DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are pending, with claim 6 being withdrawn.
Claims 1-5 and 7-20 are rejected.
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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species (a-i) in the reply filed on 07/09/2025 is acknowledged.
Claim 6 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 07/09/2025.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-3, 9, and 18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1,
Line 9, it is suggested to amend “hydrogen enriched” to “hydrogen-enriched”.
Lines 11-12, it is suggested to amend “biomass hydroconverter process” to “biomass hydroconverter”.
Line 12, it is suggested to amend “a first portion of the hydrogen-depleted stream” to “a portion of the hydrogen-depleted stream”, given that claim 8 recites “a first and a second hydrogen-depleted stream”.
Claim 2,
Line 2, it is suggested to amend “hydrogen enriched” to “hydrogen-enriched”.
Claim 3,
Each of lines 2 and 3, it is suggested to amend “hydrogen enriched” to “hydrogen-enriched”.
Claim 9,
Line 2, it is suggested to amend “(molar basis)” to “on a molar basis”.
Claim 18,
Line 4, it is suggested to amend “the product” to “the biomass hydroconverter product”.
Line 4, it is suggested to amend “a heat source fuel” to “the heat source fuel”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the water material" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The examiner interprets the term “the water material” as “the waste material”. Clarification is requested.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, and 7-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Marker et al. (US 2010/0251615 A1) (Marker), as provided in the IDS filed 04/17/2024.
Regarding claims 1-4, 7-8, and 10-14, Marker discloses a multi-stage method and apparatus for producing methane from biomass (Marker, Title and Abstract).
Marker further discloses the method and apparatus comprising hydropyrolyzing biomass from a biomass feed in a hydropyrolysis reactor vessel (i.e., a biomass hydroconverter, where the biomass hydroconverter comprises a pyrolyzer) to produce a hydropyrolysis product comprising char (i.e., a solid residue) and a gas (i.e., a gas mixture; a biomass hydroconverter product) containing substantial amounts of methane and small quantities of higher hydrocarbons (i.e., hydrocarbon volatiles), in addition to H2, CO (i.e., syngas), CO2 (Marker, Abstract; Fig. 1; [0010]; [0014]-[0016]).
Marker further discloses a portion of the methane gas of the gas mixture (i.e., the biomass hydroconverter product) being used as a fuel to a furnace (i.e., as a heat source fuel) to heat up the remaining portion of methane gas to the operating temperature of a steam reformer, where the reforming product comprises CO, CO2 and H2 (i.e., a gas mixture that contains at least hydrogen and carbon dioxide) (Marker, Fig. 1; [0010]; claim 6).
Marker further discloses separating the CO2, H2, and methane to produce a CO2 stream (i.e., a first hydrogen-depleted stream), an H2 stream (i.e., a hydrogen-enriched gas stream; a carbon-reduced hydrogen product), and a methane product stream (i.e., a second hydrogen-depleted stream) using a pressure swing absorption (PSA) unit (i.e., a gas separator), where the methane product stream (i.e., a second hydrogen-depleted stream) comprises methane, CO2, and CO (Marker, [0010]; claim 1- step e)), therefore, the method would be necessarily comprising purifying hydrogen-enriched gas stream to produce a hydrogen gas stream, since separating a CO2, H2, and methane mixture into a CO2 stream, an H2 stream and methane product streams removes impurities (e.g., CO2 and methane) from the hydrogen-enriched gas stream to produce a purer H2 stream, and thus comprises H2 purification.
Marker further discloses at least a portion of the methane product stream (i.e., the second hydrogen-depleted stream) being introduced into the steam reformer, in which methane (i.e., a hydrocarbon fuel stream; an alkane fuel) is reformed to produce reformer CO2 and reformer H2 (Marker, [0010]; claim 2).
Marker further discloses at least a portion of the hydrogen stream (i.e., providing a first portion of the hydrogen-enriched gas steam) from the reformer enters a methanation unit (Marker, [0010]; claim 3), and a portion of H2 (i.e., a second portion of the hydrogen enriched gas stream) being recovered e.g., via a PSA unit, and recycled back to the hydropyrolysis reactor vessel (i.e., the biomass hydroconverter) (Marker, [0010]; [0014]).
