, Wretborn teaches: “Charcoal produced at low temperature has less wt% fixed carbon and contains more volatile matter compared to charcoal produced at higher temperatures, 500-800 °C,” (section 3.2.1.1). When these teachings are taken in combination, it becomes clear that high quality charcoal is characterized by a high fixed carbon content. Thus, a person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to maximize fixed carbon content in the charcoal product of Wretborn in order to produce a high-quality charcoal product.
Despen is drawn to “processes and systems for converting biomass into high-carbon biogenic reagents that are suitable for a variety of commercial applications,” (abstract). Despen is particularly concerned with producing high-carbon biogenic reagents with high fixed carbon contents (paragraphs [0071], [0127], [0135], [0256]). Despen teaches that a “trimming reactor” can be utilized to further pyrolyze material which has already been pyrolyzed in a different reactor in order to create a product with higher fixed carbon levels, wherein said “trimming reactor” operates with an inert gas introduced to its interior (paragraph [0256]). It is understood that said “trimming reactor” is a pyrolysis reactor, as it carries out a pyrolysis reaction.
It is understood that such the trimming reactor utilizes an internal oxygen-free environment, on account of the inert gas introduced to its interior. In the alternative, Despen’s teaching to the use of inert gas at least suggests that the trimming reactor be operated with an internal oxygen free environment. Indeed, it is notoriously well understood that pyrolysis must be carried out in an oxygen free environment, or at least an oxygen deficient environment. Attempting to carry out pyrolysis in an oxygen containing environment will result in the material to be pyrolysed combusting rather than pyrolysing. Despen’s disclosure affirms this notoriously well understood fact and teaches operating pyrolysis reactors (e.g. the “BPU”) such that they are “substantially free of molecular oxygen in the gas phase” (paragraphs [0335]-[0337]).
As for reactor temperature, it is notoriously well understood that temperature is a result effective variable in pyrolysis. Indeed, Wretborn’s teachings show that pyrolysis temperature is a result effective variable which impacts the quality of charcoal produced (section 3.2.1.1, section 3.2.2). Furthermore, Despen at least suggests that pyrolysis should be conducted at a temperature of at least 250 °C (paragraph [0015]), and the teachings of Wretborn indicate that temperatures significantly higher than 250 °C, i.e. temperature of 500-800 °C would be desirable for the purposes of attaining high-quality charcoal (section 3.2.1.1) "[When] 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," (see MPEP 2144.05 II A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Wretborn in view of Despen by adding a step of pyrolyzing the biogenic reagent in a second pyrolysis reactor utilizing an internal oxygen-free environment and an inert gas at a temperature of at least about 250 °C, in order to increase the fixed carbon content of the biogenic reagent (charcoal) and thereby create a biocarbon composition comprising a high percentage of fixed carbon, i.e. a high-quality (or higher-quality) charcoal product.
As for the fixed carbon content of the biocarbon composition being at least 70 wt%, Examiner reiterates that a person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to maximize fixed carbon content in the charcoal product of Wretborn in order to produce a high-quality charcoal product.
Despen teaches that their processes are capable of producing products having fixed carbon contents of at least 95 wt % fixed carbon (paragraph [0071]). To reiterate, the “trimming reactor” suggested by Despen serves to pyrolyze an already pyrolyzed material to increase the fixed carbon content thereof (paragraph [0256]). Thus, in view of Despen, a person of ordinary skill would expect that the pyrolysis process of Wretborn could be optimized to yield charcoal having a fixed carbon content of at least 95%, and that addition of a second pyrolysis reactor (i.e. a “trimming reactor” like that suggested by Despen) would aid in attaining such a fixed carbon content.
As discussed above, Despen’s disclosure indicates that one could increase fixed carbon content by adding a trimming reactor (paragraph [0256]). Despen’s disclosure also indicates that one can increase fixed carbon content by increasing residence (retention) time and pyrolysis temperature, and by decreasing the particle size of feed material (Figures 14-16, paragraphs [0213]-[0215]). Furthermore, Wretborn’s disclosure at least suggests that fixed carbon content can be increased by using higher pyrolysis temperature (section 3.2.1.1). Thus, the disclosure of Despen and Wretborn provide ample guidance to allow one of ordinary skill in the art to maximize fixed carbon content of a charcoal product.
