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 Status
Rejected Claims: 1-3, 5-6, 8-11, 13-17, 19, and 21-24
Cancelled Claims: 4, 7, 12, 18, and 20
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 06 APRIL 2026 has been entered.
In view of the amendment to the claims, the amendment of claims 1, 3, and 17, the cancellation of claims 4, 7, 12, 18, and 20, and the addition of new claims 21-24 have been acknowledged.
In view of the amendment to claim 1 and the cancellation of claim 12, the objections to the claims have been withdrawn.
In view of the amendment to claims 3 and 17, all but one (1) of the previous rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been withdrawn. See below for the sustained rejection against claim 17.
In view of the amendment to claim 1 and the cancellation of claims 7, 12, 18, and 20, the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102 have been withdrawn and new rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been made.
In view of the cancellation to claim 4, the rejection of claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. 103 has been withdrawn.
In view of the amendment to claim 1, the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been modified.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 06 APRIL 2026 have been fully considered.
Applicant argues that Lee does not teach the newly amended subject matter of instant claim 1 and therefore instant claim 1 is allowable, as well as the claims that depend upon instant claim 1 (Arguments filed 06 APRIL 2026, Pages 8-11).
Applicant’s arguments with respect to instant claims 1-3, 5-6, 8-11, 13-17, and 19 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Therefore, instant claims 1 and the claims that depend upon instant claim 1 are not allowable.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
Claims 15-17, and 22-23 are 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 15 recites the limitation "said heat transfer unit" in line 3 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 16-17 are rejected because of their dependence upon claim 15.
Regarding claim 17, the phrase "such as", in line 3 of the claim, renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 22 recites the limitation "the main reactor" in line 2 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 23 is rejected because of its dependence upon claim 22.
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 1-2, 8, 13, 15, 17, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al US Patent Application No. 20050006317 A1 (hereinafter Lee) in view of McBrayer, Jr. et al US Patent No. US 5552039 A (hereinafter McBrayer).
Regarding Claim 1, Lee teaches a supercritical water system (i.e., a supercritical water oxidation (SCWO) system; Abstract)
with a supercritical water reactor (Fig. 3, #201) as a mixed-type (i.e., a well-mixed SCWO reactor; Paragraph 0042)
that has an input water feed (i.e., a feedstock supplied to said well-mixed SCWO reactor by a feedstock supply line; Fig. 3, #103)
and a partial recycle (i.e., a recirculation loop; Fig. 3, Line designated “Partial Recycle”) with valves to regulate the amount of each material provided in the mixture (i.e., a recirculation loop flow regulator in fluid communication with said well-mixed SCWO reactor; a recirculation loop which includes said well-mixed SCWO reactor and said recirculation loop flow regulator; Fig. 3, #111) in which the air or oxygen feed (i.e., such that said recirculation loop flow regulator receives an oxidant from an oxidant supply line; Fig. 3, #101) is added to the input water (i.e., and a first portion of a reactor effluent from said well-mixed SCWO reactor) before being fed into the supercritical water reactor (i.e., and supplies said oxidant and said first portion of said reactor effluent to said well-mixed SCWO reactor)
wherein a preheater (Fig. 3, #107) provides heat for the water to nearly reach the critical temperature (Paragraphs 0039-0040).
Lee does not teach an internal heat exchanger positioned within said well-mixed SCWO reactor and mounted on an interior surface of said well-mixed SCWO reactor, such that the internal heat exchanger extends along at least a portion of the interior surface of a reactor wall of said well mixed SCWO reactor, wherein the internal heat exchanger is operationally associated with said well-mixed SCWO reactor which performs at least one of heating said well-mixed SCWO reactor and cooling said well-mixed SCWO reactor.
However, McBrayer teaches a reactor (i.e., said well-mixed SCWO reactor; Fig. 1, #10) which includes reaction chamber (Fig. 1, #12) and a pressure vessel (Fig. 1, #22; Col. 8, Lines 57-67) in which the pressure vessel can be provided with a cooling coil (i.e., an internal heat exchanger positioned within said well-mixed SCWO reactor; Fig. 8, #670) which may be a separate element, integral to the pressure vessel, or embedded within the walls of the pressure vessel (i.e., such that the internal heat exchanger extends along at least a portion of the interior surface of a reactor wall of said well mixed SCWO reactor; Col. 14, Lines 59-67) where a coil is preferable because it may withstand pressures and pressure variations at lower wall thicknesses (Col. 15, Lines 1-8) where a low as possible temperature is maintained in the pressure vessel such that the thickness of the pressure vessel may be lowered and lower-cost construction material may be used (i.e., wherein the internal heat exchanger is operationally associated with said well-mixed SCWO reactor which performs at least one of cooling said well-mixed SCWO reactor; Col. 14, Lines 24-29) and the pressure vessel wall being outside the reaction chamber wall allows for many advantages including reduced plugging, improved process safety, and more compact design among other advantages (Col. 7, Line 29 to Col 8, Line 45).
