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 Interpretation
In paragraphs [0005] and [0130] of the specification the instant application: “a “biocatalyst” is defined as carbonaceous material that catalyzes biocatalytic conversion of biogas to reducing gas. Biocatalyst is not referring to enzymes, yeast, or bacteria for fermentation or enzymatic reactions.” The specification further provides an example of how it is produced in paragraph [0908], “The dried biomass is fed into a second heated vessel operated at a pyrolysis temperature of about 600° C. and at a pyrolysis residence time of about 30 minutes, thereby generating a biocatalyst and a biogas. The pyrolysis pressure is about 1 bar (atmospheric pressure) under an inert gas consisting essentially of N2. There is a solid output (the biocatalyst) and a vapor output (the biogas) from the pyrolysis reactor.” As such, the biocatalyst is henceforth understood to mean the carbonaceous materials produced as a result of anaerobic pyrolysis.
Claim 1, uses the phrase “effective” in multiple incidents. Without a specific definition for what is considered “effective”, the examiner interprets that the phrase refers to any degree.
Claim 27, recites a phrase “fully renewable”. The examiner interprets that this phrase refers to “100% renewable” according to the plain meaning of the phrase and according to specification ([0058]; [0336]; [0339]).
Election/Restrictions
This application contains claims directed to the following patentably distinct species:
Category A
Species (a) - a first heated vessel or zone, a second heated vessel or zone, and a third heated vessel or zone are physically one unit that is reused for steps (a), (b), and (c).
Species (b) - a first heated vessel or zone, a second heated vessel or zone, and a third heated vessel or zone are arranged sequentially in a continuous process.
Category B
Species (c) - a first heated vessel or zone, the second heated vessel or zone, and the third heated vessel or zone are each operated countercurrently with respect to solid and vapor phases.
Species (d) - a first heated vessel or zone, the second heated vessel or zone, and the third heated vessel or zone are each vertical, solids-downflow vessels.
The species are independent or distinct because in Category A, species (a) and (b) are drawn to different reactor arrangements; the species are independent or distinct. Category B, species (c) and (d) are drawn to different reactor designs. In addition, these species are not obvious variants of each other based on the current record.
Applicant is required under 35 U.S.C. 121 to elect a single disclosed species, or a single grouping of patentably indistinct species, for prosecution on the merits to which the claims shall be restricted if no generic claim is finally held to be allowable. Currently, 1-11, and 16-30 generic.
There is a serious search and/or examination burden for the patentably distinct species as set forth above because at least the following reason(s) apply:
the species or groupings of patentably indistinct species have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their different classification;
the species or groupings of patentably indistinct species have acquired a separate status in the art due to their recognized divergent subject matter; and/or
the species or groupings of patentably indistinct species require a different field of search (e.g., searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search strategies or search queries).
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of a species to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected species or grouping of patentably indistinct species, including any claims subsequently added. An argument that a claim is allowable or that all claims are generic is considered nonresponsive unless accompanied by an election.
The election may be made with or without traverse. To preserve 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 election of species 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 on the elected species or grouping of patentably indistinct species.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the species, or groupings of patentably indistinct species from which election is required, are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing them 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 species 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 species.
Upon the allowance of a generic claim, applicant will be entitled to consideration of claims to additional species which depend from or otherwise require all the limitations of an allowable generic claim as provided by 37 CFR 1.141.
During a telephone conversation with Attorney of record Ryan O'Connor on 6/23/2026 a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of Species (a) and (c), claims 12 and 14. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 13 and 15 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Claim Objections
To be consistent with the phrase “a first portion of the biogas” recited in line 9, claim 1, it is suggested to amend “the biogas” to “the first portion of the biogas” in claim 2, line 2, and lines 2-3, respectively.
Additionally, the above applies to claims 3, 5, 6, 9 and 20.
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 6, 11, 18, and 23 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 6, line 2, recites “prior to its conversion to reducing gas”. However, it is unclear what “its conversion” refers to, i.e., biogas’s conversion, biocatalyst’s conversion etc. The examiner interprets that the phrase refers to biogas’s conversion. The interpretation is speculative, because both are being converted in claim 5 from which it depends. Clarification is requested.
