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 Interpretation
Applicant’s arguments and amendments submitted 2/3/26 have been fully and carefully considered.
Regarding the claim rejections under 35 USC 103, applicant argues that the prior art applied of Hsieh et al (US 4,482,358) taken in combination with Koyama et al (US 4,412,848) fails to fairly teach or suggest all limitations of independent claims 1, and related claim 5. Specifically, applicant argues:
The combination does not teach or suggest “a heat exchange unit configured to perform heat exchange between the char separated by the separation unit and at least a part of the gasifying agent to be supplied to the gasification furnace and heat the gasifying agent”, or related performing step of the heat exchange with the separated char and the gasifying agent because the combination does not teach or suggest this because Hsieh discloses a technology of hot gaseous product and hot liquid slag are produced form coal and oxygen with a gasifier 12, and though it involves gasification, it belongs to a distinct technical field in terms of fundamental gasification mechanisms because of different starting fuels, resulting products and underlying reactions (see arguments P2). In response to applicant's argument that Hsieh is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, when compared with the claims under examination, Hsieh is directed a biomass gasifier where the biomass fuel feed is coal (fig 1, 1); and the related teaching of Koyama is “hydrocarbon material 1 of coal, etc.” (Koyama C3:L37).
Hsieh does not teach heat exchange of the gasifying agent (see arguments P3, paragraph 1), this was acknowledged in the rejection and was a teaching upon which Koyama is relied.
Koyama does not teach the heat of the char is used for heat exchange, because Koyama heat exchanges incoming water/steam (gasifying agent) in heat exchanger 10 over a bed of char particles in contact with the gas generated from the gasification furnace, therefore Koyama does not teach heat exchanging with the gasification char separated from the reactor (see arguments P3, paragraph 2-5). However the rejection is based upon the combination and Koyama is used to teach preheating gasification agent (water/steam) to enhanced gasification before providing the steam to the gasification reactor so the steam can be at a high temperature to support the gasification reactor, therefore, inasmuch as Koyama teaches feeding preheated steam to a gasifier and Hsieh is used for teaching heating steam with separated gasification coke, the skilled artisan would readily arrive at the instantly claimed invention without undue experimentation.
It is technically difficult to combine Koyama with Hsieh because Koyama is limited to heat exchange within a fluidized bed (see arguments P4, paragraph 1-2). This is respectfully not found persuasive, Koyama is relied upon only as much as it teaches preheating water/steam so that it may be supplied to a gasification reactor to enhance gasification by use as a gasification agent, Hsieh substantially teaches preheating water/steam for other uses, and therefore the skilled artisan would find obvious to make the connection of supplying the steam of Hsieh, preheated in the manner Hsieh teaches, to the gasifier to therefore improve gasification.
Therefore the rejection is still found proper and this action will be made Final.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hsieh et al (US 4,482,358) taken in combination with Koyama et al (US 4,412,848).
Regarding claim 1, Hsieh teaches system and method of use of the system for removing particles from a hot gas, such as a gas produced in a gasification system (title, abstract, C1:L2-8); Hsieh teaches the system comprises a biomass gasifier 10 having gasification zone 12, a separation unit 20 configured to receive the gas and solids mixture via entry 21 to remove solids via exit 26 separated from gas provided to gas exit 23, the solids are provided to heat exchanger 40 where the solids provide heat to boiler feed water 42 to product steam 42A, and the gas 5A provided to heat exchangers 73/79 to further provide heat to water and steam to further provide steam in line 72A that joins with line 42A (see Fig 1, 2, C3:L65-C4:L21, C4:L63-C6:L26, C7:L39-C8:L20).
However Hsieh teaches the steam is provided to turbine 100, and therefore does not teach the heat exchange is performed on gasifying agent to be supplied to the gasification furnace.
Koyama teaches a heat recovery method from gasified products of hydrocarbon (title, abstract), Koyama teaches hydro carbonaceous feed 1 provided to gasifier is mixed with gas feed of oxygen 2 and steam (from lines 13/18), the gas stream from gasifier in line 7 is provided to recovery heat exchangers 10/15 that heat water in lines 3 to heat exchanger tubes 11/16 that produces high temperature steam which is mixed with oxygen 2 as gasification agent to use the desired amount of steam at the temperature required to use as the agent (see Fig 2, C3:L30-C4:L66, Table 1, C6:L14-25).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Hsieh which substantially teaches heat recovery to produce steam to include a gasification agent that is steam as substantially taught by Koyama motivated by the teachings of Koyama that the gasification agent that is steam is useful in gasification as thermal source in the gasification process as taught by Koyama.
Regarding claim 3, Hsieh as set forth above, has further taught the gas 5A provided to heat exchangers 73/79 to further provide heat to water and steam to further provide steam in line 72A that joins with line 42A (see Fig 1, 2, C3:L65-C4:L21, C4:L63-C6:L26, C7:L39-C8:L20).
