DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 26-31, 34-35, 44, 46-48, and 50 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2003/0129123 to Ramani et al (Ramani).
Regarding claim 26, Ramani discloses an apparatus comprising:
a syngas generating calciner (SGC) reactor (10, figs. 1-2; [34]) that comprises one or more inlet ports arranged to receive at least one feed stream comprising a carbonate material and at least one of hydrogen, oxygen, water, or a hydrocarbon, into a volume of the SGC reactor (fig. 2; CH4 inlet);
a heat transfer assembly (40, fig. 2; [34]) fluidly coupled to the SGC reactor to provide heat;
a reaction zone (20, fig. 2; [34]) fluidly coupled to the heat transfer assembly and SGC reactor, wherein at least a portion of the heat is transferred to the carbonate material and reactions occur to produce at least one product that comprises at least one of a carbon dioxide product, a syngas product or a solid oxide product ([34]); and
at least one outlet port positioned to discharge at least one of the carbon dioxide product, the syngas product, the carbonate material, or the solid oxide product, out of the SGC reactor (outlet to reactor 10, figs. 1-2).
Regarding claim 27, Ramani discloses the apparatus of claim 26, wherein the at least one outlet port is configured to separate at least a portion of the syngas product from at least one of the carbonate material or the solid oxide product, and discharge the at least a portion of the syngas product out of the SGC reactor (at 50, figs. 1-2).
Regarding claim 28, Ramani discloses the apparatus of claim 26, wherein the SGC reactor comprises a catalytically active material (24, fig. 1; [32]).
Regarding claim 29, Ramani discloses the apparatus of claim 28, wherein at least a portion of the catalytically active material (H2S and CH4) is transferred into the SGC reactor through the one or more of the inlet ports, and is discharged from the SGC reactor through the one or more of the outlet ports.
Regarding claim 30, Ramani discloses the apparatus of claim 28, wherein the SGC reactor further comprises one or more internal surfaces (surface of 24, fig. 1; [32]-[34]), and at least a portion of the one or more internal surfaces comprises at least a portion of the catalytically active material or is coated with at least a portion of the catalytically active material ([32]-[34]).
Regarding claim 31, Ramani discloses the apparatus of claim 30, wherein the at least a portion of the catalytically active material comprises an open metal foam ([44]).
Regarding claim 34, Ramani discloses the apparatus of claim 26, wherein the SGC reactor further comprises a heating zone (fig. 1), wherein the heating zone comprises a ceramic material ([32]-[34]).
Regarding claim 35, De Lasa combined with Rossi discloses the apparatus of claim 34, wherein the heating zone further comprises a material barrier ([32]-[34]; ceramic materials of covering 26 and 22) disposed between one or more walls of the SGC reactor and the ceramic material to prevent the at least one product from entering a space between the one or more walls of the SGC reactor and the ceramic material.
Regarding claim 44, Ramani discloses the apparatus of claim 26, wherein the SGC reactor comprises: an insulated enclosure; and one or more reactor tubes (figs. 1-2).
Regarding claim 46, Ramani discloses the apparatus of claim 44, wherein the one or more reactor tubes are filled with metal catalyst material (24, fig. 1).
Regarding claim 47, Ramani discloses the apparatus of claim 44, wherein the SGC reactor is fluidly coupled to feed introduction unit (12, 14, 16, fig. ), and the feed introduction unit is configured to receive the at least one feed stream and a second feed stream (12, 14, 16, fig. 1) and to provide a combined feed stream to the SGC reactor.
Regarding claim 48, Ramani discloses the apparatus of claim 47, wherein the feed introduction unit comprises one or more of a blower, lock hopper, screw feeder, rotary valve, eductor, or a combination thereof (feed introduction unit is not claimed as part of the apparatus. It is merely environment where the SGC of the apparatus is employed. As such, it is office’s position that the SGC reactor of Ramani only needs to be capable of being fluidly coupled to the feed introduction unit that comprises one or more of a blower, lock hopper, screw feeder, rotary valve, eductor, or a combination thereof.
