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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 6-8 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 05/26/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-5 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.
Regarding Claim 1, the claim recites “…the shifted syngas (501, 523) is guided through at least two heat exchangers (525, 526, 527, 528, 529)…”. The claim requires “at least two heat exchangers,” but also references “(525, 526, 527, 528, 529)”, referring to a total of 5 heat exchangers. It is therefore unclear whether the claim requires at least two heat exchangers, or all of the heat exchangers referred to by the reference numerals. A similar issue exists in Claim 5. Claims 2-4 are rejected for their dependence on Claim 1 and for failing to remedy this indefiniteness. For purposes of examination, the examiner will interpret the limitation as requiring “at least two heat exchangers,” and the reference numerals are interpreted as referring to the corresponding structure in a non-limiting embodiment of the instant invention.
Regarding Claim 2, the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). For purposes of examination, the limitation “preferably with a hydrogen content of 99.5 vol.-% and more” will not be interpreted as part of the claimed invention.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20090077892A1, hereinafter ‘Shulenberger’, in view of US20090019767A1, hereinafter ‘Abughazaleh’.
Regarding Claim 1, Shulenberger discloses a method for increasing the hydrogen content in the product gas stream of the torrefaction of solid recovered fuel pellets comprising the following steps:
torrefying the solid recovered fuel pellets to charred pellets while generating torrefaction gas which is converted to a torrefaction syngas comprising hydrogen and carbon monoxide ([0044]: biomass preparation process prepares the bio mass by drying and/or compressing the biomass prior to thermal conversion; in the embodiment in FIG. 3, biomass is heated and compressed in biomass preparation process, converting biomass to compressed biomass. Compressed biomass is considered to meet solid recovered fuel pellets; [0045]: the compressed biomass undergoes torrefaction in torrefaction process. The output of the torrefaction process includes, in one embodiment, the torrefaction products of biomass, which may include torrefaction products of hemicellulose such as CO2, H2O and acetic acid, and de-polymerized solids such as cellulose and lignin, with some solids remaining. This process therefore produces gaseous torrefaction products which are considered torrefaction gas, and remaining solids, which are considered charred pellets; [0046]-[0048]: the gas and solid products from torrefaction process then undergo pyrolysis in pyrolysis process at a temperature T2, which is greater than temperature T1. In partial oxidation process, the oxygen and the gas and solid products from pyrolysis process are partially oxidized, producing ash and CO2, CO, H2O, and H – this mixture of gases resulting from pyrolysis is considered torrefaction syngas comprising hydrogen and carbon monoxide), and
providing a syngas stream comprising the torrefaction syngas to a CO shift unit for reacting at least a part of the carbon monoxide with water steam to carbon dioxide and hydrogen generating shifted syngas ([0049]: water shift process accepts gases from partial oxidation process and water, and converts carbon monoxide and water to carbon dioxide and hydrogen through the reaction: CO+H2O->CO2+H2 – this is considered to generate shifted syngas).
Further regarding Claim 1, Shulenberger discloses that the energy required to drive the endothermic processes (torrefaction process, pyrolysis process, Biomass preparation process, and oxygen separation process) may be obtained from the exothermic processes within the process scheme ([0052]), and the water gas shift reaction is known to be exothermic. Further, Shulenberger discloses the addition of water to the syngas resulting from partial oxidation prior to performing the water shift reaction to produce a shifted syngas ([0049]).
However, Shulenberger does not disclose providing the shifted syngas downstream of the CO shift unit to a low temperature heat recovery unit in which the shifted syngas is guided through at least two heat exchangers in which the shifted syngas is in thermal exchange with at least two water streams that are used downstream of the respective heat exchangers as process water during the production of the product gas stream for heating said at least two water streams.
Abughazaleh discloses systems and processes for producing syngas and products made therefrom, and more particularly, systems and processes for heat integration and condensate treatment in a shift feed gas saturator. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized Abughazaleh as analogous to Shulenberger, as both references are drawn to the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, the production of syngas utilizing heat integration - a reference is analogous art to the claimed invention if the reference is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, In re Bigio, 381 F.3d at 1325, 72 USPQ2d at 1212.
Abughazaleh discloses the syngas can be selectively divided or otherwise selectively proportioned into at least a first portion and a second portion. The first portion of the split syngas can be introduced to one or more saturation units (“saturators”) where the relative humidity of the syngas can be increased using water and/or process condensate to provide an at least partially saturated syngas. The syngas having been at least partially saturated can be introduced to one or more conversion units (“converters) to provide an at least partially shifted syngas ([0016]). This increased water content in the syngas stream serves as a heat transfer medium to conserve energy within the system ([0021]). Condensate from the saturator can be at least partially vaporized with heat exchanged from the second portion of the syngas within one or more heat exchangers. The at least partially vaporized condensate can be returned to the saturators. The cooled syngas exiting the one or more heat exchangers can be added or otherwise combined with the at least partially shift syngas ([0032]).
