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 § 112
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.
Claim 9 is 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 9 lacks antecedent and is unclear whether the claimed process is the mild gasification. In other words, is claim 9 a pretreatment step to make the pelletized feed?
Claim interpretation:
The claims recite ‘solids pathway’. This is taken to define the ‘upstream’ and ‘downstream’ ends of the reactor as ‘feed introduction’ and ‘product outlet’ respectively. These two parts of a continuous reactor are equal according to claim 1, thus in claim 4 where these parts ‘join’ is merely a recitation of the middle of the reactor (approximately at element 11d in the specification figure).
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 Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1-6, 10, 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO2020/055254 to the present inventor; US Patent 12195685 is an equivalent.
‘254 teaches, especially in pgs. 6, 7 and 13, ex. 3 and table 2, pyrolysis of torrified biomass for 10-60 minutes at 520 C to make a material having BET of 440. No difference is seen in the decomposition products, as the feed and conditions are/can be the same as claimed. The O2/biomass is 0.17. A 25% oxygen content means a 75% steam content, thus the ratio for 24% is about 1:3.
This differs only in the injection of the steam-oxygen mix along the reactor length.
Fig. 1 of ‘254 shows 5 injection locations, one of which is in the middle of the reactor length.
For the distribution limitation (ie, claim 11 and the like), selecting 3 of the 5 input locations to achieve the claimed distribution is obvious to control the residence time in each of the formation stages. Alternately, the middle injection site (if used) could be considered at the downstream end due to the flow the gases would take immediately after injection- this is assuming that inputs in the first, third and fifth locations are chosen, and would meet the limitations.
For claims 2 and 3, if the reactor temperature is 500C, then the product is recovered at the claimed temperatures.
For claim 4, a high reactor temperature is taught (640 in Table 1) which can be lowered after the last injection of oxidant at 300C.
For claim 5, the gas is supplied at 300 C, see pg. 8.
For claim 6, separate injection points are depicted.
For claim 10, see example 3C.
Claim 11 has been explained above.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO2020/055254 taken with Martin 20120205833.
‘254 does not teach the pretreatment (as claim 9 is understood), however ‘833 does in para 19. Using it in the ‘254 process is obvious to make the desired pelletized feed.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7, 8 are allowable, as the claimed H/C of the feed is too low (0.02-0.1 on pg. 5 of ‘254) as compared to the claimed value of 1-1.3- as is the O/C value (0.01-0.06 vs claimed 0.4-0.8).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STUART L HENDRICKSON whose telephone number is (571)272-1351. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 9 to 5. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Anthony Zimmer, can be reached on 571-270-3591. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/STUART L HENDRICKSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1736