Claims 11, 18, and 23 recites the limitation "the CO" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, because “the CO” has not been previously identified and defined.
Examiner suggests changing the wording to “CO”.
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.
Claim(s) 1-12, 16, 18 - 21, 29 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. Hydrogen-rich syngas production from biomass pyrolysis and catalytic reforming using biochar-based catalysts, (Wang), further in view of Bartek et al. CA 2733095 A1 (Bartek), and further in view of Foody (WO 2022/217365) (Foody).
Regarding claim 1, Wang teaches hydrogen-rich syngas production from biomass pyrolysis and catalytic reforming using biochar-based catalysts (i.e. biocatalysts) (Wang, Title, Abstract).
Wherein, pyrolysis thermally degrades the biomass to produce tar and gas products in the form of hydrocarbons and carbonaceous species (i.e. (b) generating a biogas and a biocatalyst in a second heated vessel) (Wang, Figure 1, 4-pyrolysis reactor (second vessel or zone), Page 4, left column, lines 41-42).
Wherein, to improve the syngas production; biochar (i.e. biocatalyst) had a significant promoting effect on the reforming of wood chips pyrolysis gas. (i.e. generating H2 and CO2 by feeding the biocatalyst, a first portion of the biogas) (Wang, Page 4, Right column, lines 25 - 30). Many reactions occur in the catalytic steam reforming reactor (i.e. third vessel or zone), including catalytic cracking, dry (CO2) reforming, water gas shift reaction, char gasification, etc. (i.e. (c) the third vessel or zone is operated at effective water-gas shift conditions) (Wang, Page 4, left column, lines 44-47, Equation 7, Figure 1: 5-catalytic reactor).
Additionally, Wang teaches the synthesis the catalyst by sawdust of poplar, catalpa, pine, and elm were collected separately, dried in an oven at 60 °C for 24 h, placed in a quartz boat under N2 atmosphere at a heating rate of 10 °C/min to 700 °C for 2 h and then cooled down to room temperature. (Wang, page 2, section 2.1). Given Wang teaches that char (i.e., biocatalyst) is produced from biomass pyrolysis step (Wang, page 4, Equation 1) and biochar has a significant promoting effect on the reforming of woodchip pyrolysis gas (Wang, page 4, section 3.2), it therefore would have been obvious to a person or ordinary skill in the art prior before the effective filing date to directly use biochar produced from the pyrolysis step of biomass to the subsequent step of catalytical reforming, in order to achieve the significant promoting effect on the reforming, and yield the expected results of improved biomass to synthesis gas efficiencies.
Wherein, Biomass, as a well-sourced, inexpensive, and carbon–neutral source of renewable hydrocarbons, is widely used in the production of a variety of fuels and feedstocks. Carbon negative emissions can also be achieved when a well-performing bioenergy system is combined with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) (Wang, Page 1, left column, lines 8-12). In particular, biomass is a carbon neutral source, and a solid carbonaceous char is produced, thus further sequestering the carbon making the process carbon negative. (i.e. (f) recovering H2 wherein the H2 is carbon negative)
However, Wang does not teach (a) drying using a first heated zone, thereby generating dried biomass, and a first recovered water stream, (c) generating H2 and CO2 wherein generating is achieved by feeding the biocatalyst, the first recovered water stream, (d) thermally oxidizing a second portion of the biogas thereby generating process heat, and (e) heating the first heated vessel or zone, the second heated vessel or zone, or the third vessel or zone using the process heat.
With respect to the difference (a) and (c), Bartek teaches a biomass conversion process for converting solid biomass into hydrocarbons (Bartek, Abstract).
As Bartek explicitly teaches, a riser 105, (i.e. a first vessel or zone), which receives solid biomass particles, (i.e. a biomass) and is heated to 50 – 200 °C to facilitate drying, which utilizes knock out drum 130 to separate water from the biomass (Bartek, [0070] – [0079], Figure 1). Bartek further teaches that drying increases the hardness of the biomass particles, making the particles more susceptible to size reduction (Bartek, [0040]), and higher surface accessible particles are preferred for interactions with catalysts (Bartek, [0056]).
