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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/5/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Furusjӧ reference still anticipates at least claim 1 though the rejection has been modified to address the amendments. New claim 37, too, is anticipated. Claims 38 and 39 allowable (but objected to). The USC 112 rejection of claim 2 has been obviated by amendment.
The amendment has changed the manner in which Furusjӧ is applied to at least claim 1. The instant specification and drawings depict that the hydrothermal processing unit 106 comprises multiple discrete elements including heat exchanger 128 and pressure vessel 130 (see Figure 2). Thus, the claimed hydrothermal processing unit is not limited to one device but can be a system of devices. It is the Office’s position that the HRSG 10, bio-slurry preparation unit 3, and HTL reactor 6 of Furusjӧ are all considered part of the claimed hydrothermal processing unit. The product recirculation stream of the claims is the steam output of the HRSG 10 (as shown in the bottom right of Figure 1 in Furusjӧ). Paragraph 60 of Furusjӧ states that this steam is input into unit 3 as the steam/heat input shown in Figure 1. The claimed limitations are therefore met by Furusjӧ in a manner not addressed by the Remarks, making the arguments moot.
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.
Claims 1-5, 7-10, 13-16, and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Furusjӧ (US 2020/0291314 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Furusjӧ discloses a method comprising: producing syngas in a gasification unit from a carbonaceous feedstock (paragraph 21); channeling the syngas to a HRSG 10 (paragraph 60) which is part of a hydrothermal processing unit along with HLT reactor 6 (see Figure 1); transferring heat from the syngas to a product recirculation stream in the HRSG 10 to provide a cooled syngas and heated product recirculation steam (paragraph 60 and Figure 1); producing a hydrothermal product in HTL reactor 6 using the heated product recirculation steam provided to bio-slurry preparation unit 3 (see Figure 1).
Regarding claim 2, Furusjӧ discloses cooling the syngas (paragraph 60). As per the USC 112 rejection above, the Office cannot ascertain from the claim what the ash fusion temperature is as it would depend on the composition of to what it is referring.
Regarding claim 3, Furusjӧ discloses hydrothermal liquification and carbonization (paragraph 10) and hydrothermal gasification (paragraph 13).
Regarding claim 4, Furusjӧ discloses producing bio-oil (paragraph 10) and cooling and separation of its components (paragraph 36).
Regarding claim 5, Furusjӧ discloses hydrogenation for upgrade (paragraph 8).
Regarding claim 7, Furusjӧ discloses providing solid product of the hydrothermal process to the gasifier (paragraph 20).
Regarding claims 8 and 14, Furusjӧ discloses milling the gasification feedstock (paragraph 21).
Regarding claims 9, 15, and 16, Furusjӧ discloses adding water to create a slurry gasifier feedstock (paragraph 20) and transferring syngas product heat to the HTL (paragraph 22). Furusjӧ discloses that the HTL include hydrothermal gasification (paragraph 13).
Regarding claim 10, Furusjӧ discloses separating organics from the bio-slurry and processing the aqueous stream in an anaerobic digestion process (paragraph 13).
Regarding claim 13, Furusjӧ discloses transferring heat in the hydrothermal processing unit further comprises maintaining the temperature of the biomass feedstock in the pressurized water stream for a duration that enables crude bio-oil to be extracted from the biomass feedstock aided by a hydrolysis reaction (paragraph 36).
Regarding claim 37, Furusjӧ discloses that HRSG 10 comprises a hot side which can input hot syngas and output cool syngas, a cold side which inputs water recirculated from HTL reactor 6 and output steam, wherein the syngas provides the heat for the water (paragraph 60 and Figure 1); and transferring heat from that steam to the biomass by inputting it into preparation unit 3 (paragraph 60 and Figure 1).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 6, 11, 12, 17, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Furusjӧ as applied to claims 1 and 4 above, and further in view of Harmon (US 2021/0198615 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Furusjӧ does not disclose transesterification. Harmon—in an invention for biomass growth and gasification—discloses the use of transesterification—defined as conversion of the lipids in biochar into biodiesel without first extracting them (paragraph 155). Harmon discloses transesterification as a means by which to create usable fuel from the biomass processes (paragraph 786). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to perform transesterification on the bio-oil of Furusjӧ to produce usable fuels as suggested by Harmon.
