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 .
DETAILED ACTION
The preliminary amendment filed 09/05/2024 is acknowledged. Claims 1-16 are canceled. Claims 17-36 are pending and under consideration in this action.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. The instant claims are entitled to an effective filing date of 08/01/2022.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity, and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
The instant abstract states “thus maximizing the conversion of the organic components in the fermentation step so as to prevent any emission of CO2 into the atmosphere” in lines 10-12, which are purported merits of the invention that should be deleted.
Claim Objections
Claim 17-31 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 17 recites “2,2 ÷ 2,2” in line 7, which should be replaced with “2.2 ÷ 2.2” for proper decimal notation.
Claims 18 and 20-31 recite “The process according to claim 17”, which requires a comma after the claim number. Therefore, claims 18 and 20-31 should recite “The process according to claim 17,”.
Claim 19 recites “The process according to claim 18”, which requires a comma after the claim number. Therefore, claim 19 should recite “The process according to claim 18,”.
Claims 33-36 recite “The apparatus according to claim 32”, which requires a comma after the claim number. Therefore, claims 33-36 should be amended to recite “The apparatus according to claim 32,”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 17-36 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.
Claim 17 recites “H2/CO ratio to a value equal to at least 2,0 ÷ 2,2 in volume”, which renders the claim indefinite for two reasons. The first reason is that a ratio is two numbers and “a value” is one number, so it is unclear whether the claim is requiring a H2/CO volume ratio of at least 2.0 H2/ 2.2 CO, or one volume value that is at least 0.091 (i.e. 2÷2.2) for the volume of H2 and CO. The second reason is that there is no unit provided for the volume. Therefore, it is unclear whether the volume is in terms of cubic meter, liter, or milliliter.
The term “high” in claim 17 (line 12) is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Claim 17 recites “thermally converting a feed at a temperature above 1000˚C to produce syngas” in line 3 and recites “high temperature conversion of the waste in production of raw syngas” in line 7. Therefore, it is unclear whether the claim requires the “high temperature conversion of the waste in production of raw syngas” to occur at a temperature above 1000 ˚C to produce syngas, or whether the step recited in line 12 encompasses any “high” temperature under which waste is converted to syngas. As such, it is unclear whether the thermal conversion step recited in lines 3-5 and the high temperature conversion step recited in line 12 are the same step or separate steps, because the high temperature conversion step recited in line 12 is broader in scope. Claim 17 further recites “the waste” in line 12, and it is uncertain whether “the waste” recited in line 12 of claim 17 intends to reference the earlier recited municipal solid waste, agricultural wastes, and derivatives thereof, and industrial wastes or a combination thereof; or whether “the waste” recited in line 12 intends to encompass any waste.
A broad limitation together with a narrow limitation that falls within the broad limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 17 recites the broad recitations “fermenting the purified syngas for producing raw bioethanol” in line 16 and “the fermentation” in line 20, and the claim also recites “anaerobic fermentation” in line 1, which is the narrower statement of the limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. It is unclear whether the fermentations recited in lines 16 and 20 are limited to anaerobic fermentations.
The term “optimal” in claim 17 line 17 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “optimal” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. In the instant case, it is unclear whether “the optimal H2/CO ratio” in line 17 intends to refer to the at least 2,0 ÷ 2,2 H2/CO ratio or a separate ratio. According to the instant specification the optimal H2/CO ratio required to produce ethanol by fermentation is “about 2.0 ÷ 2.2”. See p. 5 lines 23-24. However, this definition is insufficient because it is unclear whether “the optimal H2/CO ratio” in line 17 of claim 17 is required to be about 2.0 ÷ 2.2.
Claim 17 recites the limitation “the purge gas outcoming from the fermentation” in lines 19-20. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear which purge gas is required in lines 19-20 because there is no earlier requirement in claim 17 for a purge gas. To obviate this rejection, “the purge gas” in line 19 can be replaced with “a purge gas”
Claim 17 recites “all the CO2 separated” in the last line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There is no earlier requirement for separated CO2, so it is unclear which separated CO2 is required in the last line.
Claims 18-31 depend from claim 17 and are rejected for the reasons set forth above.
Claim 18 is indefinite because it is unclear how the purification step recited in claim 18 interrelates with the process of claim 17. Claim 18 recites “further comprising a step of purifying the raw ethanol produced by fermentation from which a stream of anhydrous ethanol and an aqueous stream containing alcohols and other organic products exit” in lines 1-3. It is unclear whether “the raw ethanol” in lines 1-2 of claim 18 intends to refer to the “raw bioethanol” recited in claim 17 in line 16, or a separate raw ethanol that is produced by fermentation from which a stream of anhydrous ethanol and an aqueous stream containing alcohols and other organic products exit. If “the raw ethanol” in claim 18 does intend to reference the raw bioethanol of claim 17, it is then further unclear whether the stream is the result of the purification step required in claim 18 or the result of the fermentation step required in claim 17 in line 16. Consequently, it is unclear how the recited purifying in claim 18 interrelates with the fermentation and ethanol required in claim 17.
