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 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 1-8 and 18-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Theissen et al. (US 8,961,626 B1) in view of Despen et al. (US 20150239743 A1), in view of Hilliard et al. (US 5,573,559) in view of Bryan et al. (US 20030106266 A1).
With respect to claim 1, Theissen teaches an apparatus (Figure 1) for converting dirty fuels to steam and useful gas/syngas, the apparatus comprising:
an updraft gasifier or pyrolyzer/(combustor) for burning and/or pyrolyzing dirty fuels/(petro/fossil fuels) (which would generate “dirty exhaust”) (col. 3, lines 37-50, and col. 6, lines 49-55) to produce heat and a dirty exhaust when burned;
a biomass gasifier configured to scrub, via combustion, (as illustrated) the dirty exhaust (as illustrated) containing high amounts of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) (emitted from combusting petro/fossil fuels in updraft gasifier or pyrolyzer/(combustor)), wherein the scrubbing involves reforming/filtering the dirty exhaust into a clean auxiliary syngas fuel/(gases exiting the gasifier) (col. 3, lines 37-50 and col. 6, lines 49-55), and wherein the biomass gasifier allows for the scrubbing of the dirty exhaust without using an additional scrubber (due to the presence of the char as set forth above) and with substantially no processing of flue gas (col. 3, lines 37-50 and col. 6, lines 49-55) - Theissen explicitly teaches that the char resulting from the burning of the seed corn in the biomass gasifier of Figure 1 results in a filter which purifies the exhaust gas generated in the updraft gasifier or pyrolyzer/(combustor), thereby creating a clean burning usable gas (col. 3, lines 37-50, and col. 6, lines 49-55), the char layer filtering/reforming/scrubbing effect in Theissen is similar to the biochar instantly disclosed (see instant para. [0017]-[0018], [0040]-[0041], [0045]); and therefore reads on the limitation: and the production of said char serves as the only scrubbing agent (col. 3, lines 37-50) (Theissen does not teach cleaning/scrubbing the produced gas otherwise), and reads on: “a carbon adsorber or an activated carbon bed to remove volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and/or compounds that contain sulfur, such as mercaptans and hydrogen sulfide, from the exhaust, auxiliary fuel”.
Theissen fails to teach wherein the biomass gasifier when in use creates a char having a carbon content of at least 50 wt. % and fails to teach wherein activated carbon is manufactured from biochar produced as a byproduct of the biomass gasifier; and wherein activated carbon in the carbon adsorber or activated carbon bed (as above) is impregnated with sodium hydroxide or potassium hydroxide to enhance adsorption performance.
Despen teaches forming activated carbon from biochar (which is produced during biomass gasification/pyrolysis) in order to provide an alternative source of energy to fossil fuels that is more cost effective (para. [0003]-[0006])), and wherein the biomass gasifier when in use creates a char/(biogenic activated carbon) having a carbon content of at least 50 wt. % (para. [0027]), and teaches adding additives to the char/(biogenic activated carbon) (para. [0124]) such as sodium hydroxide or potassium hydroxide to the activated carbon (para. [0193]) in order to assist in the removal of selected contaminants such as VOC’s and metals (para. [0217], [0260] and [0267]-[0268]). Therefore, it would be obvious that the char produced in the gasifier of Theissen et al. would have a carbon content of at least 50 wt. %; and consequently, it would be expected for the char in Theissen et al. would be capable of performing as instantly claimed such that the production of said char would serve as the only scrubbing agent.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing for the invention to manufacture activated carbon from biochar produced as a byproduct of the biomass gasifier in Theissen, as taught by Desphen, in order to provide an alternative source of energy to fossil fuels that is more cost effective.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing for the invention to impregnate the activated carbon/(char) in Theissen with sodium hydroxide or potassium hydroxide, as taught by Despen, in order to assist in the removal of selected contaminants such as VOC’s, sulfur, and metals.