"[When] 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," (see MPEP 2144.05 II A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Wretborn in view of Despen by optimizing the process of Wretborn so yield a biocarbon composition (charcoal) having a fixed carbon content of at least 95 wt%., in order to obtain method which yields a charcoal product of very high quality.
In Wretborn modified in view of Despen as described above, pyrolyzing the biogenic reagent in the second pyrolysis reactor necessarily generates an off-gas, i.e. a pyrolysis gas and/or vapor.
Modified Wretborn is silent to said off-gas from the second pyrolysis reactor being recycled to the condenser.
However, Wretborn makes it clear that a pyrolysis vapor can be supplied to a condenser, and subsequently condensed to form a condenser liquid which can then be blended with a feedstock prior to pyrolysis (Wretborn: abstract, Section 5.1.2, sections 4.1 and 4.1.1, Figure 4, Section 7). Because the off gas from the second pyrolysis reactor is a pyrolysis gas, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation that it would possible to introduce at least a portion of the off gas (which is a pyrolysis vapor) from the second pyrolysis reactor to the condenser system to generate additional condenser liquid therefrom.
In addition, a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that introducing at least a portion of the off gas from the second pyrolysis reactor to condenser system so as to condense at least a portion of said off-gas would advantageously allow for at least a portion of said off gas to be recovered and further utilized as additional condenser liquid.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Wretborn by introducing the off gas from the second pyrolysis reactor to the condenser to generate additional condenser liquid therefrom.
Modified Wretborn is silent to the condenser liquid comprising at most 1 wt% ash.
However, a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would be advantageous for the condenser liquid to have a low ash content because, as discussed above, the condenser liquid in Wretborn is combined with the second feedstock (biomass) to form the first feedstock (a combination of biomass and the condenser liquid). Thus, a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a lower ash content in the condenser liquid will result in a first feedstock having a lower ash content, and ultimately a biocarbon composition with a lower ash content. Despen’s disclosure teaches that ash is non-combustible, thereby indicating to one of ordinary skill in the art that a high ash content in the biocarbon composition is undesirable (paragraphs [0506]-[0508]).
The condenser liquid in Wretborn is bio-oil (section 5.3.3). Agblevor teaches that it is possible to obtain a bio-oil composition having merely 0.05 wt% ash (table 3, paragraph [0043]). Examiner notes that an ash content of merely 0.05 wt% can be fairly considered to be “essentially no ash” by one of ordinary skill in the art.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify Wretborn in view of Despen and Agblevor by carrying out the process to form a condenser liquid comprising at most 1 wt% ash (e.g. 0.05 wt% ash), in order to ultimately obtain a biocarbon composition having a desirably low ash content.
With regard to claim 12: The first feedstock further comprises condenser liquid absorbed into a bulk phase of the biomass (Wretborn: Figure 14, section 6.1.3).
With regard to claim 18: Modified Wretborn does not teach that the thermally treating comprises operating under a vacuum.
Despen teaches vacuum operation to draw volatiles out of the system quickly (paragraph [0360]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Wretborn in view of Despen by operating the second pyrolysis reactor under a vacuum, in order to draw volatiles (off gas) out of the second pyrolysis reactor quickly.
With regard to claim 19: In modified Wretborn, the pyrolysis in the second pyrolysis reactor necessarily comprises drying any moisture present in the biogenic reagent on account of the high temperature (above 250 °C) maintained in the second pyrolysis reactor.
With regard to claim 22: Modified Wretborn is silent to the first pyrolysis reactor and the second pyrolysis reactors being the same reactor, wherein the pyrolyzing and the thermally treating are conducted at different times.
However, a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize said option as advantageous because it would remove the need for multiple pyrolysis units, thus reducing the initial capital required to enact Wretborn’s process.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Wretborn by configuring the first pyrolysis reactor and the second pyrolysis reactor to be the same reactor, such that the pyrolyzing and the thermally treating are not conducted simultaneously, i.e. such that the pyrolyzing and the thermally treating are conducted at different times, in order to reduce the initial capital required to enact Wretborn’s process.