Claim 19 depends from claim 18 and is rejected for the reason set forth above.
Claim 19 recites “the water obtained in the raw ethanol purification step”, which renders the claim indefinite because it is uncertain whether “the water” in claim 19 intends to refer to the water portion of the aqueous stream in claim 18, or the entirety of the aqueous stream with the alcohols and other organic products. Furthermore, claim 19 recites “the electrolysis unit” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear which electrolysis unit claim 17 intends to refer to because claim 17 does not require electrolysis to be carried out by a particular electrolysis unit.
Claims 21-22 and 26 recite the limitation “the plant” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. There is no earlier requirement for a plant. Therefore, it is unclear which plant is required in claims 21-22 and 26.
Claim 20 recites “the waste conversion at a temperature above 1000˚C step for the production of raw syngas”, which is indefinite because it is uncertain whether “the waste” recited in claim 20 intends to refer to the municipal solid waste, agricultural wastes, and derivatives thereof, and industrial wastes or a combination thereof, as recited in claim 17 in lines 4-5; or whether “the waste” recited in claim 20 intends to reference “the waste” recited in claim 17 in line 12. Consequently, it is unclear which waste conversion step claim 20 intends to limit.
Claim 20 recites "preferably", which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. Claim 20 recites “preferably three conversion trains” in line 3, and it is unclear whether three conversion trains are required or an example of a preferred embodiment.
Claim 21 recites “the syngas”, which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether “the syngas” required in claim 21 is the “raw syngas” recited in claim 17 in line 12 or the “purified syngas” recited in claim 17 in line 20.
Claims 23-24 recite “shifting the H-2/CO ratio to a value” in lines 2-3. However, a ratio is two numbers, and a value is one number. Therefore, it is unclear whether the combined volume of H-2 and CO is required to be shifted relative to the total syngas volume, or whether the H-2 volume is required to be shifted relative to the CO volume (or vice versa). The second reason is that the term “optimizing” in claim 23 in line 4 and the term “maximizing” in claim 24 in line 3 are relative terms which render the claims indefinite. The terms “optimizing” and “maximizing” are not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Therefore, the point at which a process can be considered optimized in claim 23 and the point at which a conversion process can be considered maximized in claim 24 are unclear.
Claim 28 recites the limitation “the excess bacteria exiting from the fermentation step” in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 28 depends from claim 17, which does not require bacteria exiting from a fermentation step. Consequently, it is unclear which excess bacteria are required in claim 28. Furthermore, claim 28 recites “the byproducts” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 28 depends from claim 17, which does not require byproducts. Therefore, it is unclear which byproducts are required to consist of butanediol, ethyl acetate, and superior alcohols. The term “superior” in claim 28 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “superior” in line 2 is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. As such, it is unclear which alcohols are considered superior alcohols. Claim 28 recites “the water purification unit” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 17 does not require any water purification unit, so it is unclear which water purification unit is required in claim 28. Claim 28 recites “the converter”, which renders the claim indefinite because claim 17 does not require a converter so it is unclear which converter is required in claim 17.
Claim 29 recites “the CO2 outcoming from the separation process is used individually or in a mixture with other streams, comprising inert substances and which form byproducts of the same separation step, for inerting the waste supply system”, which is indefinite for four reasons. The first reason is that the claim recites the limitation “the CO2 outcoming from the separation process” in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 29 depends from claim 17, which does not require CO2 outcoming from a separation process, so it is unclear which outcoming CO2 is required in claim 29 in lines 1-2. Claim 17 requires “separating the methane produced by unconverted carbon dioxide” in the eighth bullet, but it is unclear whether claim 29 intends to refer to the unconverted carbon dioxide from the methane separation step because the separation step in the eighth bullet of claim 17 does not require outcoming CO2. The second reason is that it is unclear which composition is required to comprise inert substances, because CO2 used individually is just CO2. Although CO2 is disclosed as an inerting agent (see the spec. p. 9 line 11-12), claim 29 recites “comprising inert substances” [plural], so it is unclear whether the claim is requiring CO2 to be in a mixture with additional inert substances or whether the claim encompasses embodiments in which CO2 is used individually. The third reason is that it is unclear which composition is required to form byproducts of the same separation step. The fourth reason is that it is unclear which “same separation step” is being referenced.