Theissen fails to teach wherein the biomass gasifier operates at temperatures between 1200 and 2400 degrees Fahrenheit such that pollutants are chemically decomposed or precipitated out as ash. Hilliard teaches a method of converting biomass/(agricultural waste) in a biomass gasifier/(combustion chamber (12)) to producer gas (Figures 1-2), wherein the biomass gasifier comprises a rotating tuyere (16)) (col. 8, lines 48-63), which operates at temperatures between 600 and about 2100 degrees Fahrenheit (col. 5, lines 41- col. 6, lines 42), which overlaps with the instantly claimed temperature range of 1200 and 2400 degrees Fahrenheit, such that pollutants are chemically decomposed or precipitated out as ash (Figure 2, 41). Hilliard teaches that the choice of operating temperature will affect the content of the resulting producer gas (col. 5, lines 45-52).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing for the invention to operate the biomass gasifier in the apparatus of Theissen at temperatures between 1200 and 2400 degrees Fahrenheit, such that pollutants are chemically decomposed or precipitated out as ash, as taught by Hilliard, in order to affect the content of the resulting producer gas.
Theissen teaches wherein the syngas/gases produced in gasifier (26) are sent to an engine (30) that is connected to a generator (32); however, Theissen fails to teach
a syngas burner that burns the clean auxiliary syngas fuel; an evaporator receiving heat from the syngas burner to produce a working fluid; and a working fluid electric generator operatively linked to the boiler to produce electrical power from the working fluid.
Bryan teaches an apparatus (Figure 1 & 8) for converting dirty fuels/(solid fuel) to steam and useful gas/syngas, the apparatus comprising: an updraft gasifier or pyrolyzer (10) for burning and/or pyrolyzing dirty fuels (as illustrated) to produce heat and a syngas/exhaust (15), with said syngas (15) of the dirty fuel generally creating a dirty exhaust when burned; a biomass/solid fuel (para. [0026]) gasifier (12) to combust the dirty fuel syngas/exhaust (15) and to produce syngas fuel; a syngas burner (21 & 22) that burns syngas (para. [0024]); an evaporator/(heat exchanger (28)) receiving heat from the syngas burner (21 & 22) to produce a working fluid/(heated air & steam (Figure 8)); and a working fluid electric generator operatively linked to the boiler/(evaporator/heat exchanger (28)) to produce electrical power from the working fluid (air & steam) (as illustrated) (para. [0026]) in order to provide an energy efficient cogeneration apparatus.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing for the invention to provide the apparatus of Theissen with a syngas burner that burns the clean auxiliary syngas fuel; and an evaporator receiving heat from the syngas burner to produce a working fluid; and a working fluid electric generator operatively linked to the evaporator to produce electrical power from the working fluid, as taught by Bryan in order to provide an energy efficient cogeneration apparatus.
With respect to claim 2, Bryan further teaches wherein the working fluid/steam (Figure 8) is selected from the group consisting of: (1) water/steam and (ii) an organic, high-molecular-mass fluid whose vaporization temperature is lower than that of water; and the evaporator (Figure 1, 28) is selected from the group consisting of: (i) a steam boiler (para. [0026]) and (ii) an evaporator included in an Organic Rankine Cycle (ORC), respectively.
With respect to claim 3, Theissen teaches wherein the auxiliary fuel (i.e. auxiliary syngas fuel) is a biomass syngas (as illustrated – biomass fuel is fed into gasifier (26)) or an oil.
Regarding limitations recited in claim 3 which are directed to a manner of operating disclosed device, neither the manner of operating a disclosed device nor material or article worked upon (i.e. biomass) further limit an apparatus claim. Said limitations do not differentiate apparatus claims from prior art. See MPEP § 2114 and 2115. Further, process limitations do not have patentable weight in an apparatus claim. See Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969) that states “Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and to an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.”
With respect to claim 4, Bryan teaches wherein the working fluid electric generator is a turbine (para. [0026]) (Figure 8).
Regarding limitations recited in claim 5 which are directed to a manner of operating disclosed device, neither the manner of operating a disclosed device nor material or article worked upon (i.e. the dirty fuels are selected from the group consisting of used tires, used shingles, used plastics, and combustible medical waste) further limit an apparatus claim. Said limitations do not differentiate apparatus claims from prior art. See MPEP § 2114 and 2115. Further, process limitations do not have patentable weight in an apparatus claim. See Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969) that states “Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and to an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.”
With respect to claim 6, Theissen teaches wherein a source of biomass material is mixed in with the dirty exhaust (in gasifier as illustrated in Figure 1), further wherein the scrubbing biomass gasifier includes a rotating bed (col. 3, lines 60-67).
