DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claims 16 and 46 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 16 recites “b. the cyclone collecting dust particles while maintaining the syngas in a non-condensed sate…” which should be corrected as follows “b. the cyclone collecting dust particles while maintaining the syngas in a non-condensed state…”
Claim 46 recites “increase an hydrogen content of the syngas” which should be corrected as follows “increase a hydrogen content of the syngas” Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 16-18, 20, 23, 25, 27, 28, 46, 52, 62, and 64-65 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morgenthaler (US5222448) in view of Robinson (US10344231).
PNG
media_image1.png
496
782
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 1 of Morgenthaler
PNG
media_image2.png
484
732
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fig. 5 of Morgenthaler
Regarding claim 16, Morgenthaler teaches a process for converting spent pot linings (SPL), the method comprising introducing SPL (Col. 8 line 20-21 pieces of SPL which are fed through side opening 24) into an apparatus comprising a plasma arc furnace (10, plasma torch furnace system 10),
a fully dry syngas cleaning train (72, counter-flow dry scrubber 72) free of any quench, condenser, wet scrubber, or aqueous-contacting operation (Fig. 5 Example 5 no quench, condenser, wet scrubber, or aqueous-contacting operation) and
an aluminum fluoride (AlF3) reactor (56, a secondary liquor treatment plant 56 to precipitate aluminum fluoride), and a cyclone (52) at an outlet of the plasma arc furnace for the collection of dust particles (Col. 8 lines 40-45 to capture entrained particulates);
a. the plasma arc furnace (10) including an anode and a cathode (Col. 4 lines 10-25 anode and cathode), wherein the plasma arc furnace (10):
i. gasifies carbon (Col. 5 lines 45-65 solid carbon converted to either carbon monoxide or carbon dioxide) to syngas (Col.7 lines 55-67 gases generated within furnace 14);
ii. converts a mineral fraction to vitrified slag (Col. 6 lines 50-55 solid slag material);
iii. steam (Col. 8 lines 55-62 steam or water) is injected directly into the furnace as the sole oxidizing and hydrogenating medium (Fig. 1, 5), the steam capturing an excess energy from a gasification reaction and raising a syngas hydrogen content (Col. 5 line 45- Col. 6 lines 20 gasification of solid carbon material; reduce the carbon monoxide or carbon dioxide and most of the fluoride compounds to HF, by the process of water, which is understood to be steam);
b. the cyclone (52) collecting dust particles (Col. 8 lines 40-45 to capture entrained particulates) while maintaining the syngas in a non-condensed sate and without any introduction of liquid water (Fig. 1, 5);
c. the gas-phase ALF3 reactor (56) being adapted to convert hydrogen fluoride (Col. 6 lines 10-15 fluoride rich gas stream, reduced to HF, hydrogen fluoride) in the syngas to AlF3 (Col. 14 lines 45-55 fluoride rich liquor reduced to precipitate aluminum fluoride)
e. the baghouse is adapted to recover at least part of the dust particles not recovered by the cyclone (Col. 8 lines 40-45 combined wet scrubber and condenser 54 to recover and measure the soluble constituents in the product off-gas stream) nor the gas-phase ALF3 reactor.
Morgenthaler is silent on a waste heat boiler, the waste-heat boiler cools down the syngas.
Robinson teaches a waste heat boiler (450), the waste-heat boiler (450)cools down the syngas (Col. 30 lines 10-45 raw product gas stream cooled against boiler feed water in a first knock out drum).
Morgenthaler and Robinson are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of furnaces. It would have been obvious to have modified Morgenthaler to incorporate the teachings of Robinson to have a waste heat boiler to cool the syngas so that the gas achieves a desired temperature for afterburning processes (Robinson Col. 30 lines 1-40).
Regarding claim 17, Morgenthaler and Robinson teach the process according to claim 16, and Morgenthaler teaches comprising operating the plasma arc furnace at a temperature between 500° C. and 1800° C (Col. 5 lines 45-55 temperature within the container, being the furnace, is excess of 1000° C).
Regarding claim 18, Morgenthaler and Robinson teach the process according to claim 16, and Morgenthaler teaches wherein a vitrification of inert constituents of the SPL (Col. 6 lines 50-60 cooling slag to form a solid slag material, taken to be the equivalent of vitrification, where slag is taken to be inert constituents of SPL) is carried out without requiring adding a slag agent (Col. 6 lines 50-60 no slag agent added).
Regarding claim 20, Morgenthaler and Robinson teach the process according to claim 16, and Morgenthaler teaches wherein a source of Al2F3 to produce AlF3 is a feed material to an aluminum electrolyser, purified Al2F3, or an intermediary aluminum hydroxide in a Bayer process (Col. 14 lines 40-50 the fluoride rich liquor is reduced with aluminum hydroxide, to precipitate aluminum fluoride).
Regarding claim 23, Morgenthaler and Robinson teach the process according to claim 16, but Morgenthaler is silent on comprising bleeding water from a condensate-steam loop that flows in a waste heat boiler.