Claim 31 recites “non-recyclable plastic waste”, which is indefinite because the specification does not provide a description or any examples of plastic waste structures that constitute as non-recyclable. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art cannot ascertain the metes and bounds of the required plastic waste.
Claim 32 recites “does not imply any CO2 emission into the atmosphere” in lines 3-4, which is indefinite because the term “imply” means to express, suggest or indicate. Therefore, the metes and bounds encompassed by implying CO2 emission into the atmosphere is unclear.
In claim 32, the term “maximizing” in line 5 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “maximizing” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Therefore, the point at which a conversion process can be considered maximized is unclear.
Claim 32 is indefinite because the metes and bounds of each unit required in bullet points 1-4 are unclear. The first bullet point of claim 32 recites “at least one thermal waste conversion at a temperature above 1000˚C unit…comprising a plurality of conversion reactors”. The structural distinction between a thermal conversion unit and a conversion reactor is unclear. Therefore, it is unclear whether the first bullet point requires a minimum of one thermal conversion unit or whether the first bullet point requires a plurality of conversion reactors. The second bullet point recites “at least one unit for producing H2 and O2 by electrolysis comprising a plurality of electrolysis cells”. The specification does not describe or provide examples of electrolysis cells that make up a unit for electrolysis. Thus, it is unclear whether multiple electrolysis cells are required or whether the claim requires a minimum of one unit structure capable of producing H2 and O2 by electrolysis. The third bullet recites “at least one raw syngas purification unit comprising a plurality of purification trains”. Since a purification unit reasonably serves the same function as one purification train, the number of purification trains per purification unit is unclear. As such, the required number of purification unit(s) and purification train(s) is unclear. The fourth bullet point recites “at least one unit for fermenting purified syngas, comprising a plurality of bioreactors”, which is indefinite because one bioreactor can be used for fermenting purified syngas so it is unclear whether the claim is requiring a minimum of one unit or a plurality of bioreactors. MPEP 2181(II)(A) indicates that if there is no disclosure of structure, material or acts for performing the recited function, the claim fails to satisfy the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
The terms “low” and “high” in claim 32 in the third bullet are relative terms, which render the claim indefinite. The terms “low” and “high” are not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 32 recites “both of the streams” in the sixth bullet line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There is no earlier requirement in claim 32 for a stream, so it is unclear whether “both of the streams” recited in the sixth bullet intend to reference a carbon dioxide and method stream or separate streams.
Claim 32 recites “the converter” in the sixth bullet line 2. It is unclear whether “the converter” in the sixth bullet intends to reference the “at least one thermal waste conversion at a temperature above 1000˚C unit” in the first bullet or the “at least one unit for converting the residual carbon dioxide present in the purge gas from the fermentation into methane” recited in the fifth bullet.
Claim 32 recites “the separation step”, in lines 23, 24, 26 and 27. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Since there is no earlier requirement for a separation step, it is unclear which separation step is being referenced in lines 23, 24, 26 and 27. Consequently, it is unclear where the at least one recycling line is required to exit from in the last two bullets of claim 32.
Claim 32 recites “the thermal conversion step” in line 25. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Since there is no earlier requirement for a thermal conversion step, it is unclear which thermal conversion step is being referenced in line 25. Consequently, it is unclear where the recycling line is required to be routed to in the last two bullets of claim 32.
Claim 33-36 depend from claim 32 and are rejected for the reason set forth above.
Claim 33 recites “purifying the raw ethanol produced by fermentation from which a stream of anhydrous ethanol and an aqueous stream containing alcohols and other organic products exit” in lines 1-3, which is indefinite because in one interpretation the purification of the raw ethanol results in a stream of anhydrous ethanol and an aqueous stream containing alcohols and other organic products; and under an alternative interpretation the raw ethanol is produced by a fermentation that results in a stream containing alcohols and other organic products.
Claims 33-34 recite “the raw ethanol” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 33-34 depend from claim 32, which does not require raw ethanol, or a raw ethanol purification step. Therefore, it is unclear which raw ethanol is required in claim 33, and it is unclear which raw ethanol purification step is being referenced in claim 34.
Claim 34 recites “the aqueous stream” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 34 depends from claim 32, which does not require an aqueous stream. Therefore, it is unclear which aqueous stream is being referenced in claim 34.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(d)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 21-24, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 21 fails to further limit claim 17 from which it depends. Claim 21 recites “the step of purifying the syngas produced comprises a plurality of trains depending on the capacity of the plant”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, claim 21 entails a contingent limitation because the number of trains depends on the capacity of the plant. Claim 21 depends from claim 17, which does not require a plant with any particular train capacity. As such, claim 21 does not further limit claim 17.
