Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted claims 17 – 18 are directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons: the invention of originally presented claim 1 does not require the limitations for an exhaust oxidizer configured to receive a mixture of at least a portion of the anode exhaust and the cathode exhaust and to output an oxidized exhaust. Then, the inventions of claims 1 and 17 are related as patentably distinct products.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 17 – 18 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Response to Arguments
The following is in response to the applicant’s remarks filed 5/18/26.
The applicant submits that the amendments overcome the previous rejection.
The examiner agrees, and the previous rejection is withdrawn.
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.
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.
Claims 1 – 5 and 7 – 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 by Jahnke, US20190148753A1 and further in view of Galloway, US20240425761A1
Regarding claim 1, Jahnke teaches a system [0002], comprising:
a digestion system configured to convert a digestate into a fuel gas (hydrogen generation system)[0019]; and
a fuel cell power system (fuel cell)[0020] comprising
solid oxide fuel cells configured to generate power using the fuel gas and to output an exhaust and a heat exchanger configured to generate steam that is provided to the reformer by extracting heat from the exhaust output by fuel cells (generate electrical power)[0019](waste heat from cells)[0035] (waste heat from cells to reformer)[0035]
Janke does not teach a carbonaceous waste digestate, solid oxide fuel cells, and a rotary reformer.
Galloway teaches a system comprising a digestion system [0002] and a fuel cell power system [0004] comprising a carbonaceous waste digestate [0004], solid oxide fuel cells [0067], and a rotary reformer [0039]. Further, Galloway teaches the claimed components to make efficient use of steam reformation to maximize production of hydrogen [0006]. Then, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the components of Galloway into the system of Janke to efficiently maximize hydrogen production using a carbonaceous waste digestate.
Regarding claim 2, combined Jahnke teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the fuel gas comprises hydrogen (H2) (hydrogen)[0027].
Regarding claim 3, combined Jahnke teaches the system of claim 2,
Further, Janke teaches wherein the fuel cell power system comprises: fuel cells (cells (204))[0039];
a condenser configured to remove water from fuel exhaust output from the fuel cells to generate recycled fuel (condenser)[0051][0055];
a recycling conduit (recycle path (426))[ configured to receive the fuel exhaust from the fuel cells and transfer the fuel exhaust to the condenser; and
a recycle blower (recycle blower (425)) configured to pressurize the recycled fuel output [fig. 4] from the condenser.
Regarding claim 4, combined Jahnke teaches the system of claim 3.
Further, Janke teaches wherein the exhaust comprises a fuel exhaust, and the heat exchanger is configured to transfer heat from the fuel exhaust to water to generate the steam. (generate electrical power)[0019](waste heat from cells)[0035] (waste heat from cells to reformer)[0035]
Regarding claim 5, Jahnke teaches the system of claim 4.
Further, Janke teaches at least a portion of the steam is configured to be generated using the water removed from the fuel exhaust (generate electrical power)[0019](waste heat from cells)[0035] (waste heat from cells to reformer)[0035].
Regarding claim 7, combined Jahnke teaches the system of claim 6.
Further, Galloway teaches a system comprising a digestion system [0002] and a fuel cell power system [0004] wherein the digestion system further comprises a syngas cleanup module [0068] and a water-gas-shift module [0073].
Regarding claim 8, combined Jahnke teaches the system of claim 7.
Further, Galloway teaches wherein the digestion system further comprises a pressure-swing adsorption module [0063].
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 PATRICK M GREENE whose telephone number is (571)270-1340. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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, Miriam Stagg can be reached at (571)270-5256. 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.
/PATRICK MARSHALL GREENE/Examiner, Art Unit 1724
/BRIAN R OHARA/Examiner, Art Unit 1724