In modified Wretborn, because the first pyrolysis reactor and the second pyrolysis reactor are the same reactor, the first pyrolysis reactor and the second pyrolysis reactor are the same unit.
With regard to claim 23: Modified Wretborn does not explicitly teach that at least 25 wt% of the total carbon comprised within the condenser liquid is converted to fixed carbon within the biogenic reagent.
However, as discussed above, it is understood that at least some of the total carbon content in the condenser liquid will be converted to fixed carbon within the biogenic reagent via the step of pyrolyzing. As evidence, Examiner points to: 1) paragraph [0348] of Despen which discusses pyrolysis of liquid carbon containing components condensed from the gas phase to form additional fixed carbon; and 2) paragraph [0310] of Despen which points out that “carbon-containing components that are in the gas phase can decompose to form additional fixed carbon”.
Furthermore, Despen teaches that the fixed carbon content of the biocarbon composition can be manipulated by manipulating various process conditions (Despen: Figures 14-16, Paragraphs [0213]-[0215], [0256], [0278], [0310], [0330], [0334], [0348]). Furthermore, Despen teaches that it is possible to obtain high-quality carbon compositions having a high fraction of fixed carbon from his method (paragraph [0324]). Despen further teaches that an increase in energy content can be achieved by an increase in the fixed carbon (paragraph [0384]), thereby providing clear indication that higher fixed carbon contents are advantageous.
In view of the above, a person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to maximize the extent to which total carbon in the condenser liquid is converted to fixed carbon in the biogenic reagent. "[When] 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," (see MPEP 2144.05 II A).
If it were not already the case within modified Wretborn, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Wretborn in view of Despen by configuring the method of Wretborn such that at least 25 wt% of the total carbon comprised within the condenser liquid is converted to fixed carbon within the biogenic reagent, in order maximize the fixed carbon content in the biogenic reagent so as to obtain a biocarbon composition having an increased energy content.
With regard to claim 23: It is understood that, in modified Wretborn, the total carbon content in the condenser liquid is added to the total carbon comprised within the biogenic reagent, i.e. by pyrolyzing the first feedstock comprised of the second feedstock (biomass) and the condenser liquid, modified Wretborn adds at least some of the total carbon content in the condenser liquid to the biogenic reagent formed from the first feedstock. Furthermore, it is understood that at least some of the total carbon content in the condenser liquid will be converted to fixed carbon within the biogenic reagent via the step of pyrolyzing. As evidence, Examiner points to: 1) paragraph [0348] of Despen which discusses pyrolysis of liquid carbon containing components condensed from the gas phase to form additional fixed carbon; and 2) paragraph [0310] of Despen which points out that “carbon-containing components that are in the gas phase can decompose to form additional fixed carbon”.
Modified Wretborn does not explicitly teach that at least 25 wt% of the total carbon comprised within the condenser liquid is converted to fixed carbon within the biogenic reagent.
However, as discussed above, it is understood that at least some of the total carbon content in the condenser liquid will be converted to fixed carbon within the biogenic reagent via the step of pyrolyzing. As evidence, Examiner points to: 1) paragraph [0348] of Despen which discusses pyrolysis of liquid carbon containing components condensed from the gas phase to form additional fixed carbon; and 2) paragraph [0310] of Despen which points out that “carbon-containing components that are in the gas phase can decompose to form additional fixed carbon”.
Furthermore, Despen teaches that the fixed carbon content of the biocarbon composition can be manipulated by manipulating various process conditions (Despen: Figures 14-16, Paragraphs [0213]-[0215], [0256], [0278], [0310], [0330], [0334], [0348]). Furthermore, Despen teaches that it is possible to obtain high-quality carbon compositions having a high fraction of fixed carbon from his method (paragraph [0324]). Despen further teaches that an increase in energy content can be achieved by an increase in the fixed carbon (paragraph [0384]), thereby providing clear indication that higher fixed carbon contents are advantageous.