Regarding claim 5, Hsieh teaches system and method of use of the system for removing particles from a hot gas, such as a gas produced in a gasification system (title, abstract, C1:L2-8); Hsieh teaches the system comprises a biomass gasifier 10 having gasification zone 12, a separation unit 20 configured to receive the gas and solids mixture via entry 21 to remove solids via exit 26 separated from gas provided to gas exit 23, the solids are provided to heat exchanger 40 where the solids provide heat to boiler feed water 42 to product steam 42A, and the gas 5A provided to heat exchangers 73/79 to further provide heat to water and steam to further provide steam in line 72A that joins with line 42A (see Fig 1, 2, C3:L65-C4:L21, C4:L63-C6:L26, C7:L39-C8:L20).
However Hsieh teaches the steam is provided to turbine 100, and therefore does not teach the heat exchange is performed on gasifying agent to be supplied to the gasification furnace.
Koyama teaches a heat recovery method from gasified products of hydrocarbon (title, abstract), Koyama teaches hydro carbonaceous feed 1 provided to gasifier is mixed with gas feed of oxygen 2 and steam (from lines 13/18), the gas stream from gasifier in line 7 is provided to recovery heat exchangers 10/15 that heat water in lines 3 to heat exchanger tubes 11/16 that produces high temperature steam which is mixed with oxygen 2 as gasification agent to use the desired amount of steam at the temperature required to use as the agent (see Fig 2, C3:L30-C4:L66, Table 1, C6:L14-25).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Hsieh which substantially teaches heat recovery to produce steam to include a gasification agent that is steam as substantially taught by Koyama motivated by the teachings of Koyama that the gasification agent that is steam is useful in gasification as thermal source in the gasification process as taught by Koyama.
Claim(s) 2 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hsieh et al (US 4,482,358) taken in combination with Koyama et al (US 4,412,848) as applied above and further in combination with Miyoshi et al (US 2006/060190).
Regarding claim 2, modified Hsieh teaches all limitations as set forth above, including supply unit (line 1) to supply the fuel in 1 to furnace 10 (Hsieh Fig 1), however Hsieh does not teach a supply unit introduction line configured to guide the gasifying agent subjected to heat exchange in the heat exchange unit to the supply unit, wherein the supply unit performs heat exchange with the gasifying agent guided from the heat exchange unit, and wherein the gasifying agent subjected to heat exchange in the supply unit is guided to the gasification furnace.
Miyoshi teaches an apparatus for treating organic matter to a pyrolysis and gasification process to generate fuel used for a gas turbine to generate power energy (title, abstract, Fig 1-2), Miyoshi teaches raw material feed 120 is heat exchanged with heating medium L in drying process 51, then provided via line 120’ to pyrolysis and gasification process 52, where the gases generated in line 123 are heat exchanged in sensible heat recovery process with heating medium L that is provided to the process 52 and drying 51 after indirect heat exchange with the gases, the generated gases are cooled 54, cleaned 55 and provided to power recovery process 56 where electric generator (not shown) is operated to recovery electric energy 111 and the exhaust gas generated 113 is provided to heat recovery process 57 to exchange with the heating medium L in line 121 resulting in cooled exhaust gas 113 (Fig 1, [0058-0069]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Hsieh which substantially teaches heat recovery to produce steam to include a gasification agent in view of Miyoshi which substantially teaches several heat exchange sensible heat recovery steps with both feed and exhaust gas generated in turbine to thereby lead to a more efficient system as suggested by Miyoshi to recover and reuse sensible heat energy.
Regarding claim 4, modified Hsieh teaches all limitations as set forth above, including supply unit (line 1) to supply the fuel in 1 to furnace 10 (Hsieh Fig 1), however Hsieh does not teach a boiler configured to combust fuel to generate steam; a steam turbine configured to be driven and rotated by the steam generated by the boiler; a power generator configured to generate power by rotational force of the steam turbine; a circulation system configured to guide feedwater to the boiler, the feedwater being condensed from the steam discharged from the steam turbine; and a circulation system introduction line configured to guide the gasifying agent heated by the heat exchange unit to the circulation system, wherein the gasifying agent is water steam.
Miyoshi teaches an apparatus for treating organic matter to a pyrolysis and gasification process to generate fuel used for a gas turbine to generate power energy (title, abstract, Fig 1-2), Miyoshi teaches raw material feed 120 is heat exchanged with heating medium L in drying process 51, then provided via line 120’ to pyrolysis and gasification process 52, where the gases generated in line 123 are heat exchanged in sensible heat recovery process with heating medium L that is provided to the process 52 and drying 51 after indirect heat exchange with the gases, the generated gases are cooled 54, cleaned 55 and provided to power recovery process 56 where electric generator (not shown) is operated to recovery electric energy 111 and the exhaust gas generated 113 is provided to heat recovery process 57 to exchange with the heating medium L in line 121 resulting in cooled exhaust gas 113 (Fig 1, [0058-0069]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Hsieh which substantially teaches heat recovery to produce steam to include a gasification agent in view of Miyoshi which substantially teaches several heat exchange sensible heat recovery steps with both feed and exhaust gas generated in turbine to thereby lead to a more efficient system as suggested by Miyoshi to recover and reuse sensible heat energy. Furthermore Miyoshi teaches electric generator (not shown) is therefore notoriously well-known to comprise components of boiler, steam turbine and power generators necessary and well-known to the person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the heat recovery of Miyoshi.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JONATHAN MILLER whose telephone number is (571)270-1603. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9 - 5.
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.
/JONATHAN MILLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1772