Wang and Bartek are analogous art, as Bartek is drawn to the processing of biomass for useful fuels and products (Bartek, Abstract, [0002]). In light of the motivation of drying biomass prior to pyrolysis, as taught by Bartek, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date to, combine the heated riser (i.e. first heated vessel or zone) and knock out drum of Bartek to separate water from biomass in a first heated vessel or zone to obtain a first recovered water stream, and dried biomass, in order to increase the hardness of the biomass, its susceptibility to processing into finer particles, and increase surface area for interactions with catalysts, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention (a).
Bartek further teaches a riser 105, (i.e. a first vessel or zone), which receives solid biomass particles, (i.e. a biomass) and is heated to 50 – 200 °C to facilitate drying, which utilizes knock out drum 130 to separate water from the biomass (i.e. a first recovered water stream) (Bartek, [0070] – [0079], Figure 1). Additionally, Wang expressly teaches drying biomass that the water generated during biomass pyrolysis has been proved to be helpful for hydrogen production, but the water content generated by biomass itself is not sufficient. When supplemental water was added to the catalytic steam reforming reactor the syngas production enhanced from 34.321 mmol/g to 109.848 mmol/g. (Wang, Page 8, section 3.4.3, figure 11, (f)).
In light of the motivation of increasing syngas production by approximately three-fold taught by Wang it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date, to use the first recovered water stream of Bartek and feed it to the catalytic steam reforming reactor of Wang to supplement the water dependent reactions taught by Wang (Wang, page 4, equations 3, 5, 7, 8, and 9.), and therefore arrive at the present invention (c).
With respect to the differences (d) and (e), Foody teaches a hydrogen production method of converting biogases to hydrogen where unconverted biogases are recycled and fed into steam methane reformer (SMR) and combusted with controlled amounts of oxygen to provide the process heat and ensure full conversion of the biogases (Foody, [0038], [0078]).
As Foody expressly teaches that the resulting syngas 25 is purified using pressure swing adsorption (PSA) 30, which produces a stream enriched in hydrogen 32 and a purge stream 34. The purge stream 34, which contains unconverted CH4, and CO, is fed back to SMR 10, where it is combusted with oxygen 4 to produce process heat in the SMR 10 (Foody [0038], Fig. 1) (i.e. (d) thermally oxidizing a second portion of the biogas generating process heat, and (e) heating the first, second or third vessel or zone using process heat.) Hydrogen purification systems that are based on PSA are commonly used for hydrogen plants, as such systems produces a purge gas that can be recycled to fuel the SMR burners, thereby improving energy efficiency (e.g., see Fig. 1) (Foody, [0078]).
Wang, Bartek, Foody are analogous art as they are all drawn to biomass and biogas treatment and processing for energy production (Wang, Abstract; Bartek, Abstract; Foody, Abstract [0001], [0005]). In view of the motivation of recycling purge streams to provide reactants, fuel, and heat energy, as taught by Foody, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to produce process heat by oxidizing a portion of the biogases that is used in either a first, second, or third zone, in order to improve energy efficiency of the system and ensure full conversion of the biogases, and to combine the method of Wang, in view of Bartek, and in corporate the teachings of Foody and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 2, Wang in view of Bartek and further in view of Foody teaches, the process for manufacturing carbon-negative hydrogen as claimed in claim 1, the volatiles (i.e. the first portion of biogas) from wood chips pyrolysis entered the reforming furnace (i.e. third heated vessel or zone) (Wang, page 4, section 3.2, Figure 1: 5-catalytic reactor).