Marker further discloses a portion of the reformer hydrogen being used to react with remaining amounts of carbon oxides (CO2 and/or CO) (i.e., sequestering carbon by processing at least a first portion of the hydrogen-depleted stream) in the methane product stream for forming additional methane and thusly minimizing carbon oxides from the methane product stream (Marker, [0010]; claim 2).
Regarding claim 9, as applied to claim 8, Marker further discloses separating the CO2, H2, and methane to produce a CO2 stream (i.e., a first hydrogen-depleted stream), an H2 stream, and a methane product stream (Marker, [0010]; claim 1 – step e)), thus it is clear that the content of the CO2 stream (i.e., the first hydrogen-depleted stream) would be necessarily be identical or substantially identical to 100 % on a molar basis which falls within the claimed range, since other components e.g., H2 and methane are separated from the CO2 stream.
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 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marker et al. (US 2010/0251615 A1) (Marker), as provided in the IDS filed 04/17/2024, as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Palla et al. “Computational modelling of the condensation of fast pyrolysis vapours in a quenching column. Part A: Hydrodynamics, heat transfer and design optimisation” (Palla).
Regarding claim 5, as applied to claim 4, Marker discloses the hydropyrolysis product comprising char (i.e., a solid residue) and a gas (i.e., a biomass hydroconverter product) containing substantial amounts of methane and small quantities of hydrocarbons (i.e., hydrocarbon volatiles) (Marker, Abstract; Fig. 1; [0010]; [0014]-[0016]).
Marker does not explicitly disclose the hydrocarbon volatiles are quenched to form bio oil, as presently claimed.
With respect to the difference, Palla teaches condensation of fast pyrolysis vapours in a quenching column (Palla, Title and Abstract).
Palla further teaches quenching gases and vapours, e.g., pyrolysis vapours produced by performing pyrolysis on a biomass feed using quenching columns to obtain liquid bio-oil (Palla, page 59 – 1. Introduction, second paragraph; page 60 – 2. Quenching column operating conditions, first paragraph and Fig. 1).
As Palla expressly teaches, rapid condensation (i.e., quenching) of pyrolysis vapours is necessary to increase the final bio-oil yield for optimization of the liquid bio-oil yields (Palla, page 59, 1. Introduction, third paragraph; page 67, left column).
Palla and Markers are analogous art as they are both drawn to processing biomass.
In light of the motivation of quenching the pyrolysis vapors to liquid bio-oil as disclosed by Palla as described above, it would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to quench the hydrocarbon gases (i.e., hydrocarbon volatiles) produced by the hydropyrolysis process (a form of pyrolysis process) of Marker, in order to increase the final bio-oil yield for optimization of the liquid bio-oil yields, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Claims 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marker et al. (US 2010/0251615 A1) (Marker), as provided in the IDS filed 04/17/2024, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Burra et al. “Kinetics of synergistic effects in co-pyrolysis of biomass with plastic wastes” (Burra).
Regarding claims 15-17, as applied to claim 1, Marker further discloses the biomass refers to biological material derived from living or deceased organisms and includes lignocellulosic materials, such as wood, aquatic materials, such as algae, aquatic plants, seaweed, and animal by-products and wastes, such as offal, fats, and sewage sludge. (Marker, [0003]).
Marker does not explicitly disclose providing an additional fuel material to the biomass hydroconverter, in addition to the biomass, as presently claimed.
With respect to the difference, Burra teaches co-pyrolysis of biomass with plastic wastes (i.e., an additional fuel material) (Burra, Title and Abstract).
As Burra expressly teaches, the co-pyrolysis, which blend biomass with plastics, provides enhanced carbon conversion efficiency, volatiles yield, and increased reaction rate, which are important for the development of energy efficient large scale, feedstock flexible pyrolysis and gasification reactors for continuous operation irrespective of the feedstock composition, the study of which aims at fostering energy sustainability in the energy future from increased use of waste plastics and municipal solid wastes (Burra, Abstract; page 409, right column, second full paragraph).