Claim 22 fails to further limit claim 17 from which it depends. Claim 22 recites “in the water electrolysis step, several cells are used depending on the capacity of the plant”, which is a contingent limitation because the number of cells depends on the capacity of the plant. Claim 22 depends upon claim 17, does not require a plant with any particular cell capacity. As such, claim 21 does not further limit claim 17.
Claim 23 fails to include all the limitations of claim 17 from which it depends. Claim 17 recites “adding further hydrogen to said syngas, produced by electrolysis so as to balance the H2/CO ratio to a value equal to at least 2,0 ÷2,2 in volume” in the second bullet, which encompasses H2/CO ratio values equal to at least 0.909 in volume as 2,0 ÷2,2 is 0.909. Claim 23 recites “the hydrogen produced in the electrolysis step is partially added upstream of the fermentation step, thus shifting the H2/CO ratio to a value between 2.0 and 2.2% vol” in lines 1-3. Claim 23 does not include the H2/CO ratio limitation of claim 17 because the “between 2.0 and 2.2% vol” (i.e. volume percentage) in claim 23 is not encompassed within the scope of the required H2/CO ratio of claim 17, i.e. “a value equal to at least 2,0 ÷2,2 in volume” (i.e. not a volume percentage). In other words, claim 23 introduces a separate H2/CO ratio that is a volume percentage not encompassed within the scope of claim 17. As such, claim 23 fails to include the H2/CO ratio limitation of claim 17 from which it depends.
Claim 24 fails to include all the limitations of claim 17 from which it depends. Claim 17 recites “adding further hydrogen to said syngas, produced by electrolysis so as to balance the H2/CO ratio to a value equal to at least 2,0 ÷2,2 in volume” in the second bullet. Claim 24 recites “the hydrogen produced in the electrolysis step is fully added upstream of the fermentation step, thus shifting the H2/CO ratio to a value between 5 and 5.2% vol” in lines 1-3. Claim 24 does not include the H2/CO ratio limitation of claim 17 because the “between 5 and 5.2% vol” (i.e. volume percentage) in claim 24 is not encompassed within the scope of the required H2/CO ratio of claim 17, i.e. “a value equal to at least 2,0 ÷2,2 in volume” (i.e. not a volume percentage). In other words, claim 24 introduces a separate H2/CO ratio that is a volume percentage not encompassed within claim 17. As such, claim 24 fails to include the H2/CO ratio limitation of claim 17 from which it depends.
Claim 26 fails to further limit claim 17 from which it depends. Claim 26 recites “the fermentation step is carried out in one or more bioreactors, depending on the capacity of the plant, containing a bacterial culture dispensed in a liquid nutrient medium”, which is a contingent limitation because the number of bioreactors containing a bacterial culture dispensed in a liquid nutrient depends on the capacity of the plant. Claim 26 depends from claim 17, which does not require a plant. Therefore, claim 26 does not limit claim 17.
Claim 27 does not further limit claim 17 upon which it depends because claim 27 merely recites a statement of intended use. Claim 17 requires recycling recovered methane and all the CO2 separated to the thermal conversion step. Claim 27 recites “wherein an amount of the methane stream produced during methanation and exiting from the separation step is recycled to the thermal waste conversion step in order to control the conversion temperature of the feed”. Claim 27 does not structurally limit the process of claim 17 because claim 27 only requires the recycling step of claim 17 to be for the purpose of controlling the conversion temperature of the feed.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 17-24, and 26-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Foody (US 2019/0185887) in view of Iaquaniello (WO 2020/075114).
Regarding claims 17, Foody teaches a process for producing ethanol. See claim 12 of Foody. Foody teaches subjecting non-fossil organic material to the thermal process of gasification. Products produced from gasification include syngas. See [0110]. The non-fossil organic material may be biomass. Examples of biomass include municipal waste and agricultural residues. The biomass may be solid (i.e. municipal solid waste). See [0078]. Foody teaches further hydrogen enrichment steps conducted on the syngas to increase hydrogen. See [0152]. Foody suggests tailoring the CO and H2 ratio. See [0340]. Foody discloses that hydrogen can be produced through electrolysis. See [0337]. Electrolysis involves the decomposition of water into oxygen and hydrogen gas (i.e. H2 and O2). See [0342]. Foody teaches using pressure swing adsorption (PSA) (i.e. purifying) to separate gas species from a mixture of gases under pressure using adsorbent materials. The adsorbent material adsorbs target gas species at high pressure and when the pressure is lowered the target gas desorbs (i.e. two pressure levels). PSA adsorbs hydrogen and the desorption results in a stream concentrated in hydrogen. A stream of non-adsorbed species, including carbon dioxide, is also generated. See [0159]. The gases, hydrogen and carbon dioxide, are introduced to the bioreactor for fermentation either together in a combined stream comprising both components or as separate respective streams. See [0183]. Foody teaches feeding biogenic carbon dioxide, biogenic carbon monoxide and hydrogen (i.e. syngas) to a bioreactor and fermenting to ethanol by Clostridium ljungdahlii bacteria. See [0336]. The hydrogen for the reaction is produced by electrolysis. See [0337]. The ratio of CO2, CO, and/or H2 may be tailored for the gas fermentation. See [0340]. Foody teaches obtaining an exhaust gas stream (i.e. purge gas) from a fermenter. Gases from the exhaust gas stream can be introduced to an anaerobic digester. See [0193]. Methane from carbon dioxide is generated during anaerobic digestion. See [0197]. Anaerobic digestion produces methane and other components including biogenic carbon dioxide. The biogenic carbon dioxide and methane can be separated from crude biogas (i.e. separating methane) and processed together with hydrogen to make syngas. See [0196]. Foody suggests that methane is an energy product used to generate electrical energy or heat. See [0085]. Foody suggests that the biogas produced during anaerobic digestion can be fed to the boiler [to which non-fossil organic material is fed]. See [0114].