Regarding claim 3, Wang in view of Bartek and further in view of Foody teaches, the process for manufacturing carbon-negative hydrogen as claimed in claim 1, and the additional limitation as claimed in claim 2, to improve the syngas production of sawdust, the catalytic performance of biochar was tested at a reforming temperature of 650 °C in the catalytic steam reforming reactor (i.e. step (C)). The results showed that biochar had a significant promoting effect on the reforming of wood chips pyrolysis gas. (Wang, page 4, section 3.2, Figure 3, Equations 2, 3, 4, 5, 7 and 8) (i.e. the biocatalytic-conversion of the biogas, wherein the biocatalytic conversion of the biogas is catalyzed by the biocatalyst)
Regarding claim 4, Wang in view of Bartek and further in view of Foody teaches, the process for manufacturing carbon-negative hydrogen as claimed in claim 1, many other reactions will occur in the catalytic steam reforming reactor (i.e. step (C)), including catalytic cracking, dry (CO2) reforming, and char gasification (i.e. the biocatalytic conversion of the biocatalyst) (Wang, page 4, section 3.1, Equations 2, 3 and 9)
Regarding claim 5, Wang in view of Bartek and further in view of Foody teaches, the process for manufacturing carbon-negative hydrogen as claimed in claim 1, and the additional limitation as claimed in claim 2, the catalytic performance of biochar was tested at a reforming temperature of 650 °C in the catalytic steam reforming reactor (i.e. step (C)). The results showed that biochar had a significant promoting effect on the reforming of wood chips pyrolysis gas. (Wang, page 4, section 3.1, Equations 2 - 9) (i.e. the biocatalytic conversion of the biocatalyst and the biocatalytic conversion of the biogas)
Regarding claim 6, Wang in view of Bartek and further in view of Foody teaches, the process for manufacturing carbon-negative hydrogen as claimed in claim 1, and the additional limitations as claimed in claims 2 and 5, the catalytic performance of biochar was tested at a reforming temperature of 650 °C. The results showed that biochar had a significant promoting effect on the reforming of wood chips pyrolysis gas. (Wang, page 4, section 3.1, equations 2, 3, 4, 5, and 8) (i.e. the biogas is catalyzed by the biocatalyst prior to its conversion to reducing gas)
Regarding claim 7, of Wang in view of Bartek and further in view of Foody teaches, the process for manufacturing carbon-negative hydrogen as claimed in claim 1, however, Wang is silent on recovering a portion of the biocatalyst from the pyrolysis reactor (i.e. step (b)) as a biogenic carbon co-product. Wang teaches that poplar char catalysts (i.e. biocatalyst) produce ~20 mmol/g biomass of syngas when used in the catalytic reactor and reforming of pyrolysis gases (Wang, Page 4 – 5, section 3.2, Figure 4d). Wang further teaches when 10 wt.% nickel nitrate hexahydrate is doped into the biochar that syngas production increases to ~34 mmol/g biomass¸ a ~60% increase. Wang further teaches that the synthesis of the nickel doped biochars were synthesized separately (Wang, Page 2, section 2.1). In light of the motivation of making nickel doped biochars, as taught by Wang, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to collect the biochars produced in the pyrolysis reactor as a biogenic co-product, in order to dope in nickel and use them in to the catalytic steam reactor to increase syngas production by 60%, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 8 - 11, Wang in view of Bartek and further in view of Foody teaches, the process for manufacturing carbon-negative hydrogen as claimed in claim 1, however, Wang is silent on (A) recovering a second stream of water from the biogas, and (B) feeding it to the third heated vessel or zone for the biocatalytic conversion of the (C) biogas, (D) biocatalyst, and causing (E) water-gas shift of the CO to generate additional H2. Bartek teaches a second knock out drum 135 to cool and liquify the gases and separate the aqueous phase (e.g. water) after reforming (i.e. recovering a second stream of water) (Bartek, [0079], [0085] – [0088]). Additionally, Wang expressly teaches that the water generated during biomass pyrolysis has been proved to be helpful for hydrogen production, but the water content generated by biomass itself is not sufficient. When supplemental water was added to the catalytic steam reforming reactor the syngas production enhanced from 34.321 mmol/g to 109.848 mmol/g, 3.2 times increase (Wang, Page 8, section 3.4.3, figure 11(f)).