The process is more specifically detailed in Fig. 2 of Abughazaleh. In system 200, gasified syngas is passed through particulate removal system 220 and the resulting syngas is passed to the CO shift unit 120. The shifted syngas 134 downstream of the CO shift unit 120 is provided to a low temperature heat recovery unit. Specifically, the syngas 134 is first provided to exchanger 230, and the effluent of this exchanger is fed to another exchanger 137, and the resulting shifted syngas stream 136 is divided into shifted syngas streams 238 and 239. Stream 238 is guided through exchanger 250 in thermal exchange with process condensate stream 257, and stream 239 is guided through exchanger 240 in thermal exchange with process condensate stream 157. The heated process condensate streams are provided to flash drum 170 and finally to the saturator 112 as process water for humidifying syngas 90 to form saturated syngas 112 upstream of the CO shift unit 120.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the process of Shulenberger using the saturator-heat exchanger scheme as disclosed by Abughazaleh. Such a scheme would allow for the effective recovery of heat from the exothermic process of the water gas shift reaction, thereby resulting in a more energy efficient process for producing syngas.
Regarding Claim 3, Shulenberger as modified above makes obvious a first syngas stream generated by the gasification of the charred pellets is provided to a high-pressure scrubbing unit to raise the water content in a cleaned syngas stream (see Abughazaleh, [0049] and [0052]: the generated syngas is passed through one or more particulate removal systems 220 to further remove any remaining Solids in the gas to provide a particulate free or nearly particulate free syngas, and said syngas is then split and subjected to saturation in the saturator – this combination of particulate removal and saturator meets the claimed scrubbing unit intended to raise the water content in a cleaned syngas stream; [0020]: the pressure of the line entering the saturator is between about 5 atm and 300 atm, which is considered high pressure).
Regarding Claim 4, Shulenberger as modified above makes obvious the shifted syngas is cooled in the low temperature heat recovery unit by bringing into thermal contact with a process water stream used for the humidification of the syngas stream entering the CO shift unit (as discussed above, in the process of Abughazaleh, condensate from the saturator can be at least partially vaporized with heat exchanged from the second portion of the syngas within one or more heat exchangers, and the at least partially vaporized condensate can be returned to the saturators).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 5 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.
Claims 2, 5 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include 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:
Regarding Claim 2, Shulenberger as modified above makes obvious the shifted syngas is provided to a gas cleaning unit for generating a product gas stream rich of hydrogen, while generating a purge gas (see Abughazaleh, [0060], [0067]: the syngas can be further treated to provide one or more chemicals, feedstocks, fuel, power, or any combination thereof, and one of said further treatments includes the use of hydrogen separators - one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to utilize such a hydrogen separator in the process of Shulenberger in order to extract valuable hydrogen from the shifted syngas, thereby also producing a carbon dioxide rich stream considered a purge gas).
However, Shulenberger as modified above does not disclose or reasonably suggest both the purge gas and the torrefaction syngas are compressed and commonly introduced into a saturation column to raise the water content in the syngas stream upstream of the CO shift unit. While the process suggested by the art would produce a carbon dioxide rich stream considered a purge gas, and while this stream is disclosed as being utilized in a fuel recovery process to enhance the recovery of oil and gas ([0068] of Abughazaleh), the prior art does not reasonably disclose or suggest compressing this stream and providing it to the saturator. Since the stream is rich in carbon dioxide, and carbon dioxide is a primary product of the shift reaction taking place following saturation, there exists no clear motivation within the prior art to supply such a stream to the saturator.
Regarding Claim 5, while Shallenberger as modified above makes obvious the use of heat exchangers to heat process water as discussed above, there exists no disclosure, suggestion, or motivation within the prior art to provide the process water to the heat exchanger at a pressure greater than the shifted syngas supplied thereto.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LOGAN LACLAIR whose telephone number is (571)272-1815. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9:30-5:30 PST.
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, Anthony Zimmer can be reached at (571) 270-3591. 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.
LOGAN LACLAIR
Examiner
Art Unit 1736
/L.E.L./ Examiner, Art Unit 1736
/ANTHONY J ZIMMER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1736
Prosecution Insights