Foody does not teach a thermal conversion temperature above 1000˚C.
Foody does not teach H2/CO ratio to a value equal to at least 2,0 ÷ 2,2 in volume (>0.909 because 2/2.2=0.909).
Foody does not teach purifying the raw syngas for the purpose of removing particulate, metals, chlorides, ammonia, COS and H2S.
Iaquaniello teaches a process comprising a high temperature conversion of waste to syngas; a first purification treatment to remove the obtained raw syngas particulate, bulk of metals, chlorine and NH3 compounds; a compression step followed by a second purification which comprises demetallization and dechlorine; and a sulphur removal. See claim 1 of Iaqueniello. The waste is a refuse derived fuel (RDF), agricultural waste, urban and/or industrial sludge, biomass, plastic waste, a solid chemical waste and combination thereof. See claim 8 of Iaquaniello. Iaquaniello teaches high temperature >1000˚C converters and corresponding first purification treatment units followed by a second purification treatment to purify the syngas. See p. 5 lines 11-17. In table 2, Iaquaniello teaches the material balance relevant to a feedstock based on typical RDF waste. See p. 11 lines 30-31. As shown in table 2, Iaquaniello teaches an H2 %vol of 39.7 to a CO %vol of 40.7, which is a H2/CO equal to 0.975. Furthermore, Iaquaniello teaches cooling syngas and accumulating it into an atmosphere storage system where it is compressed to 10-20 barg (i.e. pressure levels) before the second purification treatment. See p. 6 line 28 to p. 7 line 3.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention to substitute Iaquaniello’s >1000˚C waste to raw syngas conversion step and Iauaniello’s purification step for Foody’s waste to syngas thermal conversion step and Foody’s purification step respectively. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use Iaquaniello’s >1000˚C waste to raw syngas conversion step, because Iaquaniello suggests that the step minimizes emissions associated with waste disposal, and the produced syngas can be used for bio-methane production (p. 4 lines 27-30). There would have been a reasonable expectation of success because Iaquaniello demonstrates a high temperature conversion (>1000˚C) of RDF waste to a syngas with a H2 %vol ÷ CO %vol equal to 0.975 (see table 2), and Foody teaches thermally producing syngas from waste. One would be further motivated to use Iaquaniello’s purification because Iaquaniello suggests that the purification removes sulfur from the syngas (see claim 1 of Iaquaniello), which Foody suggests is poisonous to the catalyst (see [0321] of Foody). There would have been a reasonable expectation of success because Iaquaniello demonstrates purifying syngas, and Foody suggests purifying a gaseous mixture.
Foody does not explicitly teach recycling recovered methane and all the CO2 separated to the thermal conversion step. However, Foody suggests that methane can be separated and used to make syngas (see [0196]), and Foody teaches that the carbon dioxide and methane produced during anaerobic digestion can be fed to a boiler, which is a thermal converter (see [0114]).
Iaquaniello suggests that the raw syngas coming from a high temperature converter is cooled in a heat recovery boiler. See p. 10 lines 18-20.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention to recycle the recovered methane and all the CO2 separated to the thermal conversion step based on the teachings and suggestions of Foody and Iaquaniello. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because Foody suggests feeding biogas produced during anaerobic digestion to a boiler (see [0114]); anaerobic digestion produces methane and carbon dioxide (see Foody [0197]); and boilers are thermal converters from which syngas is obtained (see Foody [0326]). There would have been a reasonable expectation of success because Iaquaniello teaches a thermal conversion step that uses a boiler and Foody suggests a methane and carbon dioxide recycle to a boiler.