Regarding limitations recited in claim 6 which are directed to a manner of operating disclosed device, neither the manner of operating (i.e. a source of biomass material mixed in with the dirty exhaust) a disclosed device nor material or article worked upon (i.e. a source of biomass material mixed in with the syngas exhaust) further limit an apparatus claim. Said limitations do not differentiate apparatus claims from prior art. See MPEP § 2114 and 2115. Further, process limitations do not have patentable weight in an apparatus claim. See Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969) that states “Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and to an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.”
With respect to claim 7, Theissen teaches wherein the rotating bed further includes a one or more fingers (Figure 2A, 48) extending into the biomass material from the rotating bed (col. 4, lines 52-63).
Regarding limitations recited in claim 7 which are directed to a manner of operating disclosed device, neither the manner of operating a disclosed device nor material or article worked upon (i.e. biomass material is selected from the group consisting of corn, wood, wood residue, energy crops, and agricultural residues) further limit an apparatus claim. Said limitations do not differentiate apparatus claims from prior art. See MPEP § 2114 and 2115. Further, process limitations do not have patentable weight in an apparatus claim. See Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969) that states “Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and to an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.”
With respect to claim 8, Theissen teaches wherein the scrubbing biomass gasifier (Figure 2A, 24) includes a shaft (36) with one or more fingers (38) extending radially inward, the shaft (36) with one or more fingers (38) extending radially inward being disposed above the rotating bed (as illustrated).
Regarding limitations recited in claim 8 which are directed to a manner of operating disclosed device, neither the manner of operating a disclosed device nor material or article worked upon (i.e. the biomass material is waste from industry, farms, households, and hospitals) further limit an apparatus claim. Said limitations do not differentiate apparatus claims from prior art. See MPEP § 2114 and 2115. Further, process limitations do not have patentable weight in an apparatus claim. See Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969) that states “Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and to an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.”
With respect to claims 18 and 23, Theissen teaches an apparatus (Figure 1) for co-generation of power that reduces the pollution of a burned primary fuel/(synthetic fuel), the apparatus comprising: an updraft gasifier/combustor for burning a primary fuel/(synthetic fuel) creating heat and dirty exhaust (col. 3, lines 41-50);
a downdraft biomass gasifier configured to scrub, via burning (as illustrated) the dirty exhaust (as illustrated) (emitted from combusting petro/fossil fuels in updraft gasifier or pyrolyzer/(combustor/burner)) (col. 3, lines 37-50, and col. 6, lines 49-55), to reform the dirty exhaust into a clean auxiliary syngas fuel/(gases exiting the gasifier) (col. 3, lines 37-50 and col. 6, lines 49-55), and wherein the downdraft biomass gasifier (Figure 1) allows for the scrubbing of the dirty exhaust without using an additional scrubber (due to the presence of the char bed) and with substantially no processing of flue gas (col. 3, lines 37-50 and col. 6, lines 49-55).
- Theissen explicitly teaches that the char resulting from the burning of the seed corn in the biomass gasifier of Figure 1 functions as a filter which is utilized to purify the exhaust gas generated in the updraft gasifier or pyrolyzer/(combustor), thereby creating a clean burning usable gas (col. 3, lines 37-50), the char layer filtering/reforming/scrubbing effect is similar to the biochar instantly disclosed (see instant para. [0017]-[0018], [0040]-[0041], [0045]); and therefore reads on the limitation: ”and the production of said char serves as the only scrubbing agent”, and reads on: “a carbon adsorber or an activated carbon bed to remove volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and/or compounds that contain sulfur, such as mercaptans and hydrogen sulfide, from the exhaust, auxiliary fuel”.