McBrayer is analogous to the claimed invention because it pertains to a high pressure and temperature reactor operating under supercritical water conditions (Abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the instant claimed invention to modify the supercritical water system as taught by Lee with the cooled pressure vessel in the reactor as taught by McBrayer because the cooled pressure vessel would lower construction costs of the pressure vessel and the pressure vessel would reduce plugging, improve process safety, and allow for a more compact design of the reactor.
Regarding Claim 2, Lee further teaches that the supercritical water reactor (Fig. 3, #201) is a mixed-type reactor (i.e., wherein said well-mixed SCWO reactor is a continuously-mixed tank reactor; Paragraph 0042).
Regarding Claim 8, Lee further teaches controlling the air mass flowing in the air feed (i.e., wherein said recirculation loop flow regulator is an air lift; Paragraph 0039) and that the air and water feeds will be mixed within the supercritical water reactor (i.e., located within said well-mixed SCWO reactor, such that said recirculation loop is completely within said well-mixed SCWO reactor; Paragraph 0040).
Regarding Claim 13, Lee further teaches in Fig. 4, that the preheater can be in the form of a heat exchanger (Fig. 4, #503) which utilizes the effluent (Fig. 4, #215) from the supercritical water reactor to heat the raw water entering the reactor in a counter-current configuration, and states that the exchangers may use any methods known to ordinary skill in the art to exchange heat from the effluent stream (i.e., wherein said heat transfer unit is in a counter-current configuration; Paragraph 0051) and co-current and counter-current heat exchangers are the most well-known two options for heat exchanger configurations.
Regarding Claim 15, Lee further teaches that thermal energy may be added to the supercritical water reactor to maintain the temperature inside the supercritical water region (Paragraph 0036) and that the supercritical water reactor is monitored by a temperature controller (Fig. 3, #221) which applies additional heat via heating elements (Fig. 3, #223; Paragraph 0045) and that a heat exchanger utilizing the effluent flow as a heating fluid replaces some or all of the heating required by the heating elements and the preheater (i.e., a heat transfer flow regulator which controls the flow rate of a heat transfer fluid flowing through said internal heat exchanger, wherein said heat transfer fluid flow regulator increases the flow rate of said heat transfer fluid to increase the heating by said internal heat exchanger; Paragraph 0051).
Regarding Claim 17, Lee further teaches that the heat exchange fluid of the heat exchanger (Fig. 4, #503) is the reactor effluent (i.e., wherein said heat transfer fluid comprises water or a mixture of water and at least one of said reactor effluent; Paragraph 0051).
McBrayer further teaches that water is preferably used as a cooling fluid (i.e., wherein said heat transfer fluid comprises water; Col. 14, Lines 32-47).
Regarding Claim 22, McBrayer further teaches a reactor (Fig. 1, #10) which includes reaction chamber (Fig. 1, #12) and a pressure vessel (Fig. 1, #22; Col. 8, Lines 57-67) in which the pressure vessel can be provided with a cooling coil with an inlet and outlet (Fig. 8, #670) which may be a separate element, integral to the pressure vessel, or embedded within the walls of the pressure vessel (i.e., wherein said internal heat exchanger is a coiled pipe which is inserted into the main reactor and is installed along an inner surface of the main reactor; Col. 14, Lines 59-67) where a coil is preferable because it may withstand pressures and pressure variations at lower wall thicknesses (Col. 15, Lines 1-8).
Claims 3, 5-6, 14, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of McBrayer as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Younes et al US Patent Application No. 20210229054 A1 (hereinafter Younes).
Regarding Claim 3, Lee in view of McBrayer does not teach at least one polishing reactor connected to said well-mixed SCWO reactor such that said at least one polishing reactor receives a second portion of said reacted feedstock from said well-mixed SCWO reactor.
However, Younes teaches a reactor configured to operate in supercritical water conditions (Paragraph 0005) in which the reactor has a first thermal oxidation section and a second thermal oxidation section operated in series (i.e., at least one polishing reactor connected to said well-mixed SCWO reactor such that said at least one polishing reactor receives a second portion of a reacted feedstock from said well-mixed SCWO reactor; Paragraph 0009) utilizing a catalyst in the second thermal oxidation section to increase the conversion rate of reactions and lower the operating temperature for the oxidation of ammonia and ammonia based compounds (Paragraph 0034).