Regarding claim 18, Foody teaches concentrating ethanol using molecular sieves. A stream remaining after distillation (i.e. purification), referred to as a still bottom or stillage stream is fed to a drying unit where water is driven off. See [0314].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention that the ethanol concentration and distillation of Foody necessarily results in a stream of anhydrous ethanol and an aqueous stream containing alcohols and other organic products.
Regarding claim 19, Foody teaches stream remaining after distillation referred to as a still bottom or stillage stream that is fed to a drying unit where water is driven off. See [0314]. Foody discloses that a purifying unit, which typically contains activated carbon, may be included in a process before the drying to remove impurities. See [0136].
Foody and Iaquaniello do not teach purifying water obtained in the raw ethanol purification step. However, Foody teaches purifying ethanol by distillation to arrive at a stillage stream containing water, Foody teaches drying the stillage stream, and Foody suggests purifying before drying to remove impurities.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention to apply the purification of Foody to stillage stream containing water. One would be motivated to do so because Foody suggests that the activated carbon in the purification unit can remove impurities before drying. There would have been a reasonable expectation of success because Foody teaches purifying ethanol by distillation to arrive at a stillage stream containing water [0314], Foody teaches drying the stillage stream [0314], and Foody suggests purifying before drying to remove impurities [0136].
Regarding claim 20-21, Iaquaniello teaches an apparatus to carry out the process wherein raw syngas is produced by a plurality of high temperature converters and purification treatment sections for each of said high temperature converters on multiple trains depending on the plant capacity in order to reduce the fluctuations of syngas flow and composition to downstream processing and to increase the operability time of the entire plant having at least two high temperature converters always in operation. See claim 11 of Iaquaniello.
Regarding claim 22, Foody teaches electrolysis, which involves the decomposition of water into oxygen and hydrogen gas and is caused by subjecting the water to an electric current. See [0342].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention that the electrolysis step includes a number of [electrical] cells depending on the capacity of the plant.
Regarding claim 23, Foody teaches feeding biogenic carbon dioxide, biogenic carbon monoxide and hydrogen to a bioreactor and fermenting to ethanol by Clostridium ljungdahlii bacteria. See [0336]. The hydrogen for the reaction is produced by electrolysis (i.e. feeding hydrogen produced in the electrolysis step upstream of the fermentation step). See [0337]. Furthermore, Foody teaches converting biogenic carbon dioxide to methane by reaction with hydrogen. See [0196].
Foody does not teach adding hydrogen produced in the electrolysis step down stream of the fermentation step in order to enable the development of methanation reactions, thus optimizing the process in terms of volumes and operating conditions of the fermentation and methanation steps.
Iaquaniello teaches a process for producing methane, comprising a methanation step where CO2 is converted into CH4 through reaction with H2. See claim 1 of Iaquaniello, specifically p. 16 lines 1 and 25-26. Iaquaniello teaches obtaining extra H2 required to minimize or avoid any CO2 emission by water electrolysis. See claim 9 of Iaquaniello.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention to feed the H2 produced in the electrolysis step of Foody downstream to the methanation step of Foody based on Iaquaniello’s suggestion. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because Iaquaniello suggests adding H2 produced by electrolysis to a methanation reaction to minimize or avoid CO2 emission. There would have been a reasonable expectation of success because Foody demonstrates producing hydrogen by electrolysis and Foody demonstrates a methanation reaction that entails converting carbon dioxide to methane by reaction with hydrogen.
Regarding claim 24, Foody teaches feeding biogenic carbon dioxide, biogenic carbon monoxide and hydrogen to a bioreactor and fermenting to ethanol by Clostridium ljungdahlii bacteria. See [0336]. The hydrogen for the reaction is produced by electrolysis (i.e. feeding hydrogen produced in the electrolysis step upstream of the fermentation step). See [0337]. Furthermore, Foody teaches converting biogenic carbon dioxide to methane by reaction with hydrogen. See [0196].
Regarding claim 26, Foody teaches a bioreactor containing a liquid nutrient broth containing the bacteria and components required for their growth. See The bioreactor is one of a plurality of bioreactors in a system. See [0183].
Regarding claim 27, Foody suggests that methane can be separated and used to make syngas (see [0196]), and Foody teaches that the carbon dioxide and methane produced during anaerobic digestion can be fed to a boiler, which is a thermal converter (see [0114]).
Iaquaniello suggests that the raw syngas coming from a high temperature converter is cooled in a heat recovery boiler. See p. 10 lines 18-20.
Foody and Iaquaniello do not teach a recycle step for the purpose of controlling the conversion temperature of the feed.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention that the recycle step of Foody and Iaquaniello can necessarily be for controlling the conversion temperature of the feed.