Theissen further teaches wherein the downdraft gasifier (Figure 2, 20) comprises a rotating bed assembly that allows used ashes and a char to fall to a central point, which is connected to an auger/(ash auger) for removing the fuel and ashes after they have been through the gasification process and fallen to a bottom of the rotating bed assembly (col. 3, lines 60 – col. 4, line 3); and wherein the downdraft biomass gasifier comprises a rotating-bed gasifier (col. 3, lines 60 – col. 4, line 40), which is similar to that instantly claimed, which would therefore be capable of performing as instantly claimed such that it performs carbon adsorption without requiring pumps to recirculate scrubbing solution, liquid distribution systems, or mist eliminators – Theissen does not teach the need to use any pumps or liquid distribution systems or mist eliminators. Furthermore, the instant specification (para. [0045]) states “The gasification system 100 includes carbon adsorber(s) in the form of the biomass gasifier 130 carbon adsorption removes volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and many compounds that contain sulfur, such as mercaptans and hydrogen sulfide, from vapor streams.” This in turn supports the conclusion above that the rotating-bed gasifier of Theissen reads on a “rotating-bed gasifier” that is capable of performing carbon adsorption without requiring pumps etc. and is similar to that instantly claimed, which would therefore be capable of performing as instantly claimed.
Theissen fails to teach wherein the biomass gasifier when in use creates a char having a carbon content of at least 50 wt. % and fails to teach wherein activated carbon in the carbon adsorber or activated carbon bed (as above) is impregnated with sodium hydroxide or potassium hydroxide to enhance adsorption performance. Despen teaches biomass feedstock gasification forming activated carbon (para. [0003]-[0006])), and wherein the biomass gasifier when in use creates a char/(biogenic activated carbon) having a carbon content of at least 50 wt. % (para. [0027]), and teaches adding additives (para. [0124]) such as sodium hydroxide or potassium hydroxide to the activated carbon (para. [0193]) in order to assist in the removal of selected contaminants such as VOC’s and metals (para. [0217], [0260] and [0267]-[0268]). Therefore, it would be obvious that the char produced in the gasifier of Theissen et al. would have a carbon content of at least 50 wt. %; and consequently, it would be expected for the char in Theissen et al. would be capable of performing as instantly claimed such that the production of said char would serve as the only scrubbing agent.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing for the invention to impregnate the activated carbon/(biochar bed) in Theissen with sodium hydroxide or potassium hydroxide, as taught by Despen, in order to assist in the removal of selected contaminants such as VOC’s and metals.
Theissen fails to teach providing a syngas burner for burning the clean syngas produced from the auxiliary fuel; a boiler operatively connected to the syngas burner for generating a hot gas; an engine operatively linked to the biomass gasifier for turning the syngas into power; and a first generator operatively connected to an engine for turning the power into electricity.
Bryan teaches an apparatus (Figure 1) for co-generation of power that reduces the pollution of a burned primary fuel/(solid fuel), the apparatus comprising: an updraft gasifier (10) for burning a primary fuel/(solid fuel) creating heat and dirty exhaust/(syngas); a downdraft/updraft gasifier (12) for burning the dirty exhaust/(syngas) and producing an auxiliary fuel;
a syngas burner (21) for burning the syngas produced from the auxiliary fuel; a boiler (Figure 1, 28) operatively connected to the syngas burner (21) for generating a hot gas; an engine (23) operatively linked to the biomass gasifier (12) (para. [0026]) for turning the syngas into power; and a first generator (illustrated – not numbered) operatively connected to an engine (64) for turning the power into electricity (as illustrated in Figure 8) in order to provide an energy efficient cogeneration apparatus.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of filing for the invention to provide a syngas burner for burning the syngas produced from the auxiliary fuel; a boiler operatively connected to the syngas burner for generating a hot gas; an engine operatively linked to the biomass gasifier for turning the syngas into power; and a first generator operatively connected to an engine for turning the power into electricity in the apparatus of Theissen, as taught by Bryan, in order to provide an energy efficient cogeneration apparatus.
With respect to claim 19, Bryan further teaches a second generator (64) operatively connected to the engine (23) to create additional electricity (para. [0029]).
With respect to claim 20, Bryan teaches wherein the steam boiler (28) receives additional heat from another combustor (22).
With respect to claim 21, Despen further teaches wherein the char has a carbon content of at least 65 wt.% (para. [0027]).
With respect to claim 22, Despen further teaches wherein the char has a carbon content of at least 65 wt. % (page 6, lines 24-29).
Claims 12-17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Theissen et al. (US 8,961,626 B1) in view of Despen et al. (US 20150239743 A1) in view of Bryan et al. (US 20030106266 A1), in view of Smith et al. (US 3,741,890).
