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 1 and 12 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In Claim 1, “said well-mixed reactor” twice in line 12 should read “said well-mixed SCWO reactor”.
In Claim 12, “said well-mixed reactor” twice in lines 3-4 and in lines 5-6 should read “said well-mixed SCWO reactor”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 3-6, 17, and 19 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 3 recites the limitation "said reacted feedstock" in lines 3-4 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 4-6 and 19 are rejected because of their dependence upon claim 3.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "said heat transfer fluid" in line 1 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 17, the phrase "such as", used twice in lines 3 and 4 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 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 1-2, 7-8, 12-13, 15, 17-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) & (a)(2) as being anticipated by Lee et al (US Patent Application No. 20050006317 A1) hereinafter Lee.
Regarding Claim 1, Lee discloses 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 (i.e., a heat transfer unit; Fig. 3, #107) provides heat for the water to nearly reach the critical temperature (i.e., operationally associated with said well-mixed reactor which performs at least one of heating said well-mixed SCWO reactor; Paragraphs 0039-0040).
Regarding Claim 2, Lee anticipates the SCWO system of claim 1. Lee further discloses 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 7, Lee anticipates the SCWO system of claim 1. Lee further discloses that the critical temperature of the water in the reactor is near 374°C (i.e., wherein the temperature within said well-mixed SCWO reactor is between 200°C and 700°C; Paragraph 0040).
Regarding Claim 8, Lee anticipates the SCWO system of claim 1. Lee further discloses 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 12, Lee anticipates the SCWO system of claim 1. Lee further discloses a preheater (i.e., wherein said heat transfer unit includes at least one of an external heat exchanger; Fig. 3, #107) and equipping the supercritical water reactor with external heating elements (i.e., a jacketed heat exchanger on an exterior surface of said well-mixed reactor; Fig. 3, #223; Paragraphs 0040 and 0042).
Regarding Claim 13, Lee anticipates the SCWO system of claim 1. Lee further discloses 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 anticipates the SCWO system of claim 1. Lee further discloses 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 heat transfer unit, wherein said heat transfer fluid flow regulator increases the flow rate of said heat transfer fluid to increase the heating by said heat transfer unit; Paragraph 0051).
Regarding Claim 17, Lee anticipates the SCWO system of claim 1. Lee further discloses that the heat exchange fluid of the heat exchanger (Fig. 4, #503) is the reactor effluent (i.e., wherein said head transfer fluid comprises water or a mixture of water and at least one of said reactor effluent; Paragraph 0051).
Regarding Claim 18, Lee anticipates the SCWO system of claim 1. Lee further discloses that the organic content of the raw feed may cause the supercritical water reactor to be self-sustaining (i.e., wherein said feedstock is a high-strength feedstock; Paragraph 0042).
Furthermore, the limitation “wherein said feedstock is a high-strength feedstock” is directed toward materials or articles worked upon by the claimed invention and is therefore not subject to patentability. The inclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims (In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935) and thus holds no patentable weight. See MPEP §2115.
Regarding Claim 20, Lee anticipates the SCWO system of claim 1. Lee further discloses that the organic content of the raw feed may cause the supercritical water reactor to be self-sustaining or may require heating elements (i.e., wherein said feedstock is a low-strength feedstock; Paragraph 0042).
Furthermore, the limitation “wherein said feedstock is a low-strength feedstock” is directed toward materials or articles worked upon by the claimed invention and is therefore not subject to patentability. The inclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims (In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935) and thus holds no patentable weight. See MPEP §2115.
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.
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 3-6, 14, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al (US Patent Application No. 20050006317 A1) hereinafter Lee 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 anticipates the SCWO system of claim 1. Lee 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 said 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 to modify the supercritical water system as taught by Lee 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 4, Lee in view of Younes makes obvious the SCWO system of claim 3. Younes further teaches that the second thermal oxidation section is configured to operate with a catalyst in the temperature range of 300°C to 600°C in both sub-critical or supercritical conditions (i.e., wherein the temperature within the said at least one polishing reactor is between around 300°C and 700°C; Paragraph 0034).
Regarding Claim 5, Lee in view of Younes makes obvious the SCWO system of claim 3. 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, Lee in view of Younes makes obvious the SCWO system of claim 3. 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 anticipates the SCWO system of claim 1. Lee 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 to modify the supercritical water system as taught by Lee 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, Lee in view of Younes makes obvious the SCWO system of claim 3. 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 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 anticipates the SCWO system of claim 1. Lee 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 to modify the supercritical water system as taught by Lee with the eductor as taught by Hong because the eductor would attain rapid reaction initiation.
Regarding Claim 10, Lee in view of Hong makes obvious the SCWO system of claim 9. 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 in view of Hong makes obvious the SCWO system of claim 9. 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 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 anticipates the SCWO system of claim 15. Lee 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 to modify the supercritical water system as taught by Lee with the variable speed pump as taught by Griffith because the variable speed pump would maintain the supply pressure of the fluid.
Conclusion
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
/IN SUK C BULLOCK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1772