Burra and Marker are analogous art as they are both drawn to processing biomass.
In light of the motivation of co-pyrolysis of biomass with plastic wastes as disclosed by Burra as described above, it would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the plastic wastes as an additional fuel material to the hydropyrolysis reactor vessel of Marker, in addition to the biomass, in order to enhance carbon conversion efficiency and volatiles yield for the development of energy efficiency and sustainability, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marker et al. (US 2010/0251615 A1) (Marker), as provided in the IDS filed 04/17/2024, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Czernik et al. “Hydrogen by Catalytic Steam Reforming of Liquid Byproducts from Biomass Thermoconversion Processes” (Czernik).
Regarding claim 18, as applied to claim 1, Marker does not explicitly disclose transporting the biomass hydroconverter product to the steam reformer by mobile transport and/or a wheeling pipeline, prior to using the product as a heat source fuel, as presently claimed.
With respect to the difference, Czernik teaches the production of hydrogen by catalytic steam reforming of liquid byproducts from biomass thermoconversion processes (Czernik, Title and Abstract).
Czernik further teaches a series of small-size pyrolysis units being constructed at sites where low-cost feedstocks are available, with the pyrolysis product (e.g., bio-oil) being transported (i.e., by mobile transport) to a central reforming plant located at a site with existing hydrogen storage and distribution infrastructure (Czernik, page 4209, Introduction, second paragraph).
As Czernik expressly teaches, pyrolysis and reforming can be carried out at different locations to improve the economics (Czernik, page 4209, Introduction, second paragraph).
Czernik and Marker are analogous art as they are both drawn to processing biomass.
In light of the motivation of transporting the pyrolysis product to a reforming plant at a different location as disclosed by Czernik as described above, it would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the pyrolysis and reformer sites construction of Czernik and transport the hydropyrolysis product of Marker to the steam reformer at a different location by mobile transport, in order to reduce the cost and improve the economics, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marker et al. (US 2010/0251615 A1) (Marker), as provided in the IDS filed 04/17/2024, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Badea et al. “Hydrogen production using solar energy - technical analysis” (Badea).
Regarding claims 19-20, as applied to claim 1, Marker does not explicitly disclose providing additional hydrogen gas to the biomass hydroconverter, as presently claimed.
With respect to the difference, Badea teaches the production of hydrogen (Badea, Title and Abstract).
Badea further teaches the production of hydrogen with the energy being provided using solar energy (i.e., a renewable source) (Badea, Abstract; page 3848, second paragraph).
Badea further teaches the energy used to extract hydrogen being stored in the produced hydrogen, with hydrogen being an energy carrier that is storable, transportable and utilisable (Badea, page 3848 – Introduction, third paragraph; page 3859 – Discussion, second paragraph).
As Badea expressly teaches, renewable energy resources play a key role in the transition towards a clean and sustainable energy system (Badea, page 3848, second paragraph).
As Badea further expressly teaches, one can maximize the conversion of solar radiation into chemical energy in the form of hydrogen by hybridizing the solar hydrogen production system. Also, based on this study, it results that the hydrogen production and storage technologies shall become more and more technically efficient in the future (Abstract; page 425, 4. Conclusions)
Badea and Marker are analogous art as they are both drawn to utilization of hydrogen for chemical processes.
In light of the motivation of using the hydrogen from a renewable energy source disclosed by Badea as described above, it would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the hydrogen from the renewable energy source of Badea into the hydropyrolysis reactor of Marker, in order to provide a clean and sustainable energy system with a maximized conversion of solar radiation into chemical energy to achieve improved efficiency and suitability, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JIALAN ZHANG whose telephone number is (703)756-1794. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Ching-Yiu Fung can be reached at 571-270-5713. 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.
/J.Z./Examiner, Art Unit 1732
/CORIS FUNG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1732