In light of the motivation of increasing syngas production by approximately three-fold taught by Wang it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date, to (A) collect a second stream of water after the reforming step (i.e. a second recovered water stream) as taught by Bartek and feed it to the catalytic steam reforming reactor (i.e. (B) feed it to the third heated vessel or zone) of Wang to supplement the water dependent reactions: reforming biooils, tar steam reforming, methane steam reforming (i.e. (C) biocatalytic conversion of biogas), (E) water-gas shift, and carbon steam gasification (i.e. (D) biocatalytic conversion of the biocatalyst) taught by Wang (Wang, page 4, equations 3, 5, 7, 8, and 9.), in order to increase syngas production by three-fold, and therefore arrive at the present invention.
Regarding claim 12, Wang in view of Bartek and further in view of Foody teaches, the process for manufacturing carbon-negative hydrogen as claimed in claim 1, a reactor is required for the drying step (Wang, page 2, section 2.1) and a reactor is required for the pyrolysis step (Wang, page 2, section 2.3, Figure 1: 4-pyrolysis reactor), and a reactor is required for the catalytic reforming/ water-gas shift reaction (Wang, page 3, section 2.3, Figure 1: 5-catalytic reactor), therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to reuse one reactor for three steps, thereby arriving at the present invention.
Regarding claim 16, Wang in view of Bartek and further in view of Foody teaches, the process for manufacturing carbon-negative hydrogen as claimed in claim 1, Wang further teaches that the products of the steam catalytic reforming process of pyrolysis gases (i.e. biogas is fed to the third heated vessel, step (C)) are ~105mmol/g biomass carbon monoxide and hydrogen (i.e. reducing gas), and < 5mmol/g biomass methane (i.e. biogas) (Wang, Page 9, Figure 11 (f)). Therefore, the process of Wang achieves a biogas to reducing gas conversion of ~95% (i.e. at least 50%.)
As set forth in the MPEP 2144.05, in the case where claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2D 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)
Regarding claims 18 and 19, Wang in view of Bartek and further in view of Foody teaches, the process for manufacturing carbon-negative hydrogen as claimed in claim 1, Foody further teaches the purge stream 34, which contains unconverted CO and CO2, is fed back to SMR 10 (Foody, [0038], Figure 1).
Regarding claim 20, Wang in view of Bartek and further in view of Foody teaches, the process for manufacturing carbon-negative hydrogen as claimed in claim 1, and the additional limitations as claimed in claim 19, many reactions occur in the catalytic steam reforming reactor, including dry (CO2) reforming (Wang, Page 4, section 3.1, equation 6) (i.e. the CO2 causes dry reforming of the biogas or the biocatalyst, thereby generating additional reducing gas.)
Regarding claim 21, the combination of Wang in view of Bartek and further in view of Foody teaches, the process for manufacturing carbon-negative hydrogen as claimed in claim 1, Wang is silent on the carbon intensity of the system. However, Foody further teaches that the carbon intensity of systems like Wang where renewable methane and biogases are steam methane reformed in addition to a carbon capture for the carbon dioxide reach -70g CO2/MJ H2 (Foody, [00109]). When converted to the units of the instant application: g CO2 / MJ of H2 to kg CO2/ Mt H2: (-70g CO2/MJ of H2) (120 MJ H2/ kg H2) (1000 kg H2/ Mt H2) (1 kg CO2/ 1000g CO2) = -8400 kg CO2/Mt of H2. Foody further teaches that capturing CO2 from the gasification of biomass is advantageous because it turns a carbon neutral system into a carbon negative and mitigates climate change.
In light of the motivation of producing carbon-negative hydrogen, as taught by Foody, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to incorporate CO2 sequestration of Foody in addition to the char production of Wang in order to obtain a hydrogen production system of about -8400 kg CO2/Mt of H2 (i.e. less than -3000 kg CO2/Mt of H2), which with a negative carbon intensity would aid in combating global CO2 emissions and climate change, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, A.)
As set forth in the MPEP 2144.05, in the case where claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2D 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)
Regarding claim 29, the combination of Wang in view of Bartek and further in view of Foody teaches, the process for manufacturing carbon-negative hydrogen as claimed in claim 1, in table S7 of the supplementary data of Wang, they report the surface area of the biochars produced from polar, catalpa, pine and elm wood chips to be 348.2, 240.2, 356.1, and 230.2 m2/g, respectively. (i.e. the biocatalyst is characterized by a biocatalyst surface area from about 200 to about 2000 m2/g).