Regarding claim 50, Ramani discloses the apparatus of claim 26, wherein the SGC reactor is coupled to at least one of a direct air capture plant, a carbon dioxide capture plant, a cement plant, a refractory plant, or a pulp and paper plant (these plants are not claimed as part of the apparatus. They are merely environment where the SGC of the apparatus is employed. As such, it is office’s position that the SGC reactor of Ramani only needs to be capable of being coupled to the at least one of a direct air capture plant, a carbon dioxide capture plant, a cement plant, a refractory plant, or a pulp and paper plant)
Claim(s) 26-29, 32-33, 38, 41-48, and 50 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2003/0103893 to De Lasa et al (De Lasa).
Regarding claim 26, De Lasa discloses an apparatus comprising:
a syngas generating calciner (SGC) reactor (10, figs. 1-2; [43]) that comprises one or more inlet ports arranged to receive at least one feed stream comprising a carbonate material and at least one of hydrogen, oxygen, water, or a hydrocarbon, into a volume of the SGC reactor (fig. 2; CH4 inlet);
a heat transfer assembly ([62]) fluidly coupled to the SGC reactor to provide heat;
a reaction zone (26, figs. 1-2; [42]) fluidly coupled to the heat transfer assembly and SGC reactor, wherein at least a portion of the heat is transferred to the carbonate material and reactions occur to produce at least one product that comprises at least one of a carbon dioxide product, a syngas product or a solid oxide product (figs. 1-2; [42]); and
at least one outlet port (32-38, figs. 1-2) positioned to discharge at least one of the carbon dioxide product, the syngas product, the carbonate material, or the solid oxide product, out of the SGC reactor.
Regarding claim 27, De Lasa discloses the apparatus of claim 26, wherein the at least one outlet port is configured to separate at least a portion of the syngas product from at least one of the carbonate material or the solid oxide product, and discharge the at least a portion of the syngas product out of the SGC reactor (at 34, figs. 1-2; [42]).
Regarding claim 28, De Lasa discloses the apparatus of claim 26, wherein the SGC reactor comprises a catalytically active material (fig. 1; [41]).
Regarding claim 29, De Lasa discloses the apparatus of claim 28, wherein at least a portion of the catalytically active material ([41]) is transferred into the SGC reactor through the one or more of the inlet ports, and is discharged from the SGC reactor through the one or more of the outlet ports.
Regarding claim 32, De Lasa discloses the apparatus of claim 29, further comprising at least one transfer device (from 38 to 20 or from 38-42 to 46, figs. 1-2) configured to recycle at least a portion of the discharged catalytically active material from the at least one outlet ports back to the one or more inlet ports.
Regarding claim 33, De Lasa discloses the apparatus of claim 32, wherein the SGC reactor is fluidly coupled to at least one of a solid separation unit (34, 42, figs. 1-2; [41]-[42]), a catalyst regeneration unit, a heating device, or a downstream process unit,
the at least one transfer device (from 38-42 to 46, figs. 1-2) is configured to provide the at least a portion of the discharged catalytically active material to at least one of the solid separation unit (42, figs. 1-2), the catalyst regeneration unit (42, fig. 1-2; [41]-[42], the heating device, or the downstream process unit; and
a second transfer device (from 42-46 to 10, figs. 1-2) is configured to provide the at least a portion of the discharged catalytically active material from at least one of the solid separation unit, the catalyst regeneration unit, the heating device, or the downstream process unit to the inlet port of the SGC reactor.
Regarding claim 38, De Lasa discloses the apparatus of claim 26, wherein the SGC reactor is configured to receive at least one of a first recycle stream or a second recycle stream (from 38 to 20 or from 38-42 to 46, figs. 1-2).
Regarding claim 41, De Lasa discloses the apparatus of claim 38, further comprising at least one of a first process unit (34, fig. 1) or a second process unit (46, fig. 1), and wherein the first recycle stream is processed by the first process unit and the second recycle stream is processed by the second process unit ([41]-[42]).
