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 .
Election/Restriction
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
I. Claims 1-11, drawn to a fuel desulfurization system, classified in H01M8/04216.
II. Claims 12-20, drawn to a method for desulfurizing fuel, classified in H01M8/0675 and H01M8/04708.
The inventions are independent or distinct, each from the other because:
Inventions Group II and Group I are related as process and apparatus for its practice. The inventions are distinct if it can be shown that either: (1) the process as claimed can be practiced by another and materially different apparatus or by hand, or (2) the apparatus as claimed can be used to practice another and materially different process. (MPEP § 806.05(e)). In this case, the process can be practiced by another materially different apparatus or by hand. Specifically, the process of Group II can be practiced without the inlet (claim 1), outlet (claim 1), hydrolysis bed (claim 3, 6), first sorption bed (claim 4, 6), second sorption bed (claim 4, 6), the dimensions of the claimed beds (claim 6), the specific locations for the claimed beds (claims 7, 8), and a first and second reaction vessel (claim 8).
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply:
MPEP 808.02 (c): The differences between the product and the method would require different
search strings and strategies across different fields of endeavor and thus is a serious search burden to
the Examiner. Additionally, it is likely the closest prior art for Group I might not be the same as Group II.
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of an invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention.
The election of an invention may be made with or without traverse. To reserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these 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.
During a telephone conversation with Leon Radomsky on March 11, 2026 a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of Group I, claims 1-11. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 12-20 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
The examiner has required restriction between product or apparatus claims and process claims. Where applicant elects claims directed to the product/apparatus, and all product/apparatus claims are subsequently found allowable, withdrawn process claims that include all the limitations of the allowable product/apparatus claims should be considered for rejoinder. All claims directed to a nonelected process invention must include all the limitations of an allowable product/apparatus claim for that process invention to be rejoined.
In the event of rejoinder, the requirement for restriction between the product/apparatus claims and the rejoined process claims will be withdrawn, and the rejoined process claims will be fully examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. Thus, to be allowable, the rejoined claims must meet all criteria for patentability including the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 101, 102, 103 and 112. Until all claims to the elected product/apparatus are found allowable, an otherwise proper restriction requirement between product/apparatus claims and process claims may be maintained. Withdrawn process claims that are not commensurate in scope with an allowable product/apparatus claim will not be rejoined. See MPEP § 821.04. Additionally, in order for rejoinder to occur, applicant is advised that the process claims should be amended during prosecution to require the limitations of the product/apparatus claims. Failure to do so may result in no rejoinder. Further, note that the prohibition against double patenting rejections of 35 U.S.C. 121 does not apply where the restriction requirement is withdrawn by the examiner before the patent issues. See MPEP § 804.01.
Double Patenting
A rejection based on double patenting of the “same invention” type finds its support in the language of 35 U.S.C. 101 which states that “whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process... may obtain a patent therefor...” (Emphasis added). Thus, the term “same invention,” in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter. See Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186 (1894); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Ockert, 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957).
A statutory type (35 U.S.C. 101) double patenting rejection can be overcome by canceling or amending the claims that are directed to the same invention so they are no longer coextensive in scope. The filing of a terminal disclaimer cannot overcome a double patenting rejection based upon 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 1-11 are provisionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claims 1-11 of copending Application No. 18759423 (reference application). This is a provisional statutory double patenting rejection since the claims directed to the same invention have not in fact been patented.
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) 1-3 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Russell et al. [US2006140852A as provided on the IDS dated 02/04/2025 and the EPO dated 12/11/2024], hereinafter Russell.
Regarding Claim 1, Russell discloses a fuel desulfurization system [Russell throughout, Figs. 1-6], comprising:
at least one reaction vessel [Russell 0030, 0077-0124 and throughout, Figs. 1, 2, 4, 6. Fig. 1 vessel 102/124; Fig. 2 vessel 202/218/226; Fig. 4 vessel 202/224/226; Fig. 6 vessel 408/412] comprising an inlet and an outlet [Russell 0012, 0030, 0077, 0077-0124 and throughout, Figs. 1, 2, 4, 6, The broadest reasonable interpretation of Russell would be that an inlet and an outlet are inherently required for the entry and exit of fuel from each of the reactors. See MPEP 2112- There is no requirement that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the inherent disclosure at the relevant time, but only that the subject matter is in fact inherent in the prior art reference. Specifically, Fig. 1 has an inlet prior to reactor 102 and an outlet after reactor 124; Fig. 2 has an inlet prior to 218 and after 226; Fig. 4 has an inlet prior to 202 and an outlet after 226 ; Fig. 6 has an inlet prior to 408 and an outlet after 412.] a hydrolysis catalyst located in the at least one reaction vessel [Russell 0079-0085, 0091-0092 ,0106-0110, 0124 and throughout, claim 16] and configured to hydrolyze at least one sulfur species in a fuel received from the inlet [Russell 0011, 0079, and throughout, conversion of CXS to hydrogen sulfide, where CXS is, for example, carbonyl sulfide or carbon disulfide]; and a sulfur species sorbent located in the at least one reaction vessel and configured to sequester the at least one sulfur species in the fuel output from the hydrolysis catalyst [Russell 0011-0012, 0023-0038, 0056-0057 and throughout, solid sorbets for sequestering hydrogen sulfide as well as organosulfur].