Regarding claims 11, Furusjӧ does not disclose a turbine. Harmon discloses sending the hydrothermal multifarious product to a hydraulic turbine to capture energy from the system (paragraph 632). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to utilize the potential energy of a process stream in Furusjӧ for producing power as suggested by Harmon.
Regarding claims 12 and 17, Furusjӧ discloses utilizing biomass (including algae) but fails to disclose processing organisms to create the biomass using carbon dioxide capture. Harmon discloses sequestering the CO2 product or utilizing it in biomass growth to allow for synergy between the different systems (paragraph 476). Harmon discloses that the biomass can be algae, bacteria, fungi, yeast, and/or amoeba (paragraph 142), which includes heterotrophic organisms. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to utilize the CO2 byproduct in Furusjӧ as means to grow the biomass and increase system efficiency as suggested by Harmon.
Regarding claim 22, Harmon discloses a turbine and growing heterotrophic or photoautotrophic organisms as above.
Claims 18, 19, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Furusjӧ and Harmon as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Takeda (US 2016/0208396 A1).
Regarding claim 18, Furusjӧ discloses the use of an electrolyzer to produce hydrogen and oxygen from water (paragraph 24) and Harmon discloses dissolving carbon dioxide into water (paragraph 159) and utilizing CO2 in biomass growth to allow for synergy between the different systems (paragraph 476) but neither disclosed electrolyzing water dissolved with carbon dioxide. Takeda—in an invention for generating organic compounds—discloses absorbing carbon dioxide into water and the electrolyzing the water so as to produce a usable organic product while removing unwanted CO2 as a greenhouse gas (paragraphs 3-7). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to electrolyze the aqueous CO2 of Harmon using the electrolyzer of Furusjӧ so as to form usable organic product for the system as disclosed by Takeda.
Regarding claim 19, Harmon discloses that the water is received from the hydrothermal processing unit (paragraph 369).
Regarding claim 21, Harmon discloses that the biomass can be algae, bacteria, fungi, yeast, and/or amoeba (paragraph 142), which includes heterotrophic organisms.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Furusjӧ, Harmon, and Takeda as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Kuhry (US 2011/0111475 A1).
Takeda discloses that electrolysis would occur at the cathode (paragraph 4) and that organic compounds are produced but not specifically acetate. Kuhry—in an invention for the conversion of biomass to hydrocarbon—discloses the creation of acetate by electrolysis with the advantage that the acetate could be subsequently electrolyzed to produce simply compounds (paragraph 41). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to produced acetate in Furusjӧ, Harmon, and Takeda since it can be electrolyzed for useful compounds as disclosed by Kuhry.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Furusjӧ as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Harmon and Laqua (US 2019/0048359 A1).
Furusjӧ discloses utilizing biomass (including algae) but fails to disclose processing organisms to create the biomass. Harmon discloses sequestering the CO2 product or utilizing it in biomass growth to allow for synergy between the different systems (paragraph 476). Harmon discloses that the biomass can be algae, bacteria, fungi, yeast, and/or amoeba (paragraph 142), which includes heterotrophic and photoautotrophic organisms. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to utilize the CO2 byproduct in Furusjӧ as means to grow the biomass and increase system efficiency as suggested by Harmon.
Laqua—in an invention for producing fuels from biomass—discloses the use of Azolla and Lemna (an algae) as a biomass source for their fast growth (paragraph 49). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to utilize the Azolla with algae as disclosed in Laqua in the process of Furusjӧ and Harmon for their rapid generation.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 38 and 39 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: in contrast to claim 1, claim 38 positively recites the hydrothermal pressure vessel and defines the product recirculation stream as output from the hydrothermal pressure vessel. This precludes the interpretation used in claim 1 that the product recirculation stream is steam from the heat exchanger. Claim 39 depends on claim 38.
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 IMRAN AKRAM whose telephone number is (571)270-3241. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9a-5p.
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.
/IMRAN AKRAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725