In view of the above, a person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to maximize the extent to which total carbon in the condenser liquid is converted to fixed carbon in the biogenic reagent. "[When] 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," (see MPEP 2144.05 II A).
If it were not already the case within modified Wretborn, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Wretborn in view of Despen by configuring the method of Wretborn such that at least 25 wt% of the total carbon comprised within the condenser liquid is converted to fixed carbon within the biogenic reagent, in order maximize the fixed carbon content in the biogenic reagent so as to obtain a biocarbon composition having an increased energy content.
With regard to claim 24: It is understood that, in modified Wretborn, the total carbon content in the condenser liquid is added to the total carbon comprised within the biogenic reagent, i.e. by pyrolyzing the first feedstock comprised of the second feedstock (biomass) and the condenser liquid, modified Wretborn adds at least some of the total carbon content in the condenser liquid to the biogenic reagent formed from the first feedstock. Furthermore, it is understood that at least some of the total carbon content in the condenser liquid will be converted to fixed carbon within the biogenic reagent via the step of pyrolyzing. As evidence, Examiner points to: 1) paragraph [0348] of Despen which discusses pyrolysis of liquid carbon containing components condensed from the gas phase to form additional fixed carbon; and 2) paragraph [0310] of Despen which points out that “carbon-containing components that are in the gas phase can decompose to form additional fixed carbon”.
Modified Wretborn does not explicitly teach that at least 50 wt% of the total carbon comprised within the condenser liquid is converted to fixed carbon within the biogenic reagent.
However, as discussed above, it is understood that at least some of the total carbon content in the condenser liquid will be converted to fixed carbon within the biogenic reagent via the step of pyrolyzing. As evidence, Examiner points to: 1) paragraph [0348] of Despen which discusses pyrolysis of liquid carbon containing components condensed from the gas phase to form additional fixed carbon; and 2) paragraph [0310] of Despen which points out that “carbon-containing components that are in the gas phase can decompose to form additional fixed carbon”.
Furthermore, Despen teaches that the fixed carbon content of the biocarbon composition can be manipulated by manipulating various process conditions (Despen: Figures 14-16, Paragraphs [0213]-[0215], [0256], [0278], [0310], [0330], [0334], [0348]). Furthermore, Despen teaches that it is possible to obtain high-quality carbon compositions having a high fraction of fixed carbon from his method (paragraph [0324]). Despen further teaches that an increase in energy content can be achieved by an increase in the fixed carbon (paragraph [0384]), thereby providing clear indication that higher fixed carbon contents are advantageous.
In view of the above, a person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to maximize the extent to which total carbon in the condenser liquid is converted to fixed carbon in the biogenic reagent. "[When] 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," (see MPEP 2144.05 II A).
If it were not already the case within modified Wretborn, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Wretborn in view of Despen by configuring the method of Wretborn such that at least 50 wt% of the total carbon comprised within the condenser liquid is converted to fixed carbon within the biogenic reagent, in order maximize the fixed carbon content in the biogenic reagent so as to obtain a biocarbon composition having an increased energy content.
With regard to claim 25: It is understood that, in modified Wretborn, the total carbon content in the condenser liquid is added to the total carbon comprised within the biogenic reagent, i.e. by pyrolyzing the first feedstock comprised of the second feedstock (biomass) and the condenser liquid, modified Wretborn adds at least some of the total carbon content in the condenser liquid to the biogenic reagent formed from the first feedstock. Furthermore, it is understood that at least some of the total carbon content in the condenser liquid will be converted to fixed carbon within the biogenic reagent via the step of pyrolyzing. As evidence, Examiner points to: 1) paragraph [0348] of Despen which discusses pyrolysis of liquid carbon containing components condensed from the gas phase to form additional fixed carbon; and 2) paragraph [0310] of Despen which points out that “carbon-containing components that are in the gas phase can decompose to form additional fixed carbon”.
Modified Wretborn does not explicitly teach that at least 75 wt% of the total carbon comprised within the condenser liquid is converted to fixed carbon within the biogenic reagent.