Regarding Claim 2, Russell discloses the fuel desulfurization system of claim 1, wherein: the at least one sulfur species in the fuel received from the inlet comprises at least one of carbonyl sulfide or carbon disulfide [Russell 0011-0012, 0035, 0038, 0079-0094, 0106-0109, and throughout]; the hydrolysis catalyst is configured to hydrolyze the at least one of the carbonyl sulfide or the carbon disulfide using water to generate hydrogen sulfide and carbon dioxide [Russell 0056-0057 and throughout]; and the sulfur species sorbent is configured to sequester the hydrogen sulfide in the fuel output from the hydrolysis catalyst [Russell 0011-0012, 0023-0038, 0056-0057 and throughout solid sorbet for sequestering hydrogen sulfide as well as organosulfur].
Regarding Claim 3, Russell discloses the fuel desulfurization system of claim 2, wherein: the hydrolysis catalyst is arranged as a hydrolysis bed located in the at least one reaction vessel [Russell 0012, 0035, 0091 and throughout, claim 13; Figs. 1/2/4, beds 104/220/204]; and the sulfur species sorbent is arranged as at least one sorption bed located in the at least one reaction vessel downstream from the hydrolysis bed [0012, 0035, 0091 and throughout, claim 13; Figs. 1/2/4, beds 126, 220/228, and 224/226].
Regarding Claim 10, Russell discloses the fuel desulfurization system of claim 1, wherein the outlet is fluidly connected to a fuel cell system [Russell discussed throughout- see abstract; 0086, Fig. 1, fluidly connected through line 128 to hydrogen generator for fuel cell; 0095, Fig. 2, fluidly connected through line 230 to hydrogen generator for fuel cell; 0112-0116, Fig. 4, fluidly connected through line 234 to 260 as reformate for a fuel cell].
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) 4, 6-9, and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Russell, as provided in claims 1-3 and 10 above.
First interpretation of Russell, embodiment of Fig. 2:
Regarding Claim 4, Russell discloses the fuel desulfurization system of claim 3.
With regard to the limitations, the sulfur species sorbent comprises a first sulfur species sorbent and a second sulfur species sorbent different from the first sulfur species sorbent; the first sulfur species sorbent is arranged in a first sorption bed located in the at least one reaction vessel and configured to sequester organosulfur species in the fuel output from the hydrolysis bed; and the second sulfur species sorbent is arranged in a second sorption bed located in the at least one reaction vessel and configured to sequester the hydrogen sulfide in the fuel output from the first sorption bed, Russell Fig. 2 embodiment does not explicitly teach the first sulfur species sorbent and the second sulfur species sorbent are different and the first sulfur sorbent species is configured to sequester organosulfur species in the fuel output of the hydrolysis bed; however, in the embodiment of Fig. 2, the first sorbent 206 is to sequester organosulfur compounds prior to hydrolysis and the second sorbent 228 is to sequester hydrogen sulfide after hydrolysis [Russell 0090-0098, Fig. 2]. Russell further teaches the sorbents for removing hydrogen sulfide are wide ranging including molecular sieves or reactive sorbents such as zinc oxide, iron oxide, copper oxide, and nickel on alumina, all of which have high capacities for hydrogen sulfide [Russell 0094-0095] and teaches solid sorbents for sorbing organosulfur compounds such as molecular sieves and molecular sieves that have been ion exchanged with one or more transition metals, such as Ag, Cu, Ni, Zn, Fe and Co. Molecular sieves include the X-type, A-type, Y-type, and beta-type [Russell 0061-0063]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use Russell’s teachings to select a sorbent for sorbing organosulfur compounds that is different from the sorbent for sorbing hydrogen sulfide as described above with a reasonable expectation of success in removing both organosulfur compounds and hydrogen sulfide from the fuel stream. See MPEP 2143 (E) "Obvious to try" – choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success. Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to rearrange Russell’s desulfurization system such that the first sorbent bed 206 is after the hydrolysis bed 220 and before the second sorbent bed 228 if the hydrolysis catalyst is not sensitive to organosulfur [Russell 0064] with a reasonable expectation of success in removing both organosulfur compounds and hydrogen sulfide from the fuel stream. Such modification is obvious per MPEP 2144.04 C, rearrangement of parts, and or MPEP 2144.04 B, duplication of parts.
