DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
Amendments to claims 1, 11, 12, 14 and 16 are noted.
The claim amendments overcome the rejections under 35 USC 112(b).
The prior art rejections are maintained.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 15 June 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Daggupati describes a DFB (dual fluidized bed) system specifically optimized to produce a methane-rich syngas for synthetic natural gas production and that the reactor configuration, low operational temperature range, and specific catalyst selection are structurally and functionally distinct from the present application.
This argument is not found persuasive. The office notes that the claims are directed to an apparatus. Applicant has not pointed out which structural features of the claimed apparatus are distinguished from and/or not taught or suggested by the Daggupati reference. Accordingly, the office maintains the position taken in the previous office action with respect to the structural features of Daggupati reading on the claimed structural features. As noted in the previous office action, material worked upon by and intended manner of operating the claimed apparatus are not structurally limiting. MPEP 2114 & 2115.
Applicant argues with respect to the Apanel reference that it is a DFB gasification system coupled with a catalytic fluid bed conditioning process specifically engineered to reform light hydrocarbons into H2 and CO, which is diametrically opposed to the strict requirements of a fuel gas application.
This argument is not found persuasive for similar reasons discussed above with respect to the Daggupati reference in terms of not pointing out structural distinctions between the claimed apparatus and the disclosure of Apanel. The office maintains that the modification of Daggupati with the suggestions of Apanel to include specific units for gas purification, including a candle filter, a baghouse, and a scrubber, would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, in order to remove impurities from the gas stream(s).
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicant argues with respect to the Vandergriendt reference that the teaching therein of feeding syngas to a burner relies on an entirely different technical paradigm and therefore does not teach or suggest that syngas produced from a system like the present invention may be fed to a syngas burner, as the underlying gas qualities and tar management method are completely incompatible.
This argument is not found persuasive. The office respectfully submits that Applicant again appears to be attempting to distinguish the claimed apparatus in terms of the intended manner of operating and not pointing out structural distinctions. Vandergriendt discloses that syngas produced from gasification of biomass may be fed to a syngas burner, which has the advantage of fully or replacing fossil fuels conventional used to fire burners for lime kilns (see [0016]). This teaching is considered relevant and to provide the motivation which would lead a person of ordinary skill to modify Daggupati to connect the syngas passage to a burner for the kiln.
The office maintains that the combination of references is considered to fully teach and/or suggest the structural features of the claimed apparatus.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 3, 5, 8, 11, 12 and 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Daggupati et al (US 2015/0361362) in view of Apanel et al (US 8,241,523) and Vandergriendt et al (US 2014/0004471).
Regarding claims 1, 5, 8, 11, 12, 14 and 17, Daggupati discloses a system comprising a dual bed gasification apparatus comprising (see Abstract; Fig. 1; [0071]-[0074]):
a fluidized bed gasifier 102 (see [0039]);
a circulating fluidized bed char combustor 140 connected to the gasifier (via 128, 132) (see [0041]);
a heat carrier circulating between the gasifier and the char combustor (see [0039]-[0041]);
a gasifier cyclone 104 connected to the gasifier;
a gasifier heat exchanger 106 connected to the gasifier cyclone;
a gas passage 130 to deliver cooled syngas;
a char combustor cyclone 144; and
a char combustor heat exchanger 150.
Daggupati does not explicitly disclose: (1) baghouses or other separation devices downstream of the cyclones; (2) a liquid scrubber or other separation device; and (3) wherein the gas passage delivers syngas to a kiln burner.
Regarding (1), it is noted that Daggupati mentions “necessary purification” prior to downstream applications (see [0074]), but not the specifics thereof.
In this regard, reference is drawn to Apanel, which, like Daggupati, is directed to dual fluidized bed gasification. Apanel discloses implementing units downstream of cyclones associated with the gasifier and the combustor, respectively, including a candle filter (i.e., “other separation device”) and a baghouse which are capable of a finer degree of particle separation from syngas and flue gas produced in the gasifier and combustor, respectively (see col. 13, line 67 – col. 14, line 2; col. 18, lines 11-18; col. 29, lines 63-67).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the instant claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Daggupati to implement devices downstream of the cyclones, such as a candle filter and baghouse, as suggested by Apanel, in order to improve overall separation of fine material from the gas streams.
Regarding (2), Apanel further discloses a scrubber on the syngas line downstream from gasification to remove impurities therefrom and provide a high quality syngas (see col. 13, lines 46-56; col. 16, line 65 – col. 17, line 7).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the instant claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Daggupati by including a scrubber on the syngas line, as suggested by Apanel, in order to remove residual impurities and provide a high quality syngas product.
Regarding (3), Vandergriendt discloses that syngas produced from gasification of biomass may be fed to a syngas burner. Specifically, the syngas burner may be used to direct-fire a device requiring a relatively high flame temperature, such as a lime kiln (see Abstract; [0009]). Syngas generated from materials such as biomass in a gasifier can be used to fully or partially replace fossil fuels conventionally used to fire burners for lime kilns (see [0016]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the instant claimed invention to connect the syngas passage of Daggupati to a burner for a kiln, as suggested by Vandergriendt, where Vandergriendt establishes that such sources of syngas are suitable for use thereof and furthermore are beneficial for replacing conventionally used fossil fuel sources typically used for such purpose.
The combination of references is considered to fully teach and/or suggest the structural features of the claimed apparatus. The remaining limitations pertain to the material worked upon by and the intended use of the claimed apparatus and are not structurally limiting. MPEP 2114 & 2115.
The office notes, however, that a suitable feed material in Daggupati is biomass (see [0065]).
Regarding claim 3, Daggupati discloses a steam source 122 for the gasifier (see [0073]).
Regarding claims 15 and 16, Apanel discloses a dryer upstream of the gasifier in order to reduce the moisture content of feed biomass material to a desired level. The dryer uses heat from combustor flue gas (see col. 27, line 54 – col. 28, line 20).
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 RENEE ROBINSON whose telephone number is (571)270-7371. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8:00a-5:00p and Friday 8:00a-2:00p.
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, In Suk Bullock can be reached at (571)272-5954. 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.
/Renee Robinson/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1772
Prosecution Insights