As set forth in the MPEP 2144.05, in the case where claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2D 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)
Regarding claim 30, the combination of Wang in view of Bartek and further in view of Foody teaches, the process for manufacturing carbon-negative hydrogen as claimed in claim 1, Foody further teaches, low-carbon electricity such as renewable electricity is used to provide heat for the methane reforming (e.g., for SMR). Low-carbon electricity refers to electricity generated in a process that does not emit significant amounts of fossil-based carbon dioxide and/or is produced from renewable energy sources; such as electricity produced from the combustion of a low-carbon energy source (e.g., biomass, biogenic syngas, or hydrogen) (i.e. generating electricity from a portion of the reducing gas) (Foody, [0080] - [0083]) Foody further teaches that powering the SMR though green sources can reduce carbon emissions of hydrogen production by 20-50% relative to coal fired SMR.
In light of the motivation to generate the process energy within the system, as taught by Foody, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to combine the electricity generation from green sources of Foody, in order to reduce net carbon emission by 20-50%, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Bartek and further in view of Foody as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Warnecke, Gasification of biomass: comparison of fixed bed and fluidized bed gasifier (Warnecke).
Wang in view of Bartek and further in view of Foody does not teach wherein the first heated vessel or zone, the second heated vessel or zone, and the third heated vessel or zone are each operated countercurrently with respect to solid and vapor phases.
With respect to the difference, Warnecke teaches a plurality of reactor designs including fixed beds, having counter current, cocurrent, or crosscurrent mass flow, fluidized beds, having bubbling beds and circulating bed designs, for the gasification of biomass including techniques of combustion, reactolysis, and thermolysis (i.e. pyrolysis) (Warnecke, pages 1-2, section 1.)
As Warnecke explicitly teaches the advantages of one of the reactor types are marginal; each type of reactor has its advantages and limitations. An advantage mainly depends on the physical consistency of the input. As a result, there is no significant advantage for the fixed bed or the fluidized bed reactor. (Warnecke, Abstract, page 4, section 4.)
Warnecke, Wang, Bartek, Foody are analogous art as they are all drawn to biomass and biogas treatment and processing for energy production (Wang, Abstract; Bartek, Abstract summary; Foody, Abstract [0001], [0005]; Warnecke, Title, Abstract). Therefore, it would have been obvious by one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have a simple substitution of the fixed bed reactor of Wang for a countercurrent flow bed taught by Warnecke, because both reactor designs have been utilized for the pyrolysis of biomass and would have yielded predictable results of pyrolyzed of biomass. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Bartek and further in view of Foody as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Olazar et al. Upgrading the rice husk char obtained by flash pyrolysis for the production of amorphous silica and high quality activated carbon (Olazar).
Wang in view of Bartek and further in view of Foody does not teach wherein, step (c) achieves a biocatalyst-to reducing gas conversion of at least 25%.
With respect to the difference, Olazar teaches the physical characterization of biochars obtained from the pyrolysis of rice husk where they determining the burn-off percentage in a nitrogen and steam environment.
As Olazar expressly teaches that biochars at 800 °C in a flow of 75% N2/ 25% H2O at near 1 atmosphere of pressure undergo steam activation, or burn-off, which releases CO + H2 (i.e. conversion to reducing gas) of 50% within 10 minutes, and plateauing above 80% after 1 hour (Olazar, page 2, sections 1, 2.2 and 2.3, Figure 1; Specification [0702]). These conditions are substantially similar to Wang, and the present invention, who notes that biochars under an Argon and H2O stream and heated 10 °C/min to 700 °C evolve the overwhelming majority of the gasses by 40 minutes when the reactor has reached about ~400 °C (Wang, page 5, section 3.2, Figure 3). Due to the substantially identical reaction conditions, it is reasonable to interpret that by the time 700 °C is reached, and held there for greater than 1 hour, (Wang, page 5, Figure 3), the biochars have converted approximately as much as it did in Olazar’s study, considering that the temperature was slightly lower, but held there for twice as long. Therefore, it can be inferred from the data presented in Wang, in view of Olazar, that the biochars have obtained about an 80% conversion to reducing gas. (i.e. step (c) achieves a biocatalyst-to-reducing gas conversion of at least 25%).