However, as discussed above, it is understood that at least some of the total carbon content in the condenser liquid will be converted to fixed carbon within the biogenic reagent via the step of pyrolyzing. As evidence, Examiner points to: 1) paragraph [0348] of Despen which discusses pyrolysis of liquid carbon containing components condensed from the gas phase to form additional fixed carbon; and 2) paragraph [0310] of Despen which points out that “carbon-containing components that are in the gas phase can decompose to form additional fixed carbon”.
Furthermore, Despen teaches that the fixed carbon content of the biocarbon composition can be manipulated by manipulating various process conditions (Despen: Figures 14-16, Paragraphs [0213]-[0215], [0256], [0278], [0310], [0330], [0334], [0348]). Furthermore, Despen teaches that it is possible to obtain high-quality carbon compositions having a high fraction of fixed carbon from his method (paragraph [0324]). Despen further teaches that an increase in energy content can be achieved by an increase in the fixed carbon (paragraph [0384]), thereby providing clear indication that higher fixed carbon contents are advantageous.
In view of the above, a person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to maximize the extent to which total carbon in the condenser liquid is converted to fixed carbon in the biogenic reagent. "[When] 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," (see MPEP 2144.05 II A).
If it were not already the case within modified Wretborn, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Wretborn in view of Despen by configuring the method of Wretborn such that at least 75 wt% of the total carbon comprised within the condenser liquid is converted to fixed carbon within the biogenic reagent, in order maximize the fixed carbon content in the biogenic reagent so as to obtain a biocarbon composition having an increased energy content.
With regard to claim 26: It is understood that, in modified Wretborn, the total carbon content in the condenser liquid is added to the total carbon comprised within the biogenic reagent, i.e. by pyrolyzing the first feedstock comprised of the second feedstock (biomass) and the condenser liquid, modified Wretborn adds at least some of the total carbon content in the condenser liquid to the biogenic reagent formed from the first feedstock. Furthermore, it is understood that at least some of the total carbon content in the condenser liquid will be converted to fixed carbon within the biogenic reagent via the step of pyrolyzing. As evidence, Examiner points to: 1) paragraph [0348] of Despen which discusses pyrolysis of liquid carbon containing components condensed from the gas phase to form additional fixed carbon; and 2) paragraph [0310] of Despen which points out that “carbon-containing components that are in the gas phase can decompose to form additional fixed carbon”.
Thus, it is understood that at a portion of the fixed carbon in the biogenic reagent will be derived from the condenser liquid.
Modified Wretborne is silent to at least about 10 wt% to at most about 80 wt% of fixed carbon in the biogenic reagent being derived from the condenser liquid.
However, as discussed above, it is understood that at least some of the total carbon content in the condenser liquid will be converted to fixed carbon within the biogenic reagent via the step of pyrolyzing. As evidence, Examiner points to: 1) paragraph [0348] of Despen which discusses pyrolysis of liquid carbon containing components condensed from the gas phase to form additional fixed carbon; and 2) paragraph [0310] of Despen which points out that “carbon-containing components that are in the gas phase can decompose to form additional fixed carbon”. Thus, it is understood that at a portion of the fixed carbon in the biogenic reagent will be derived from the condenser liquid.
Furthermore, Despen teaches that the fixed carbon content of the biocarbon composition can be manipulated by manipulating various process conditions (Despen: Figures 14-16, Paragraphs [0213]-[0215], [0256], [0278], [0310], [0330], [0334], [0348]). Furthermore, Despen teaches that it is possible to obtain high-quality carbon compositions having a high fraction of fixed carbon from his method (paragraph [0324]). Despen further teaches that an increase in energy content can be achieved by an increase in the fixed carbon (paragraph [0384]), thereby providing clear indication that higher fixed carbon contents are advantageous.
In view of the above, a person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to maximize the extent to which the addition of the condenser liquid to the second feedstock (biomass) to form the first feedstock increases the fixed carbon content of the biogenic reagent formed from the first feedstock, e.g. by increasing the amount of the total carbon in the condenser liquid converted to fixed carbon so as to increase the total percentage of fixed carbon originating form the condenser liquid in the biogenic reagent. "[When] 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," (see MPEP 2144.05 II A).