PNG
media_image1.png
234
405
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 2, first interpretation, modified Russell
Second interpretation of Russell, embodiment of Fig. 4:
Regarding Claim 4, Russell discloses the fuel desulfurization system of claim 3 wherein:
the sulfur species sorbent comprises a first sulfur species sorbent [Russell 0038, 0106-0118, Fig. 4, first species sorbent in 224] and a second sulfur species sorbent [Russell 0038, 0106-0118, Fig. 4, second species sorbent in 226]; the first sulfur species sorbent is arranged in a first sorption bed located in the at least one reaction vessel and configured to sequester organosulfur species in the fuel output from the hydrolysis bed; and the second sulfur species sorbent is arranged in a second sorption bed located in the at least one reaction vessel and configured to sequester the hydrogen sulfide in the fuel output from the first sorption bed [Russell 0038, 0106-0118, Fig. 4, The broadest reasonable interpretation of Russell is the first species sorbent in 224 received from hydrolysis reactor 202 sequesters the organosulfur compound, which is followed by the sequestration of hydrogen sulfide (Russell 0117 explicitly teaches this.) in 226. Thus, Russell meets the limitations.]. Russell does not explicitly disclose the second sulfur species sorbent is different from the first sulfur species sorbent; however, Russell teaches the sorbents for removing hydrogen sulfide are wide ranging including molecular sieves or reactive sorbents such as zinc oxide, iron oxide, copper oxide, and nickel on alumina, all of which have high capacities for hydrogen sulfide [Russell 0094-0095] and teaches solid sorbents for sorbing organosulfur compounds such as molecular sieves and molecular sieves that have been ion exchanged with one or more transition metals, such as Ag, Cu, Ni, Zn, Fe and Co. Molecular sieves include the X-type, A-type, Y-type, and beta-type [Russell 0061-0063]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use Russell’s teachings to select a sorbent for sorbing organosulfur compounds that is different from the sorbent for sorbing hydrogen sulfide as described above with a reasonable expectation of success in removing both organosulfur compounds and hydrogen sulfide from the fuel stream. See MPEP 2143 (E) "Obvious to try" – choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding Claim 6, modified Russell discloses the desulfurization system of claim 4 (both interpretations of Russell above) but does not provide the volume % of each of the hydrolysis bed, first sorption bed, and second sorption bed as it relates to the total volume of the reaction vessel as required in the claim. However, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill that the size of each of the beds, and thus the volume % as compared to the total volume of the reaction vessel, would be a result effective variable dependent on the specific design of the desulfurization system and the sorbents applied to the sorbent bed. For example, Russell teaches regeneration of solid sorbents to support a more compact system with reduced maintenance [Russell 0010, 0018-0020] and further teaches the volume of sorbent depends on temperature, pressure, purge to feed ratio, the components of the fuel, and the sorbents used [Russell 0059]. Even further, Russell teaches the volume of the sorbent bed is “a design choice based upon the duration that the bed is to be used before being replaced or regenerated with a given concentration of sulfur compounds in the feed” [Russell 0087]. It would be within the ambit of the skilled artisan to apply Russell’s teachings to determine the workable range of volume % for each of the hydrolysis and sorbent beds relative to the size of the reaction vessel by balancing the specific design requirements for the desulfurization system as discussed above through routine experimentation, which is obvious per MPEP 2144.05II,A. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation."