With respect to claims 12 and 17, Theissen teaches a method for providing electricity (via generator (Figure 1) from the burning of dirty fuels/(solid fuel) (Figure 1) (col. 3, lines 41-50) while reducing harmful emissions, the method comprising:
providing a dirty fuel/(solid fuel);
burning the dirty fuel in an updraft gasifier/(combustion chamber) or pyrolyzer to create heat and syngas/exhaust (as illustrated);
transferring the exhaust from the burning of the dirty fuel to a downdraft biomass gasifier or an updraft biochar gasifier (as illustrated in Figure 1) (col. 3, lines 37-50);
scrubbing, via burning, said exhaust in the downdraft or updraft biomass gasifier (as illustrated in Figure 1) so as to reform/filter the exhaust to create a scrubbed clean biomass syngas (col. 3, lines 37-50, and col. 6, lines 49-55), wherein the downdraft or updraft biomass gasifier allows for the scrubbing of the exhaust without using an additional scrubber and with substantially no processing of flue gas; and recycling the separated char back into the downdraft or updraft biomass gasifier (col. 4, lines 4-15); - (Theissen explicitly teaches that the char resulting from the burning of the seed corn in the biomass gasifier of Figure 1 functions as a filter which is utilized to reform/purify the exhaust gas generated in the updraft gasifier or pyrolyzer/(combustor), thereby creating a clean burning usable gas (col. 3, lines 37-50)), which has the same filtering/reforming/scrubbing effect to the biochar instantly disclosed (see instant para. [0017]-[0018], [0040]-[0041], [0045]) - (col. 3, lines 37-50, and col. 6, lines 49-55); and therefore reads on the limitation: and the production of said char serves as the only scrubbing agent, and reads on: “a carbon adsorber or an activated carbon bed to remove volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and/or compounds that contain sulfur, such as mercaptans and hydrogen sulfide, from the exhaust, auxiliary fuel”.
Theissen fails to teach wherein the biomass gasifier when in use creates a char having a carbon content of at least 50 wt. % and fails to teach wherein activated carbon in the carbon adsorber or activated carbon bed (as above) is impregnated with sodium hydroxide or potassium hydroxide to enhance adsorption performance. Despen teaches forming activated carbon from biomass feedstock gasification (para. [0003]-[0004])), and wherein the biomass gasifier when in use creates a char/(biogenic activated carbon) having a carbon content of at least 50 wt. % (para. [0027]), and teaches adding additives (para. [0124]) such as sodium hydroxide or potassium hydroxide to the activated carbon (para. [0193]) in order to assist in the removal of selected contaminants such as VOC’s and metals (para. [0217], [0260] and [0267]-[0268]). Therefore, it would be obvious that the char produced in the gasifier of Theissen et al. would have a carbon content of at least 50 wt. %; and consequently, it would be expected for the char in Theissen et al. would be capable of performing as instantly claimed such that the production of said char would serve as the only scrubbing agent.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing for the invention to impregnate the activated carbon/(char) in Theissen with sodium hydroxide or potassium hydroxide, as taught by Despen, in order to assist in the removal of selected contaminants such as VOC’s, sulfur, and metals.
Theissen fails to teach burning the biomass syngas in a syngas burner; using heat from said burning to create steam in a steam boiler; routing the steam into a steam turbine; and turning the steam turbine to power a generator to create electricity.
Bryan teaches method for providing electricity (para. [0031]) from the burning of dirty fuels/(solid fuel) (Figure 8) while reducing harmful emissions, the method comprising: providing a dirty fuel/(solid fuel); burning the dirty fuel in an updraft gasifier or pyrolyzer (10) to create heat and syngas/exhaust (as illustrated); transferring the exhaust from the burning of the dirty fuel to a downdraft biomass gasifier or an updraft biochar gasifier (12) (as illustrated) (para. [0026]);
burning said exhaust/syngas in the biomass gasifier (12) so as to create a biomass syngas;
burning the syngas in a syngas burner (21 & 22);
using heat from said burning to create steam/(superheater air/steam mix) (as illustrated in Figure 8) in an evaporator/steam boiler/heat exchanger (Figure 1, 28);
routing the steam into a steam turbine (23); and turning the steam turbine to power a generator to create electricity (claim 26) in order to provide an energy efficient cogeneration method.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing for the invention to burn the clean/scrubbed biomass syngas in the method of Theissen in a syngas burner; and use heat from said burning to create steam in an evaporator/steam boiler; and route the steam into a steam turbine; and to turn the steam turbine to power a generator to create electricity, as taught by Bryan, in order to provide an energy efficient cogeneration method.