Robinson teaches comprising bleeding water from a condensate-steam loop that flows in a waste heat boiler (Col. 30 lines 10-45 condensing water in first knock out drum, part of boiler 39c as part of low temperature gas cooling, 450).
It would have been obvious to have modified Morgenthaler to incorporate the teachings of Robinson to have water from condensation within the waste heat recovery boiler so that gas being cooled may be optimally cooled in multiple stages to achieve the desired temperature for further processing (Robinson Col. 30 lines 1-40).
Regarding claim 25, Morgenthaler and Robinson teach the process according to claim 16, and Morgenthaler teaches comprising achieving a hydrogenation of fluorine volatized from the SPL (Col. 6 lines 1-20 volatile materials contain in SPL, such as cyanide and most fluoride compounds, reduced to HF, taken to be the equivalent of hydrogenation of fluorine where hydrogen is added to fluoride compounds of volatile SPL) via steam reaction (Col. 8 lines 55-62 steam or water).
Regarding claim 27, Morgenthaler and Robinson teach the process according to claim 16, and Morgenthaler teaches comprising maintaining an amount of feed material (Col. 7 lines 55-60 injection of steam, water, or other fluids) on top of a molten inorganic bath in the plasma arc furnace (Col. 7 lines 55-60 molten slag), establishing a substantially complete temperature gradient in the plasma arc furnace (Col. 8 lines 10-20 temperature ranges inside the container and slag temperature), drying, pyrolysis and partial combustion of the SPL (Col. 7 lines 35-45 construction of system 10, allows for drying, pyrolysis and partial combustion of the SPL).
Regarding claim 28, Morgenthaler and Robinson teach the process according to claim 16, and Morgenthaler teaches comprising using only electricity as an energy source (Col. 8 lines1-15 power supply 42, supplies electricity to aluminum plant, being the furnace 10).
Regarding claim 46, Morgenthaler teaches an apparatus for converting spent pot linings (SPL),
comprising a plasma arc furnace (14),
an anode (Col. 9 lines 1-14 anode),
a cathode (Col. 9 lines 1-14 cathode),
a crucible (Col. 9 lines 20-25 crucible) in the plasma arc furnace for receiving the SPL (Col. 9 lines 1-14 SPL material were exposed to a 15 plasma arc 44 while contained within a graphite crucible and held within a furnace 14),
wherein the plasma arc furnace is operative to:
i. gasifies carbon (Col. 5 lines 45-65 solid carbon converted to either carbon monoxide or carbon dioxide) to syngas (Col.7 lines 55-67 gases generated within furnace 14);
ii. Convert a mineral fraction to vitrified slag (Col. 6 lines 50-55 solid slag material);
a dry syngas cleaning train (72, counter-flow dry scrubber 72) free of any quench, condenser, wet scrubber, or aqueous-contacting equipment (Fig. 5 Example 5 no quench, condenser, wet scrubber, or aqueous-contacting operation),
a cyclone (52) at an outlet of the plasma arc furnace for the collection of dust particles (Col. 8 lines 40-45 to capture entrained particulates) while maintaining the syngas in a non-condensed, dry state (Fig. 1, 5);
a gas-phase aluminum fluoride reactor (56) disposed downstream of the cyclone (52) and adapted to convert hydrogen fluoride (Col. 6 lines 10-15 fluoride rich gas stream, reduced to HF, hydrogen fluoride) in the syngas to AlF3 (Col. 14 lines 45-55 fluoride rich liquor reduced to precipitate aluminum fluoride)
a baghouse operative to recover at least part of the dust particles not recovered by the cyclone (Col. 8 lines 40-45 combined wet scrubber and condenser 54 to recover and measure the soluble constituents in the product off-gas stream) nor the gas-phase ALF3 reactor.
Morgenthaler is silent on a waste-heat boiler operative to cool down the syngas and generate steam used to capture excess furnace energy and increase an hydrogen content of the syngas.
Robinson teaches a waste-heat boiler (450) operative to cool down the syngas and generate steam (42) used to capture excess furnace energy and increase an hydrogen content of the syngas (Col. 30 lines 10-45 raw product gas stream cooled against boiler feed water in a first knock out drum).
Morgenthaler and Robinson are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of furnaces. It would have been obvious to have modified Morgenthaler to incorporate the teachings of Robinson to have a waste heat boiler to cool the syngas so that the gas achieves a desired temperature for afterburning processes (Robinson Col. 30 lines 1-40).
Regarding claim 52, Morgenthaler and Robinson teach the apparatus according to claim 46, and Morgenthaler teaches wherein the gas-phase ALF3 reactor is operative to convert hydrogen fluoride in the syngas to ALF3 at a temperature between 500° C. and 1800° C (Col. 5 lines 45-55 temperature within the container, being the furnace, is excess of 1000° C).