Younes is analogous to the claimed invention because it pertains to a supercritical water oxidation process for the removal of sulfur and ammonia compounds (Paragraph 0001). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the instant claimed invention to modify the supercritical water system made obvious by Lee in view of McBrayer with the second thermal oxidation reactor as taught by Younes because the second reactor would improve the oxidation of ammonia and ammonia based compounds.
Regarding Claim 5, Younes further teaches that an oxidant stream can comprise alcohols, acids or ketones (i.e., wherein co-fuel) and can be introduced into the second section of the reactor (i.e., is supplied to said at least one polishing reactor at an inlet of said at least one polishing reactor or at various locations along the length of said at least one polishing reactor; Paragraphs 0035-0036).
Regarding Claim 6, Younes further teaches that an oxidant stream can comprise ozone, oxygen, and H2O2 (i.e., wherein said oxidant) and can be introduced into the second section of the reactor (i.e., is further supplied to said at least one polishing section; Paragraphs 0035-0036).
Regarding Claim 14, Lee in view of McBrayer does not teach wherein at least two of said well-mixed SCWO reactors are used in series.
However, Younes teaches a reactor configured to operate a supercritical water conditions (Paragraph 0005) in which the reactor has a first thermal oxidation section and a second thermal oxidation section operated in series (Paragraph 0009) wherein the second thermal oxidation section is configured to operate with a catalyst in the temperature range of 300°C to 600°C in supercritical conditions (i.e., wherein at least two of said well-mixed SCWO reactors are used in series) to increase the conversion rate of reactions for the oxidation of ammonia and ammonia based compounds (Paragraph 0034).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the instant claimed invention to modify the supercritical water system made obvious by Lee in view of McBrayer with the second thermal oxidation reactor as taught by Younes because the second reactor would improve the oxidation of ammonia and ammonia based compounds.
Regarding Claim 19, Younes further teaches that the reactor can be a tube reactor (i.e., wherein said at least one polishing reactor is either a tubular reactor; Paragraph 0030).
Claims 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of McBrayer as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hong International Patent Application No. WO 9111394 A1 (hereinafter Hong).
Regarding Claim 9, Lee in view of McBrayer does not teach wherein said recirculation loop flow regulator is an eductor located outside of said well-mixed SCWO reactor.
However, Hong teaches that recycle of hot reactor effluent to the reactor inlet by means of an eductor (i.e., wherein said recirculation loop flow regulator is an eductor located outside of said well-mixed SCWO reactor) has been shown to attain rapid reaction initiation (Page 16, Lines 13-22).
Hong is analogous to the claimed invention because it pertains to a method of oxidizing materials in the presence of an oxidant and water at supercritical temperatures (Abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the instant claimed invention to modify the supercritical water system made obvious by Lee in view of McBrayer with the eductor as taught by Hong because the eductor would attain rapid reaction initiation.
Regarding Claim 10, Lee further teaches that the air and raw water may be mixed prior to entering the supercritical water reactor (i.e., wherein said oxidant and said first portion of said reactor effluent mix with said feedstock before reaching said well-mixed SCWO reactor; Paragraph 0040).
Regarding Claim 11, Lee further teaches that the air and raw water may be mixed in the supercritical water reactor (i.e., wherein said oxidant and said first portion of said reactor effluent mix with said feedstock within said well-mixed SCWO reactor; Paragraph 0040).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of McBrayer as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Griffith et al International Patent Application No. WO 9847822 A1 (hereinafter Griffith).
Regarding Claim 16, Lee in view of McBrayer does not teach wherein said heat transfer fluid flow regulator is a variable speed pump.
However, Griffith teaches that variable speed pumps are known for the purpose of maintaining a supply pressure to a heat exchanger (i.e., wherein said heat transfer fluid flow regulator is a variable speed pump; Page 8, Lines 11-31).
Griffith is analogous to the claimed invention because it pertains to a supercritical oxidation reactor (Abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the instant claimed invention to modify the supercritical water system made obvious by Lee in view of McBrayer with the variable speed pump as taught by Griffith because the variable speed pump would maintain the supply pressure of the fluid.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Cai US Patent Application No. US 20190185361 A1 (hereinafter Cai).