Theissen in view of Bryan fails to teach returning condensed water from the steam turbine to the steam boiler. Smith teaches gasification of solid waste (Figures 1-2), and teaches returning condensed water from a steam turbine (Figure 3, 202) to a steam boiler (61) (as illustrated) in order to recycle water and avoid wasting valuable resources.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing for the invention to return water from the steam turbine to the steam boiler in the apparatus of modified Theissen, as taught by Smith, in order to recycle water and avoid wasting valuable resources.
With respect to claim 13, Theissen teaches adding biomass material to the downdraft gasifier (as illustrated in Figure 1).
With respect to claim 14, Theissen teaches operating the downdraft/updraft gasifier with the syngas/exhaust and the biomass material to create gas, char, and ash (col. 3, lines 41-50).
With respect to claim 15, Theissen teaches removing the ash from the downdraft or updraft biomass gasifier with an ash auger (as illustrated in Figure 1).
With respect to claim 16, Theissen teaches allowing air to flow into the downdraft or updraft gasifier through a vent/(air inlet at the top of the gasifier) (Figure 1).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 1/2/2026 with respect to claims 1-8 and 12-23 have been considered but are not convincing as follows:
On pages 9-11, Applicant argues the following regarding claims 1-8 & 22:
The Examiner has alleged that the combination of Theissen et al., Despen et al., and Bryan et al. teaches or suggests all limitations of claim 1. Applicant respectfully disagrees.
For example, Theissen teaches "a gasifier as a device for filtering dirty gas into one that is clean burning" where "the char resulting from the burning of the seed corn results in a filter which is utilized to purify the exhaust, thereby creating a clean burning usable gas." However, Theissen et al. does not disclose the specific temperature range of 1200-2400°F combined with the mechanism of chemical decomposition or precipitation of pollutants as ash. Theissen also does not teach manufacturing activated carbon from the gasifier's own biochar byproduct. While Theissen et al. may teach a gasifier that uses char as a filter, Theissen et al. does not teach or suggest the specific temperature range of 1200 to 2400 degrees Fahrenheit combined with the mechanism whereby pollutants are chemically decomposed or precipitated out as ash. As described in the specification, "[t]emperatures produced during gasification in the downdraft gasifier 130 will be on the order of 1200 to 2400 degrees Fahrenheit" and "[i]n this process, pollutants are either chemically decomposed (scrubbed) or precipitated out of the core along with the other solid, non-burnable materials." See Applicant's specifically, as originally filed. at [0040]. This specific temperature-based chemical decomposition mechanism is not taught by the cited prior art. Furthermore, claim 1 as amended now requires that "the activated carbon is manufactured from biochar produced as a byproduct of the biomass gasifier." This creates a closed-loop integrated system not taught by the prior art combination. None of Despen et al., Bryan et al., or Smith et al. remedy the deficiencies of Thiessen et al. Despen et al. teaches that "a biogenic activated carbon will contain at least 55 wt %, at least 60 wt %, at least 65 wt %... carbon." Despen et al., [0027]. Despen also teaches additives "selected from, but is by no means limited to, sodium hydroxide, potassium hydroxide." Despen et al., [0074]. However, Despen et al. is directed to producing activated carbon from biomass feedstock generally. Despen et al. does not teach using biochar from the same biomass gasifier that performs the scrubbing function in an integrated dirty fuel conversion system. Despen also does not teach the specific temperature range with chemical decomposition/precipitation of pollutants. For example, while Despen et al. may teach activated carbon production generally, Despen et al. does not teach using biochar from the same biomass gasifier that performs the scrubbing function. The specification supports this limitation, teaching that "[a]ctivated carbon can be manufactured from biochar produced as a byproduct of the biomass gasifier 130." See Applicant's specifically, as originally filed. at [0046]. The combination of (i) the specific temperature range with chemical decomposition, (ii) the char serving as the only scrubbing agent, and (iii) the activated carbon being manufactured from the gasifier's own biochar byproduct creates a novel integrated system that the prior art combination fails to teach or suggest. Additionally, while Bryan et al. teaches gasification "at temperatures of about 1200° F. to about 2000° F." Bryan et al., [0024]. This temperature range relates to syngas production in a gasifier, not to a biomass gasifier that scrubs dirty exhaust such that pollutants are chemically decomposed or precipitated out as ash. Bryan et al. does not teach char serving as the only scrubbing agent, nor does Bryan et al. teach manufacturing activated carbon from biochar produced as a byproduct of the biomass gasifier.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant’s arguments regarding the prior art not teaching the instantly claimed temperature range, as newly amended, are moot. Hilliard et al. was relied upon to teach the missing feature, as set forth above.