Regarding claim 28, Foody teaches products produced from fermentation including butanediol and alcohols. See [0099]. Foody teaches a bioreactor that employs a cell recycle in order to replenish the concentration of cells in the reactor. A liquid stream comprising cells is withdrawn from the reactor and sent to a solids-liquid separation to separate cells from the stream. See [0185]. Foody teaches bacteria. See, e.g. [0171]. Foody teaches a hydrogenation of acetic acid that may favor the production of ethyl acetate over ethanol. See [0175]. Thus, Foody teaches bacteria exiting from the fermentation steps, and byproducts including butanediol, ethyl acetate and alcohols.
Foody does not teach byproducts exiting from a water purification unit that are routed to the converted in order to control the conversion of waste in terms of composition of the syngas produced.
Iaquaniello teaches a liquid stream generated by the first purification treatment that is sent to waste water treatment section together with other effluents. A clarified liquid stream is routed to thermal evaporation process to obtain purified stream suitable for internal reuse. See p. 6 lines 18-27.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention to apply the water purification unit and by product routing of Iaquaniello to the fermentation and byproducts of Foody. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because Iaquaniello suggests using a water treatment unit in order to obtain a stream that can be reused. There would have been a reasonable expectation of success because Foody teaches bacteria and products thereof and Iaquaniello teaches a water purification unit.
Regarding claim 29, Iaquaniello teaches a fraction of CO2 that is removed from bio-methane and used to inertize the feeding system of the gasifier. See claim 7 of Iaquaniello.
Although Foody and Iaquaniello do not teach inert substances and which form byproducts of the same separation step for inerting the waste supply system, Iaquaniello teaches using CO2 individual for inertizing the feeding system of the gasifier, which is the waste supply system.
Regarding claim 30, Iaquaniello teaches refuse derived fuel (RDF). See claim 8 of Iaquaniello.
Regarding claim 31, Iaquaniello teaches plastic waste. See claim 8 of Iaquaniello.
Although Foody and Iaquaniello do not teach non-recyclable plastic waste, the plastic waste of Iaquaniello is structurally indistinguishable from the claimed non-recyclable plastic waste.
Claims 25, and 32-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Foody (US 2019/0185887) and Iaquaniello (WO 2020/075114), as applied to claims 17-24, and 26-31 above, and further in view of Krajete (WO 2012/110257).
Regarding claim 25, Foody teaches that combustion includes an exothermic reaction between the non-fossil organic material and an oxidant, which is typically air or oxygen. See [0111]. Foody teaches electrolysis, which involves the decomposition of water into oxygen and hydrogen gas. See [0342].
Iaquaniello teaches a process of producing methane from a carbon matrix waste through high temperature conversion with oxygen, as a gasification with oxygen, without any pollutant emission. See claim 1 of Iaquaniello.
Foody and Iaquaniello do not teach oxygen produced by electrolysis that is used as a combustive agent in the conversion step for converting waste into syngas.
Krajete teaches discloses that the oxygen which is required for gasification may be derived from the electrolysis of water. See p. 44 lines 11-12.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention to apply Foody’s electrolysis derived oxygen to the thermal conversion of Iaquaniello based on the suggestion of Krajete. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because Krajete suggests that none of the components should remain unused or considered as waste (see p. 4 line 1). There would have been a reasonable expectation of success because both Foody and Iaquaniello teach electrolysis and a thermal conversion with oxygen for the production of syngas.
Regarding claim 32, Foody teaches producing ethanol. See claim 12 of Foody. Foody teaches a combustion apparatus (i.e. thermal waste conversion unit) to which non-fossil organic material may be fed to, such as a steam boiler. See [0114]. Foody suggests that combustion is typically carried out to produce syngas through the gasification of biomass. See [0116]. Foody teaches a steam reformed with an outlet stream to a waste heat boiler unit. An outlet stream from the waste heat boiler is fed to a heat recovery unit. An outlet stream from the heat recovery unit is fed to coolers which produced a cooled syngas stream (i.e. plurality of conversion reactors). See [0327]. Foody teaches an electrolysis that involves an electric current generated using non-renewable or renewable electricity sources. See [0342]. Foody teaches a pressure sing adsorption unit which separates gas species using adsorbent materials that adsorbs target gas species at high pressure and desorbs target gas at low pressure. See [0159]. Foody teaches a plurality of bioreactors in a system. A growth reactor may also be utilized which feeds a separate bioreactor in which most of the product ethanol is produced. See [0183]. Foody teaches an anaerobic digester (i.e. unit for converting residual carbon dioxide to methane). An exhaust gas (i.e. purge gas) stream comprising carbon dioxide from the fermentation bioreactor is withdrawn and introduced to anaerobic digestion. See [0309]. Anaerobic digestion produces methane and other components including carbon dioxide. See [0196]. Foody teaches that anaerobic digestion produces a stream comprising methane and carbon dioxide. The carbon dioxide can be separated from other components of the biogas (i.e. carbon dioxide separation from methane) and introduced to the bioreactor in which carbon dioxide and hydrogen are converted to ethanol. See [0188]. Thus, Foody suggests separating produced methane from carbon dioxide and recycling a carbon dioxide stream to a converter. Foody suggests that methane can be separated and used to make syngas. See [0196]. Foody teaches that the carbon dioxide and methane produced during anaerobic digestion can be fed to a boiler, which is a thermal converter (see [0114]).
