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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 6/15/26 has been entered.
Response to Arguments / Allowable Subject Matter
Applicant’s arguments and amendments submitted 6/15/26 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:
Hsieh does not teach water or steam as the gasifying agent (see arguments Pg4, Para4-Para5), this is respectfully not found persuasive, while this was acknowledged in the rejection, both water and oxygen were well known sources of Oxygen for the gasification reaction and the claim uses open claim language, and there doesn’t seems to be any explicit reason that adding H2O in addition to the O2 wouldn’t improve Hsieh in the manner as taught by Koyama in the combination rejection, and the motivation from Koyama being that water in addition to O2 is a useful gasification agent in gasification processes.
When combining Koyama with Hsieh, Hsieh doesn’t require steam and therefore there wouldn’t be reason for compatibility to combine (see arguments Pg4, Para6 - Pg5, Para1) this is respectfully not found persuasive, while this was acknowledged in the rejection, both water and oxygen were well known sources of Oxygen for the gasification reaction and the claim uses open claim language, and there doesn’t seems to be any explicit reason that adding H2O in addition to the O2 wouldn’t improve Hsieh in the manner as taught by Koyama in the combination rejection, and the motivation from Koyama being that water in addition to O2 is a useful gasification agent in gasification processes.
Koyama fails to disclose separation unit configured to separate char from gas and consequently fails to disclose heat exchange unit that performs heat exchange using the char separated (see arguments Pg5, Para2) this is respectfully not found persuasive, as the rejection is based upon the combination of the 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). Further Koyama does deposit char on the particles removed at reference characters 5,9 and therefore would be equated with performing a char/gas separation.
Even if combined Hsieh and Koyama would send generated steam to a steam generator as in Hsieh, not the gasifier (see arguments P5, Para3), this is respectfully not found persuasive, as the rejection is based upon the combination of the 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), it is noted that Koyama provides steam back to gasifier as gasification agent to enhance gasification and products produced from the gasifier.
Examiner notes that the two heat exchangers in Hsieh 73/79 are downstream of the solids separator and separation unit, therefore it applicant were to amend limitations of claim 3, and further add into the claim language regarding the high temperature SGC 12 and low temperature SGC 14 (each “a cooling unit” as in claim 3) to heat the gasifying agent, respectively upstream and downstream of the separation unit (filter in Fig 1), this would not be fairly taught or suggested by Hsieh or further prior art of reference:
PNG
media_image1.png
580
948
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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 wherein water as the gasifying agent is heated in the heat exchange unit, and the heated water is utilized as at least a part of the 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 and as modified the system would arrive at wherein water as the gasifying agent is heated in the heat exchange unit, and the heated water is utilized as at least a part of the gasifying agent to be supplied to the gasification furnace 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 and wherein water as the gasifying agent is heated in the heat exchange unit, and wherein, in the heat exchange step, water as the gasifying agent is heated, and wherein, in the production step, the water heated in the heat exchange step is utilized as at least a part of the gasifying agent.
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 and as modified wherein, in the heat exchange step, water as the gasifying agent is heated, and wherein, in the production step, the water heated in the heat exchange step is utilized as at least a part of the gasifying agent 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
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
Prosecution Insights