Despen teaches that biomass gasification forms activated carbon (para. [0003]-[0006])), and wherein the biomass gasifier when in use creates a char/(biogenic activated carbon). Therefore, Desphen teaches that it is well known in the art that the process of biomass gasification forms activated carbon (char) as a by-product. Therefore, the char bed in Theissen comprises activated carbon which is capable of functioning as instantly claimed. Furthermore, the instantly claimed temperature range of 1200 and 2400 degrees Fahrenheit is a commonly used temperature range during gasification of biomass, as taught by Hilliard. Hilliard teaches biomass gasification at temperatures between 600 and about 2100 degrees Fahrenheit (col. 5, lines 41- col. 6, lines 42), which overlaps with the instantly claimed temperature range in order to affect the content of the resulting producer gas (col. 5, lines 45-52). Therefore, the instantly claimed temperature range is not unique to the instantly claimed gasification process.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing for the invention to apply the temperature range taught by Hilliard’s gasification process to that instantly claimed since both processes are geared towards biomass gasification, in order to affect the content of the resulting producer gas.
On pages 12-13, Applicant argues the following regarding claims 12-17:
Theissen et al. teach es "an elevator 33 which takes the char or fuel from the auger 32 and recycles it back into the gasifier assembly 20... The waste ashes can be separated from the char or fuel by an ash separator 35." Thiessen et al., column 4, lines 4-20. However, Theissen et al.'s recycling is for general fuel efficiency, not in combination with the claimed method steps where (1) the char serves as the only scrubbing agent for dirty exhaust from a dirty fuel gasifier, (2) the char is separated from waste ashes, and (3) the separated char is recycled back into the gasifier to maintain the scrubbing function. The specific combination of scrubbing dirty exhaust, char as the only scrubbing agent, and recycling the char back is not taught. None of Despen et al., Bryan et al., or Smith et al. remedy the deficiencies of Thiessen et al.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Theissen teaches a method for providing electricity (via generator) (Figure 1) from the burning of dirty fuels/(solid fuel) (Figure 1) (col. 3, lines 41-50) while reducing harmful emissions, the method comprising:
providing a dirty fuel/(solid fuel);
burning the dirty fuel in an updraft gasifier/(combustion chamber) or pyrolyzer to create heat and syngas/exhaust (as illustrated);
transferring the exhaust from the burning of the dirty fuel to a downdraft biomass gasifier or an updraft biochar gasifier (as illustrated in Figure 1) (col. 3, lines 37-50);
scrubbing, via burning, said exhaust in the downdraft or updraft biomass gasifier (as illustrated in Figure 1) so as to reform/filter the exhaust to create a scrubbed clean biomass syngas (col. 3, lines 37-50, and col. 6, lines 49-55), wherein the downdraft or updraft biomass gasifier allows for the scrubbing of the exhaust without using an additional scrubber and with substantially no processing of flue gas; and separating the char from ash (by an ash separator (35)), and recycling the separated char back into the downdraft or updraft biomass gasifier (col. 4, lines 4-15); - (Theissen explicitly teaches that the char resulting from the burning of the seed corn in the biomass gasifier of Figure 1 functions as a filter which is utilized to reform/purify the exhaust gas generated in the updraft gasifier or pyrolyzer/(combustor), thereby creating a clean burning usable gas (col. 3, lines 37-50)), which has the same filtering/reforming/scrubbing effect to the biochar instantly disclosed (see instant para. [0017]-[0018], [0040]-[0041], [0045]) - (col. 3, lines 37-50, and col. 6, lines 49-55); and therefore reads on the limitation: and the production of said char serves as the only scrubbing agent (col. 3, lines 37-50) since Theissen does not teach cleaning/scrubbing the produced gas otherwise, and reads on: “a carbon adsorber or an activated carbon bed to remove volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and/or compounds that contain sulfur, such as mercaptans and hydrogen sulfide, from the exhaust, auxiliary fuel”.