Foody does not teach at least thermal conversion at a temperature above 100˚C unit with the purification of raw syngas comprising a plurality of conversion reactors.
Iaquaniello teaches an apparatus to carry out the process wherein raw syngas is produced by a plurality of high temperature converters. See claim 11 of Iaquaniello. Iaquaniello teaches high temperature >1000˚C converters. See p. 5 lines 11-17.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention to substitute Iaquaniello’s above >1000˚C thermal converter units for Foody’s combustion apparatus. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because Iaquaniello suggests that the high temperature converter can be used without any pollutant emissions (see claim 1 of Iaquaniello). There would have been a reasonable expectation of success because Iaquaniello’s thermal converter units reasonably serve the same function as the combustion units taught by Foody.
Foody and Iaquaniello do not teach at least one separation unit for separating produced methane from unconverted carbon dioxide and a line for recycling both the streams to the converter.
Foody and Iaquaniello do not teach at least one recycling line exiting from the separation step and routed to the thermal conversion unit for recycling all or part of the methane exiting from the separation step, as a temperature control vector in the thermal conversion step.
Foody and Iaquaniello do not teach at least one recycling line exiting from the separation step and routed to the thermal conversion step for recycling all of the CO2 recovered in the separation step, as an inerting agent in the thermal conversion step.
Krajete teaches a system for storing energy in the form of methane comprising at least one device for generating electric energy, at least one device for producing hydrogen and/or oxygen by electrolysis of water and at least one bioreactor suitable for methanogenic microorganisms. See claim 9 of Krajete. The system can comprise at least one device for recovery (i.e. separating), purification, enriching, storing, recycling and/or further processing off-gas, carbon dioxide and methane. See claim 12 of Krajete. Off-gas comprises methane, and carbon dioxide. See p. 16 lines 22-23. Off-gas may be transported by means such as tubes, or pipes (i.e. lines capable of recycling) to be converted into other forms of energy such as thermal energy. Methane burns with oxygen to carbon dioxide, which may be re-used for methane production in the bioreactor. See p. 16 lines 2-0. Krajete teaches producing carbon dioxide with a device for oxygen enriched gasification. See p. 17 line 9.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention to combine Krajete’s at least one device for separating and recycling methane and carbon dioxide with Iaquaniello’s thermal converter unit and Foody’s anaerobic digester, which produces exhaust gas comprising methane and carbon dioxide. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because Krajete suggests using off-gas, which comprises methane and carbon dioxide, for thermal energy. There would have been a reasonable expectation of success because Foody suggests feeding biogas produced during anaerobic digestion, i.e. methane and carbon dioxide, to a boiler, which is a thermal converter; and Krajete teaches tube and pipe structures used for recycling carbon dioxide and methane gas.
Regarding claim 33, Foody teaches concentrating ethanol using molecular sieves. A stream remaining after distillation (i.e. purification unit), referred to as a still bottom or stillage stream is fed to a drying unit where water is driven off. See [0314].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention that the ethanol concentration and distillation unit of Foody necessarily results in a stream of anhydrous ethanol and an aqueous stream containing alcohols and other organic products.
Regarding claim 34, Foody teaches stream remaining after distillation referred to as a still bottom or stillage stream that is fed to a drying unit where water is driven off. See [0314]. Foody discloses that a purifying unit, which typically contains activated carbon, may be included in a process before the drying to remove impurities. See [0136].
Regarding claim 35, Iaquaniello teaches refuse derived fuel (RDF). See claim 8 of Iaquaniello.
Regarding claim 36, Iaquaniello teaches plastic waste. See claim 8 of Iaquaniello.
Although Foody, Krajete and Iaquaniello do not teach non-recyclable plastic waste, the plastic waste of Iaquaniello is structurally indistinguishable from the claimed non-recyclable plastic waste.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KIMBERLY C BREEN whose telephone number is (571)272-0980. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:30-4:30, F 8:30-1:30 (EDT/EST).
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, LOUISE HUMPHREY can be reached at (571)272-5543. 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.
/LOUISE W HUMPHREY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1657
/K.C.B./Examiner, Art Unit 1657