Olazar, Wang, Bartek, and Foody are analogous art as Olazar is drawn to the pyrolysis of biomass for the development of green products that would otherwise be derived from fossil fuels (Wang, Abstract; Bartek, Abstract; Foody, Abstract [0001], [0005]; Olazar, Introduction). Wang does not quantify the extent of the carbon steam gasification, but does note that it happens (Wang, page 4, equation 9). The substantially similar technique of Olazar teaches that, the biochars of Wang would likely have undergone similar amounts of burn-off to reducing gas. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known technique to a known device (method, or product) that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, D.).
Claim 22, 25, and 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Bartek and further in view of Foody as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Roos. Biomass Drying and Dewatering for Clean Heat & Power (Roos).
Wang in view of Bartek and further in view of Foody does not the process is a water-positive process that is characterized by net water production of greater than 0 kg H2O per kg of the H2.
Roos teaches general information about drying biomass fuels to get the most of the biomass fired combined heat and power projects.
Roos teaches that the moisture content of biomass can be as high as 99.7% (Roos, Page 12, Table 2). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, to use biomass with varying moisture, depending on availability, including biomass with high moisture content, such as 99.7%, in Wang in view of Bartek and further in view of Foody, and recycle the water upon biomass drying, which would necessarily result in a water positive process, given the high moisture content of the biomass.
In light of the motivation of producing a water positive system, as taught by Roos, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date, to produce a water positive system by using high water content biomass in the system of Wang in view of Bartek and further in view of Foody, in order to produce more water for recycling than what is needed for the conversion of the biomass to syngas, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 25 and 26, Wang in view of Bartek and further in view of Foody teaches, the process for manufacturing carbon-negative hydrogen as claimed in claim 1, Roos teaches biomass requires palletization to facilitate feeding and handling, to reduce transportation costs, to homogenize mixed substrates, and to achieve a uniform size to improve gasification (Roos, page 11, Moisture requirements).
In light of the motivation of pelletizing biomass prior to gasification, as taught by Roos, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date, to pelletize the biomass prior to pyrolysis (i.e. step (b) or the biocatalyst prior to use in the catalytic steam reforming reactor (i.e. step (c)), in order to improve gasification efficiency, reduce transportation cost, ease handing, and homogenize substrates, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Claims 23 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Bartek and further in view of Foody as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mousa et al. Biomass applications in iron and steel industry: An overview of challenges and opportunities (Mousa).
Wang in view of Bartek and further in view of Foody does not teach (I) feeding a metal oxide and the H2 or the CO to a fourth heated vessel or zone operated at effective metal-oxide reduction conditions to reduce the metal oxide to a pure metal or a less-reduced metal oxide, or (II) the biocatalyst is also fed to the fourth heated vessel or zone, and wherein the biocatalyst reacts with the metal oxide to form the pure metal or the less-reduced metal oxide.
With respect to the difference, Mousa teaches the iron and steel industry accounts for about 20% of the annual industrial energy utilization which utilizes fossil fuels which significantly increase CO2 emission. In the absence of economically feasible and efficient methods for capture and storage of enormous quantities of CO2 emissions from steel industry, the use of biomass products as a source of energy and reducing agents provides a promising alternative solution for green steel production. (Mousa, Abstract) According to EU ambition, an 80% cut of fossil CO2 emission should be achieved by 2050. Therefore, an increasing attention has been recently paid on using renewable biomass as a source of heating and reducing source instead of fossil fuels to mitigate the CO2 emission in iron and steel industry (Mousa, page 1, introduction).
As Mousa explicitly teaches that there are three ways biomass can contribute to the reduction of emission from the steel industry by being a source of (I) reducing gases (Mousa, Page 15, section 2.3, Figure 6) (i.e. H2 and/or CO), (II) as a source of carbon (i.e. the biocatalyst) to replace coke as a physical support for gas permeability matrix, a chemical source of direct and indirect reducers, and/ or source of thermal energy in blast furnaces (Mousa, page 10, section 2.1, Figure 6), and as a fuel source for electricity generation as applied to electrochemical reductions (Mousa, page 5, section 1.2, Figure 6).