On pages 15-16, Applicant argues the following regarding claims 18-21 and 23:
Theissen teaches "a rotating bed gasifier assembly 20" with "a gasifier container assembly 22" having "a cylindrical shaped sidewall 24." Theissen teaches "a rotating trough/bed 40" connected to a drive shaft. However, Theissen does not teach that the rotating-bed gasifier performs carbon adsorption without requiring pumps to recirculate scrubbing solution, liquid distribution systems, or mist eliminators. Theissen's rotating bed is for fuel handling and even heat distribution, not specifically for carbon adsorption that eliminates the need for wet scrubbing equipment. While Theissen et al. may teach a rotating bed gasifier generally, neither Theissen et al. nor the other cited references teach or suggest a rotating-bed gasifier that specifically performs carbon adsorption without requiring pumps to recirculate scrubbing solution, liquid distribution systems, or mist eliminators. The specification supports this feature, teaching that "[t]he rotating- bed gasifiers core reactor performs the carbon adsorption function that does not require pumps to recirculate the scrubbing solution, liquid distribution systems, or mist eliminators." See Applicant's specifically, as originally filed. at ||[0045]. This simplified carbon adsorption system, combined with the char serving as the only scrubbing agent, distinguishes claim 18 from the prior art.
Despen et al. is directed to producing activated carbon products. Despen et al. does not teach a rotating-bed gasifier, nor does it teach a gasifier that performs carbon adsorption without requiring pumps, liquid distribution systems, or mist eliminators. Bryan teaches "gasifier 10 having a syngas outlet 11, a multi-stage combustor 12." Bryan et al., [0023]. Bryan does not teach a rotating-bed gasifier, nor does it teach a gasifier that performs carbon adsorption without requiring pumps to recirculate scrubbing solution, liquid distribution systems, or mist eliminators.
Smith teaches "a gasifier assembly for pyrolyzing the waste and producing hot fuel gas
and active char." Smith does not teach a rotating-bed gasifier, nor does it teach a gasifier that performs carbon adsorption without requiring pumps, liquid distribution systems, or mist eliminators. Smith's char is used for water purification, not for carbon adsorption in a gasifier scrubbing dirty exhaust.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Theissen further teaches wherein the downdraft gasifier (Figure 2, 20) comprises a rotating bed assembly that allows used ashes and a char to fall to a central point, which is connected to an auger/(ash auger) for removing the fuel and ashes after they have been through the gasification process and fallen to a bottom of the rotating bed assembly (col. 3, lines 60 – col. 4, line 3); and wherein the downdraft biomass gasifier comprises a rotating-bed gasifier (col. 3, lines 60 – col. 4, line 40), which is similar to that instantly claimed, which would therefore be capable of performing as instantly claimed such that it performs carbon adsorption without requiring pumps to recirculate scrubbing solution, liquid distribution systems, or mist eliminators – Theissen does not teach the need to use any pumps or liquid distribution systems or mist eliminators. Furthermore, the instant specification (para. [0045]) states “The gasification system 100 includes carbon adsorber(s) in the form of the biomass gasifier 130 carbon adsorption removes volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and many compounds that contain sulfur, such as mercaptans and hydrogen sulfide, from vapor streams.” This in turn supports the conclusion above that the rotating-bed gasifier of Theissen reads on a “rotating-bed gasifier” that is capable of performing carbon adsorption without requiring pumps etc. and is similar to that instantly claimed, which would therefore be capable of performing as instantly claimed.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
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 KAITY V CHANDLER whose telephone number is (571)272-8520. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00AM-6:00PM.
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 on 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.
/KAITY V CHANDLER/ 1/21/2026Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725