Regarding Claim 7, modified Russell disclose the fuel desulfurization system of claim 4, wherein: the first sorption bed is located between the hydrolysis bed and the second sorption bed [Russell, both interpretations as provided above; Specifically, in the first interpretation Fig. 2, the broadest reasonable interpretation of modified Russell as described in claim 4 is the first sorbent bed 206 is after the hydrolysis bed 220 and before the second sorbent bed 228. In the second interpretation Fig. 4, the broadest reasonable interpretation of Russel is the first sorbent bed 224 is located between the hydrolysis bed 204 and the second sorbent bed 226.]. Russell does not explicitly teach the at least one reaction vessel comprises a first reaction vessel having the inlet and the outlet; the hydrolysis bed, the first sorption bed, and the second sorption bed are located in the first reaction vessel; however, such modification of Russell would merely require making the Russell hydrolysis and sorption beds integral within one vessel such that the input is the fuel entry and the output is the desulfurized fuel for the fuel cell. This modification would be obvious per MPEP 2144.04 V, making integral or continuous. Modifications for the modified embodiment of Fig. 2 and the embodiment of Fig. 4 are shown below for clarity.
PNG
media_image2.png
247
405
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
526
501
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Fig.4, made integral
Regarding Claim 8, modified Russell discloses the fuel desulfurization system of claim 4. Russell does not explicitly teach the configuration of claim 8; however, modification of Russell to meet the limitation “wherein: the at least one reaction vessel comprises a first reaction vessel having the inlet and a second reaction vessel having the outlet; an intermediate fuel conduit connects an intermediate outlet of the first reaction vessel to an intermediate inlet of the second reaction vessel; the hydrolysis bed is located in the first reaction vessel; and the first sorption bed and the second sorption bed are located in the second reaction vessel” merely requires obvious modifications to Russell’s modified Fig. 2 [Russell 0090-0091] (as described in claim 4 above) and/or Fig. 4 [Russell 0106-0118]. For clarity, the modifications of Russell’s modified embodiment in Fig. 2 and Fig. 4 are shown below.
PNG
media_image4.png
267
409
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Figure 2 modified
PNG
media_image5.png
526
550
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Figure 4 modified
Specifically for the embodiment of Fig. 2, reactor 218 reads on the first reaction vessel having an inlet, where the fuel enters 218, which contains hydrolysis bed 220. Russell’s line 216 reads on the claimed intermediate conduit, which connects the outlet of the reactor 218 with the inlet of sorption bed 202 as the respective intermediate outlet and inlet. Modification of Russell modified Fig. 2 meeting the claimed configuration merely requires integrating the reactors 202 and 226, containing the first sorption bed 206 and second sorption bed 228, respectively, as a second reaction vessel. This modification would be obvious per MPEP 2144.04 V, making integral or continuous.
Specifically for the embodiment of Fig. 4, reactor 202 reads on the first vessel having an inlet, where the fuel enters 202, which contains hydrolysis bed 204. Russell’s line 220 reads on the claimed intermediate conduit, which connects the outlet of reactor 202 with the inlet of the second vessel containing the first sorption bed 224 and the second sorption bed 226. Modification of Russell Fig. 4 meeting the claimed configuration merely requires integrating the reactors containing the first sorption bed 224 and second sorption bed 226 as a second reaction vessel. This modification would be obvious per MPEP 2144.04 V, making integral or continuous.
Regarding Claim 9, modified Russell discloses the fuel desulfurization system of claim 8, further comprising:
a fuel source conduit fluidly connecting the inlet of the first reaction vessel to a fuel source [Russell 0111 and throughout, Fig. 4 feed line 206 as the fuel source conduit connected to the feedstock as the fuel source]; a heating device located on or adjacent to at least one of the first reaction vessel or the fuel source conduit [Russell 0111 and throughout, Fig. 4 Heat exchanger 214, as the claimed heating device, heats the temperature of the feed prior to hydrolysis in reactor 202, and would be considered on or adjacent to both the first reaction vessel 202 and the fuel source conduit 206.]; and a cooling device located on or adjacent to the intermediate fuel conduit [Russell 0111-0112 and throughout, Fig. 4 Heat exchanger 208 cools the process stream of the fuel in intermediate line 220 and would be considered on the intermediate fuel conduit.].