Regarding claim 42, De Lasa discloses the apparatus of claim 41, further comprising at least one of a first discharge stream or a second discharge stream, and wherein the SGC reactor is configured to receive at least one of a portion of the first discharge stream or a portion of the second discharge stream (figs. 1-2).
Regarding claim 43, De Lasa discloses the apparatus of claim 26, wherein the SGC reactor comprises at least one of a shaft kiln, a rotary kiln, or a fluidized bed calciner (fig. 1; fluid in 26).
Regarding claim 44, De Lasa discloses the apparatus of claim 26, wherein the SGC reactor comprises: an insulated enclosure; and one or more reactor tubes (figs. 1-2).
Regarding claim 45, De Lasa discloses the apparatus of claim 44, wherein the insulated enclosure comprises a furnace ([62]).
Regarding claim 46, De Lasa discloses the apparatus of claim 44, wherein the one or more reactor tubes are filled with metal catalyst material (22, fig. 1).
Regarding claim 47, De Lasa discloses the apparatus of claim 44, wherein the SGC reactor is fluidly coupled to feed introduction unit (12, fig. 1), and the feed introduction unit is configured to receive the at least one feed stream and a second feed stream (fig. 1) and to provide a combined feed stream to the SGC reactor.
Regarding claim 48, De Lasa discloses the apparatus of claim 47, wherein the feed introduction unit comprises one or more of a blower, lock hopper, screw feeder, rotary valve, eductor, or a combination thereof (feed introduction unit is not claimed as part of the apparatus. It is merely environment where the SGC of the apparatus is employed. .
Regarding claim 50, De Lasa discloses the apparatus of claim 26, wherein the SGC reactor is coupled to at least one of a direct air capture plant, a carbon dioxide capture plant, a cement plant, a refractory plant, or a pulp and paper plant (these plants are not claimed as part of the apparatus. They are merely environment where the SGC of the apparatus is employed).
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.
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) 34-37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De Lasa as applied to claim 26 above, and further in view of US 2009/0114352 to Rossi.
Regarding claim 34, De Lasa discloses the apparatus of claim 26, but does not explicitly disclose which Rossi discloses:
the SGC reactor further comprises a heating zone (fig. 1), wherein the heating zone comprises a ceramic material ([46]; mullite is a type of ceramic).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have the heating zone as taught by Rossi with the apparatus of De Lasa so as to achieve an improved process for calcining or "reburning" calcium carbonate "high solids lime mud" as produced in, for instance, a Kraft or other alkali-based paper pulp manufacturing operation and converting it to high-quality re-burned lime while using only low cost biomass and biomass derived waste water treatment plant (WWTP) sludge, non-condensable waste mill gas (NCG), or low cost solid fuels such as coal, petroleum coke, etc ([1]; Rossi).
Regarding claim 35, De Lasa combined with Rossi discloses the apparatus of claim 34, wherein the heating zone further comprises a material barrier ([66]; Rossi) disposed between one or more walls of the SGC reactor and the ceramic material to prevent the at least one product from entering a space between the one or more walls of the SGC reactor and the ceramic material.
Regarding claim 36, De Lasa combined with Rossi discloses the apparatus of claim 34, further comprising a fluid (fluid bed as disclosed in [45] of De Lasa and [44] of Rossi) disposed between one or more walls of the SGC reactor and the ceramic material.
Regarding claim 37, De Lasa combined with Rossi discloses the apparatus of claim 36, wherein the fluid provides a positive pressure across a space between the one or more walls of the SGC reactor and the ceramic material, and the positive pressure prevents the at least one product from entering a space between the one or more walls of the SGC reactor and the ceramic material (function and property of fluid bed as disclosed in [45] of De Lasa and [44] of Rossi).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 10,155,661 to Kang et al.
US 10,106,753 to Graham et al.
US 2013/0012605 to Zhou
US 2012/0145965 to Simmons et al.
All references above describe general state of art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAPINDER SINGH whose telephone number is (571)270-1774. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday from 8:00 AM to 5:30 PM.
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, Mark Laurenzi can be reached at (571) 270-7878. 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.
/DAPINDER SINGH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746