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 .
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.
Specification
The specification and drawings have been reviewed and no clear informalities or objections have been noted.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Xie (CN 101880552A with references made to the machine translation).
Regarding claim 18, Xie discloses a method and system for producing a solid product which is biochar (Such a product char, which is created from a biomass in Xie, can be considered a biochar) and a product gas by means of a gasification, the method comprising:
gasifying bio-based raw material in a fluidized bed gasifier (see paragraph 17 which discloses a fluidized bed gasifier in the first sentence) for forming a product gas and a solid co-product (see abstract which discloses the production of a product synthesis gas and see paragraph 17 which discloses char production); and
arranging a gasification temperature to temperature of 750 - 850° C. for increasing a yield of the solid co-product (see paragraph 53 which discloses a gasification temperature of 750C); and
feeding an oxygen or air 10 - 22 % of stoichiometric amount of oxygen to the gasification to provide a defined temperature during the gasification (see paragraph 53 which discloses the gasifier operates at an equivalence ratio of 0.11).
Xie goes on to teach that the produced char produces a product which is withdrawn via conduit 6 and brought into a combustion process in chamber 7.
Xie further discloses at least a part of the solid co-product is recirculated back to the gasification (via recycle leg 6, riser 8, and cyclonic filters 9, 10).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 2 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xie (CN 101880552A with references made to the machine translation) in view of Koskinen (US 2013/0072583).
Regarding claims 1 and 11, Xie discloses a method and system for producing a solid product and a product gas by means of a gasification, the method comprising:
gasifying bio-based raw material in a fluidized bed gasifier (see paragraph 17 which discloses a fluidized bed gasifier in the first sentence) for forming a product gas and a solid co-product (see abstract which discloses the production of a product synthesis gas and see paragraph 17 which discloses char production); and
arranging a gasification temperature to temperature of 750 - 850° C. for increasing a yield of the solid co-product (see paragraph 53 which discloses a gasification temperature of 750C); and
feeding an oxygen or air 10 - 22 % of stoichiometric amount of oxygen to the gasification to provide a defined temperature during the gasification (see paragraph 53 which discloses the gasifier operates at an equivalence ratio of 0.11).
Xie goes on to teach that the produced char produces a product which is withdrawn via conduit 6 and brought into a combustion process in chamber 7. Such a product char, which is created from a biomass in Xie, can be considered a biochar.
Xie further discloses the product gas is filtrated (paragraph 5 as well as via cyclonic filter 5).
Furthermore, while not explicitly disclosing the details of the yield of the solid co-product, Xie teaches a gasifier which operates at the claimed temperature, the claimed equivalence ratio and processes the same feed material. As such, similar results are assumed with regard to the yield of the co-product. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
Xie teaches that the produced synthesis gas has a H2/CO ratio of greater than 1.1:1 (paragraph 35) which overlaps the claimed ratio, but does not explicitly teach the claimed ratios. As such, arriving at the claimed range would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP §2144.05(I)).
Furthermore, Xie teaches a process in which a bio-based material is gasifier to produce a synthesis gas with a H2/CO ratio that is above 1.1 (paragraph 35) but does not teach sending the synthesis gas produced in the gasifier to a reformer.
Koskinen also discloses a gasification system (see abstract).
Koskinen teaches the well known method of utilizing a reformer on the outlet of a gasifier to further refine a synthesis gas stream and assist in removing contaminants while also adjusting the H2/CO ratio (paragraphs 6-7).
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to add the reformer of Koskinen to modified Xie in order to further refine a synthesis gas stream and assist in removing contaminants while also adjusting the H2/CO ratio.
Xie further discloses at least a part of the solid co-product is recirculated back to the gasification (via recycle leg 6, riser 8, and cyclonic filters 9, 10).
Regarding claims 2 and 19, Xie teaches a preferable range for the gasification reactor is 700-850C (paragraph 24) which overlaps the claimed range, but does not explicitly disclose the claimed range. As such, arriving at the claimed range would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP §2144.05(I)).
Claim(s) 7, 14 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xie (CN 101880552A with references made to the machine translation) and Koskinen (US 2013/0072583) and further in view of Chen (US 2015/0099814).
Regarding claims 7, 14 and 17, Xie teaches the generation of a synthesis gas, but does not teach downstream applications of the synthesis gas. More specifically, Xie does not teach a synthesis device to form a final product form the product gas or an electrolysis unit.
Chen also discloses a gasification process (see abstract).
Chen teaches a system which includes a fisher tropsch reactor (see Figure) that utilizes a product gas from a biomass gasifier to produce a liquid hydrocarbon (paragraph 3) and teaches an electrolysis unit that produces hydrogen that is combined with the synthesis gas to adjust to the proper H2/CO ratio (paragraphs 20-22 and 38).
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to add the Fischer Tropsch unit and the electrolysis unit of Chen to the system and method of Xie in order to produce a liquid hydrocarbon and facilitate H2/CO ratio due to the inclusion of an electrolysis unit that produces hydrogen from water.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xie (CN 101880552A with references made to the machine translation).
Regarding claim 19, Xie teaches a preferable range for the gasification reactor is 700-850C (paragraph 24) which overlaps the claimed range, but does not explicitly disclose the claimed range. As such, arriving at the claimed range would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP §2144.05(I)).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. On page 5-6, Applicant argues that the instant invention is a simple process and not a multistage process like Xie, Koskinen and Chen. The Office notes that the claims do not recite any features that require a “simple process” as argued. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., process complexity) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Furthermore, on page 6, Applicant argues that Xie does not recirculate the solids for the purpose of increasing the yield of the solid product. It is noted that this argument appears to be arguing that Xie does not teach the same motivation for the invention as the instant invention. It is noted that the intent of the process and/or apparatus does not further limit the process and/or apparatus.
Relevant Prior Art
US 4,968,325 – Discloses a gasification system which gasifies a biomass material and recycles at least a portion of produced fines in the reactor along with operating at similar temperatures to the instantly disclosed gasifier (see abstract).
WO 2009/055829 – Discloses a gasification system which produces a syngas and char and teaches a recycling step in which a portion of the char that is produced in the gasifier is recycled.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW J MERKLING whose telephone number is (571)272-9813. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8am-6pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Basia Ridley can be reached at 571-272-1453. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MATTHEW J MERKLING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725