Regarding claim 11, Russell discloses the fuel desulfurization system of claim 10, wherein: the inlet is fluidly connected to a fuel source [Russell 0001-0021 and throughout, Fig. 4, The hydrocarbon feed is the fuel source, as discuss throughout, which is fluidly connected to the desulfurization system inlet for the various embodiments as described in claim 1.]; and the hydrolysis catalyst is configured to hydrolyze the at least one sulfur species in the fuel received from the inlet using a portion of the water in the fuel [Russell 0015, 0057, and throughout, Fig. 4, For the embodiments where water is not removed prior to hydrolysis, water from the fuel can be used in hydrolysis.]. Russell teaches fuels such as natural gas, propane, butane, liquified petroleum gas [Russell 0003, 005, and throughout] and does not explicitly teach a biogas as the fuel source; however, for a biogas fuel source having the same sulfur compounds as natural gas, propane, butane, liquified petroleum gas fuels taught by Russell, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to apply Russell’s fuel desulfurization system for use with a biogas fuel source for predictable result of a biogas with sulfur removed to protect the fuel cell system [Russell 0005 and throughout].
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Russell, as provided in claim 4 above, and in further view of Spivey et al. [US20060283780A1, as provided on the IDS dated 02/04/2025 and the EPO dated 12/11/2024], hereinafter Spivey.
Regarding claim 5, modified Russell discloses the fuel desulfurization system of claim 4, wherein: the hydrolysis catalyst comprises alumina [Russell 0082] and
the second sulfur species sorbent comprises CuO and MnO2 catalysts [Russell 0071, 0095, Russell teaches reactive sorbents for sequestration hydrogen sulfide at end stage desulfurization, where the reactive sorbent can be copper oxide. Thus Russell meets the limitations of the hydrolysis catalyst and second sulfur species sorbent.]. Regarding the limitation, the first sulfur species sorbent comprises CuO, Fe2O3, MnO2 and ZnO catalysts located on a carbon support, Russell teaches molecular sieves ion exchanged with one or more transition metals for removal of organosulfur [Russell 0061-0062]. Spivey teaches activated carbon as a support for copper oxide for the purpose of a sulfur absorbent for organosulfur compounds such as tetra hydro thiophene, tertiary butyl mercaptan, ethyl mercaptan and mixtures thereof [Spivey 0043-0044 and throughout]. Further, Spivey teaches manganese oxide and iron oxide with a support for sequestration of organosulfur compounds [Spivey 0028-0032, 0036, 0038]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine Spivey’s teaching of metal oxides on a carbon support for use as a sorbent for organosulfur compounds in the desulfurization system of modified Russell for use as the first sulfur species sorbent for the predictable success of sequestering organosulfur compounds from the fuel stream to improve the life expectancy for a fuel cell [Russell 0005 and throughout, Spivey 0003-0005]. Further, MPEP 2144.07, art recognized suitability for an intended purpose, applies.
Alternative rejection of claim 11:
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Russell, as provided in claim 10 above, and in further view of Venkataraman et al. [US20050164051A1], hereinafter ‘raman.
Regarding claim 11, Russell discloses the fuel desulfurization system of claim 10, wherein: the inlet is fluidly connected to a fuel source [Russell 0001-0021 and throughout, Fig. 4, The hydrocarbon feed is the fuel source, as discuss throughout, which is fluidly connected to the desulfurization system inlet for the various embodiments as described in claim 1.]; and the hydrolysis catalyst is configured to hydrolyze the at least one sulfur species in the fuel received from the inlet using a portion of the water in the fuel [Russell 0015, 0057, and throughout, Fig. 4, For the embodiments where water is not removed prior to hydrolysis, water from the fuel can be used in hydrolysis.]. Russell teaches fuels such as natural gas, propane, butane, liquified petroleum gas [Russell 0003, 005, and throughout] and does not explicitly teach a biogas as the fuel source; however, for a biogas fuel source having the same sulfur compounds as natural gas, propane, butane, liquified petroleum gas fuels taught by Russell, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to apply Russell’s fuel desulfurization system for use with a biogas fuel source for predictable result of a biogas with sulfur removed to protect the fuel cell system [Russell 0005 and throughout].
For purpose of compact prosecution, ‘raman teaches the desulfurization of fuel for a fuel cell [‘raman 0020-0022], where the hydrocarbon fuel can be methane, natural gas which contains methane with hydrogen and other gases, propane or other biogas [‘raman 0035, 0120, 0127, and throughout]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to apply Russell’s fuel desulfurization system for use with a biogas, as taught by ‘raman, for predictable result of a biogas with sulfur removed to protect the fuel cell system [Russell 0005 and throughout].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Tatarchuk et al. [US20080271602] is considered pertinent to the sorbents of claim 5.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to M. T. LEONARD whose telephone number is (571)270-1681. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30-5 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, 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.
/M. T. LEONARD/Examiner, Art Unit 1724
/MIRIAM STAGG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1724