Regarding Claim 21, Lee teaches a supercritical water system (i.e., a supercritical water oxidation (SCWO) system; Abstract)
with a supercritical water reactor (Fig. 3, #201) as a mixed-type (i.e., a well-mixed SCWO reactor; Paragraph 0042)
that has an input water feed (i.e., a feedstock supplied to said well-mixed SCWO reactor by a feedstock supply line; Fig. 3, #103)
and a partial recycle (i.e., a recirculation loop; Fig. 3, Line designated “Partial Recycle”) with valves to regulate the amount of each material provided in the mixture (i.e., a recirculation loop flow regulator in fluid communication with said well-mixed SCWO reactor; a recirculation loop which includes said well-mixed SCWO reactor and said recirculation loop flow regulator; Fig. 3, #111) in which the air or oxygen feed (i.e., such that said recirculation loop flow regulator receives an oxidant from an oxidant supply line; Fig. 3, #101) is added to the input water (i.e., and a first portion of a reactor effluent from said well-mixed SCWO reactor) before being fed into the supercritical water reactor (i.e., and supplies said oxidant and said first portion of said reactor effluent to said well-mixed SCWO reactor)
wherein a preheater (Fig. 3, #107) provides heat for the water to nearly reach the critical temperature (Paragraphs 0039-0040) and then the supercritical water reactor is equipped with heating elements (Fig. 3, #223) which can be an electrical heating jacket (i.e., a jacketed heat exchanger attached to an exterior surface of said well-mixed SCWO reactor, wherein said jacketed heat exchanger is operationally associated with said well-mixed SCWO reactor which performs at least one of heating said well-mixed SCWO reactor; Fig. 3; Paragraph 0042).
Lee does not teach the jacketed heat exchanger comprises a coiled pipe which is flattened, such that said jacketed heat exchanger is configured to circulate a heat-transfer fluid through said coiled pipe.
However, Cai teaches thermal elements (Fig. 1, #11) that are adapted to provide heat flux into and out of the reactor (Fig. 1, #1) cavity (Fig. 1, #3) and can be seen to have a rectangular cross section in Fig. 1 (i.e., the jacketed heat exchanger comprises a coiled pipe which is flattened; Paragraphs 0094-0095). Cai further teaches that electrical heating elements and tubular heat exchangers configured for receiving heating/cooling fluid are interchangeable (i.e., such that said jacketed heat exchanger is configured to circulate a heat-transfer fluid through said coiled pipe; Paragraphs 0096-0100).
Cai is analogous to the claimed invention because it pertains to a supercritical water oxidation reactor (Abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the instant claimed invention to modify the electrical heating jacket as taught by Lee with the flattened tubular fluid heat exchanger as taught by Cai because the two heating elements are known alternatives for controlling the temperature of a supercritical water oxidation reactor.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of McBrayer as applied to claim 22 above, and with support from Pinar Mert Cuce, Erdem Cuce, Optimization of configurations to enhance heat transfer from a longitudinal fin exposed to natural convection and radiation, International Journal of Low-Carbon Technologies, Volume 9, Issue 4, December 2014, Pages 305–310, https://doi.org/10.1093/ijlct/ctt005 (hereinafter Cuce).
Regarding Claim 23, Lee in view of McBrayer does not teach the use of fins or corrugated pipes to improve the heat transfer performance of the internal heat exchanger.
However, Cuce teaches that fins are extensively used to enhance the rate of heat transfer from a hot surface, especially in the traditional application of heat exchangers (i.e., the use of fins or corrugated pipes to improve the heat transfer performance of the internal heat exchanger; Page 305, Introduction).
Cuce is analogous to the claimed invention because it pertains to the optimization of heat transfer with fins (Abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the internal heat exchanger make obvious by Lee in view of McBrayer with the fins as taught by Cuce because fins are well known in the art of thermal engineering to improve heat transfer in heat exchangers.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Cai as applied to claim 21 above, and with support from Cuce.
Regarding Claim 24, Lee in view of Cai does not teach the use of fins or corrugated pipes to improve the heat transfer performance of the jacketed heat exchanger.
However, Cuce teaches that fins are extensively used to enhance the rate of heat transfer from a hot surface, especially in the traditional application of heat exchangers (i.e., the use of fins or corrugated pipes to improve the heat transfer performance of the jacketed heat exchanger; Page 305, Introduction).
Cuce is analogous to the claimed invention because it pertains to the optimization of heat transfer with fins (Abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the jacketed heat exchanger make obvious by Lee in view of McBrayer with the fins as taught by Cuce because fins are well known in the art of thermal engineering to improve heat transfer in heat exchangers.
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 ADAM ADRIEN GERMAIN whose telephone number is (703)756-5499. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 7:30-4:30.
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 (571)272-5954. 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.
/A.A.G./ Examiner, Art Unit 1777
/Ryan B Huang/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1777
Prosecution Insights