Mousa, Wang, Bartek, and Foody are analogous art as Mousa is drawn to the utilization of Biomass and biomass produced products in iron and steel industry (Wang, Abstract; Bartek, Abstract; Foody, Abstract [0001], [0005]; Mousa, Introduction). In light of the motivation of reducing oxidized metals to less- reduced metal oxides or pure metals, as taught by Mousa, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to, in a fourth vessel or zone, use the reducing gases and carbonaceous biocatalyst produced in the pyrolysis and reforming steps of Wang, in order to reduce metal oxides to less-reduced metals or pure metals to reduce the emissions foot print of steel making, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Bartek and further in view of Foody as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Fellner et al, Abundance of 14C in biomass fractions of wastes and solid recovered fuels (Fellner).
Wang in view of Bartek and further in view of Foody does not teach the biocatalyst is fully renewable as determined from a measurement of the 14C/12C isotopic ratio of the biocatalyst.
With respect to the difference, Fellner teaches that several methods have been established to determine the ratio between biogenic and fossil CO2 emissions from waste combustion. (Fellner, Introduction). Fellner also teaches the importance of such measurements in ensuring renewability and compliance with government mandates. (Fellner, Abstract, Introduction)
As Fellner explicitly provides the evidence that, 14C method distinguishes between fossil carbon, in which the originally existing 14C is completely decayed, and modern (biogenic) carbon, which exhibits the current 14C level (Fellner, Page 1, section 1). Therefore, any biomass pyrolysis process utilizing exclusively biogenic carbon will result in a 14C/12C isotopic ratio that determines the process is fully renewable.
Fellner, Wang, Bartek, and Foody are analogous art as they are all drawn to biomass and biogas treatment and processing for energy production (Wang, Abstract; Bartek, Abstract; Foody, Abstract [0001], [0005]) and Fellner is drawn to the testing of said fuels to determine renewability (Fellner, Abstract). As such, if the process of Wang, where wood chips obtained from a biogenic source and pyrolyzed under the conditions discussed, and tested the 14C/12C ratio of the chips using the known techniques of Fellner then one would determine the process of Wang to be fully renewable. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known technique to a known device (method, or product) that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, D.).
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Bartek and further in view of Foody as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of evidence by Ronsse et al. Carbonization of Biomass (Ronsse).
Wang in view of Bartek and further in view of Foody does not teach the biocatalyst comprises at least about 50 wt. % fixed carbon.
With respect to the difference, Ronsse teaches carbonization products of biomass and their physicochemical properties.
As Ronsse explicitly teaches that oxygen limited gasification (i.e. pyrolysis) of woody biomass at 600 °C results in charcoal or char (i.e. biocatalysts) that are >80 wt.% carbon (Ronsse, page 4, Figure 11.1). Wang performs pyrolysis on the woodchips at 700 °C, thus it can be directly inferred due to the substantially identical conditions that the char produced by Wang is also >80 wt.% carbon. (i.e. the biocatalyst comprises at least about 50 wt. % fixed carbon.)
Ronsse, Wang, Bartek, and Foody and Foody are analogous art as they are all drawn to biomass and biogas treatment and processing for energy production. (Wang, Abstract; Bartek, Abstract; Foody, Abstract [0001], [0005]; Ronsse, Introduction). Wang, viewed in light of the evidence provided by Ronsse, shows that the biochars produced in Wang are >80% wt.% carbon, therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the process of Wang and produce the biocatalyst comprises at least about 50 wt. % fixed carbon, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
As set forth in the MPEP 2144.05, in the case where claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2D 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ritchie E. Hernandez whose telephone number is (571)270-1711. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9-4.
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, Ching-Yiu (Coris) Fung can be reached at (571)270-5713. 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.
/R.E.H./Examiner, Art Unit 1732
/KELING ZHANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1732