If it were not already the case within modified Wretborn, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Wretborn by maximizing the extent to which the fixed carbon content of the biogenic reagent is increased due to the addition of the condenser liquid, i.e. by configuring the method of Wretborn such that at least about 10 wt% to at most about 80 wt% of fixed carbon in the biogenic reagent was derived from the condenser liquid, in order maximize the fixed carbon content in the biogenic reagent so as to obtain a biocarbon composition having an increased energy content.
With regard to claim 27: It is understood that, in modified Wretborn, the total carbon content in the condenser liquid is added to the total carbon comprised within the biogenic reagent, i.e. by pyrolyzing the first feedstock comprised of the second feedstock (biomass) and the condenser liquid, modified Wretborn adds at least some of the total carbon content in the condenser liquid to the biogenic reagent formed from the first feedstock. Furthermore, it is understood that at least some of the total carbon content in the condenser liquid will be converted to fixed carbon within the biogenic reagent via the step of pyrolyzing. As evidence, Examiner points to: 1) paragraph [0348] of Despen which discusses pyrolysis of liquid carbon containing components condensed from the gas phase to form additional fixed carbon; and 2) paragraph [0310] of Despen which points out that “carbon-containing components that are in the gas phase can decompose to form additional fixed carbon”.
Thus, it is understood that at a portion of the fixed carbon in the biogenic reagent will be derived from the condenser liquid.
Modified Wretborne is silent to at least about 20 wt% to at most about 60 wt% of fixed carbon in the biogenic reagent being derived from the condenser liquid.
However, as discussed above, it is understood that at least some of the total carbon content in the condenser liquid will be converted to fixed carbon within the biogenic reagent via the step of pyrolyzing. As evidence, Examiner points to: 1) paragraph [0348] of Despen which discusses pyrolysis of liquid carbon containing components condensed from the gas phase to form additional fixed carbon; and 2) paragraph [0310] of Despen which points out that “carbon-containing components that are in the gas phase can decompose to form additional fixed carbon”. Thus, it is understood that at a portion of the fixed carbon in the biogenic reagent will be derived from the condenser liquid.
Furthermore, Despen teaches that the fixed carbon content of the biocarbon composition can be manipulated by manipulating various process conditions (Despen: Figures 14-16, Paragraphs [0213]-[0215], [0256], [0278], [0310], [0330], [0334], [0348]). Furthermore, Despen teaches that it is possible to obtain high-quality carbon compositions having a high fraction of fixed carbon from his method (paragraph [0324]). Despen further teaches that an increase in energy content can be achieved by an increase in the fixed carbon (paragraph [0384]), thereby providing clear indication that higher fixed carbon contents are advantageous.
In view of the above, a person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to maximize the extent to which the addition of the condenser liquid to the second feedstock (biomass) to form the first feedstock increases the fixed carbon content of the biogenic reagent formed from the first feedstock, e.g. by increasing the amount of the total carbon in the condenser liquid converted to fixed carbon so as to increase the total percentage of fixed carbon originating form the condenser liquid in the biogenic reagent. "[When] 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," (see MPEP 2144.05 II A).
If it were not already the case within modified Wretborn, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Wretborn by maximizing the extent to which the fixed carbon content of the biogenic reagent is increased due to the addition of the condenser liquid, i.e. by configuring the method of Wretborn such that at least about 20 wt% to at most about 60 wt% of fixed carbon in the biogenic reagent was derived from the condenser liquid, in order maximize the fixed carbon content in the biogenic reagent so as to obtain a biocarbon composition having an increased energy content.
With regard to claim 28: Wretborn at least suggests contacting all of the condenser liquid with the second feedstock (Figure 4, section 4.1.1).
All claims not explicitly addressed above are obvious over Wretborn in view of Brown, Despen, and Agblevor for reasons similar to those described above with respect to the 103 rejections made in reliance on Despen as the primary reference.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN "LUKE" PILCHER whose telephone number is (571)272-2691. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm.
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, In Suk Bullock can be reached at 5712725954. 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.
/JONATHAN LUKE PILCHER/Examiner, Art Unit 1772