Regarding claim 62, Morgenthaler and Robinson teach the apparatus according to claim 46, and Morgenthaler teaches wherein the plasma arc furnace is operative to maintain an amount of feed material (Col. 7 lines 55-60 injection of steam, water, or other fluids) on top of a molten inorganic bath (Col. 7 lines 55-60 molten slag), to provide a temperature gradient in the plasma arc furnace (Col. 8 lines 10-20 temperature ranges inside the container and slag temperature), producing drying, pyrolysis and partial combustion of the SPL (Col. 7 lines 35-45 construction of system 10, allows for drying, pyrolysis and partial combustion of the SPL).
Regarding claim 64, Morgenthaler and Robinson teach the process according to claim 46, and Morgenthaler teaches wherein the plasma arc furnace is operative to convert the mineral fraction to the vitrified slag (Col. 6 lines 50-60 cooling slag to form a solid slag material, taken to be the equivalent of vitrification, where slag is taken to be inert constituents of SPL) without requiring adding a slag agent (Col. 6 lines 50-60 no slag agent added).
Regarding claim 65, Morgenthaler and Robinson teach the process according to claim 46, and Morgenthaler teaches wherein the apparatus is powered exclusively by electricity (42, Col. 8 lines 1-10).
Claims 19 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morgenthaler (US5222448) and Robinson (US10344231) as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Ying (CN108840358) with citations to attached machine translations.
Regarding claim 19, Morgenthaler and Robinson teach the process according to claim 16, but are silent on wherein a conversion of HF to AlF3 is adapted to take place at a temperature higher than 500° C. and below 1000° C.
Ying teaches wherein a conversion of HF to AlF3 is adapted to take place at a temperature higher than 500° C. and below 1000° C ([0032,0074] aluminum fluoride temperature for entering the aluminum fluoride static state cooler as a preferred technical solution, is 520 DEG C~720 DEG C, where it is taken that the HF to AlF3 takes place at the resulting temperature of 520 DEG C~720 DEG C).
Morgenthaler, Robinson, and Ying are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of furnaces. It would have been obvious to have modified Morgenthaler and Robinson to incorporate the teachings of Ying to have the conversion of HF to AlF3 take place at a temperature higher than 500° C. but below 1000° C to be able to produced dry process aluminum fluorides in a stable and healthy environments that are advantageous to wet process fluorides that have many disadvantages relating to the temperature of the aluminum fluoride (Ying [0015-0016]).
Regarding claim 21, Morgenthaler and Robinson teach the process according to claim 16, but are silent on comprising producing steam in the waste heat boiler using reaction heat produced by a neutralisation of HF by Al2F3 is adapted to produce more steam in a heat recovery boiler.
Ying teaches comprising producing steam in the waste heat boiler using reaction heat produced by a neutralisation of HF by Al2F3 is adapted to produce more steam in a heat recovery boiler ([0089] aluminum fluoride, made from HF, the process understood to be a neutralisation of HF, produces steam).
It would have been obvious to have modified Morgenthaler and Robinson to incorporate the teachings of Ying to have the neutralization of HF by AL2F3 produce steam in a heat recovery boiler, so that as a high temperature steam may be obtained from the reaction so that the heat energy may be reused (Ying [0089]).
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morgenthaler (US5222448) and Robinson (US10344231) as applied to claim 16 and above, and further in view of Vick (US6074623A).
Regarding claim 22, Morgenthaler and Robinson teach the process according to claim 16, but are silent on comprising converting steam or liquid water to hydrogen using any excess heat from the gasification of SPL in the plasma arc furnace is adapted to be used for converting water vapor (steam) or liquid water to hydrogen.
Vick teaches comprising converting steam or liquid water to hydrogen using any excess heat from the gasification of SPL in the plasma arc furnace is adapted to be used for converting water vapor (steam) or liquid water to hydrogen (Col. 5 lines 20-30 The residual co-injected steam and the water of combustion will be contacted with the incandescent carbon bed to generate hydrogen, carbon monoxide and some methane and carbon dioxide; where the excess heat from gasification of SPL is found in the excess steam created during the process).
Morgenthaler, Robinson, and Vick are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of furnaces. It would have been obvious to have modified Morgenthaler and Robinson to incorporate the teachings of Vick to use excess heat to convert water or steam into hydrogen so a fed gas may be further reduced in volume (Vick Col. 5 lines 20-30).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/25/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding applicant’s arguments towards Morgenthaler, that “Morgenthaler's gas path is fundamentally a hybrid dry-wet system - not a fully dry train as required by amended independent claim 46 (as well as by amended independent claim 16),” in regards to Fig. 5 and Example 5 of Morgenthaler, the system is taught to be fully dry, using a “counter-flow dry scrubber” 72 that is “free of any quench, condenser, wet scrubber, or aqueous-contacting operation” as now required by the amended claims, so it is understood that Morgenthaler, in this embodiment, is not a “hybrid dry-wet system,” so Morgenthaler is understood to teach the amended limitations.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ABIGAIL RHUE whose telephone number is (571)272-4615. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 10-6.
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, Helena Kosanovic can be reached at (571) 272-9059. 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.
/ABIGAIL H RHUE/Examiner, Art Unit 3761 3/17/2026
/VY T NGUYEN/Examiner, Art Unit 3761