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
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5-9, 11-21 and 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wolfgang, R. (EP2891513A2, relied on machine translation, hereinafter Wolfgang).
In regards to Claim 1, Wolfgang discloses a methane oxidation device (#2) for recovering heat for re-use in oxidation, said methane oxidation device (#2) comprising;
a methane oxidation unit (#10) for oxidising methane (see figure 1 and paragraphs [0016] and [0020]); and
a heat exchanger (#8) for recovering heat for re-use in oxidation (see figure 1 and paragraphs [0017], [0021] and [0025]);
wherein said heat exchanger (#8) comprises;
an inlet (#3) arranged, in use, in fluid communication with a source of methane emissions (see figure 1 and paragraphs [0017] and [0019]);
an outlet (#11) (see figure 1 and paragraphs [0017] and [0019]);
at least one flow path (#9), said at least one flow path fluidly connecting said inlet (#3) to said outlet (#11), said at least one flow path (#9) having at least a portion passing though said methane oxidation unit (#10) (see figure 1 and paragraphs [0017] and [0019]); and
at least one counter flow path (#14), wherein said counter flow path (#14) is the counter of said flow path (#9), said at least one counter flow path (#14) having at least a portion passing though said methane oxidation unit (#10) (see figure 1 and paragraph [0017], [0019] and [0021]);
in use, the at least one flow path (#9) and counter flow path (#14) are arranged to permit heat transfer therebetween (see figure 1 and paragraphs [-0019], [0021] and [0025]).
In regards to Claim 2, Wolfgang discloses wherein, in use, fluid flows via said at least one flow path (#9) and said at least one counter flow path (#14) and heat from the fluid exiting the methane oxidation unit (#10) is transferred to heat the fluid entering said methane oxidation unit (#10) (see figure 1 and paragraphs [0025]-[0027]).
In regards to Claim 3, Wolfgang discloses wherein said heat exchanger is a recuperative heat exchanger (see figure 1).
In regards to Claim 5, Wolfgang discloses wherein said heat exchanger is a single pass heat exchanger (see figure 1).
In regards to Claim 6, Wolfgang discloses wherein said inlet (#3) comprises an inlet manifold (#12) and said outlet comprises an outlet manifold (#11) (see figure 1 and paragraphs [0017] and [0019]).
In regards to Claim 7, Wolfgang discloses wherein said at least one counter flow path (#14) is parallel to said at least one flow path (#9) (see figure 1).
In regards to Claim 8, Wolfgang discloses the device as recited in claim 1. Although Wolfgang does not explicitly disclose wherein the length of said at least one flow path is identical to the length of said at least one counter flow path, changing the length of the at least one flow path to be identical to the length of the at least one counter flow path, as claimed by the applicant, is a mere engineering design choice in order to obtain a desired end-result, such as for improved heat transfer efficiency and is considered prima facie obvious, absent evidence to the criticality or new or unexpected results. See MPEP 2144.04.
In regards to Claim 9, Wolfgang discloses wherein said at least one flow path (#9) and said at least one counter flow path (#14) are substantially straight (see figure 1).
In regards to Claim 11, Wolfgang discloses wherein said methane oxidation unit (#10) comprises a chamber (catalyst packing) for catalytic oxidation of methane (see figure 1 and paragraph [0020]).
In regards to Claim 12, Wolfgang discloses wherein said methane oxidation unit (#10) comprises at least one catalytic material located with said heat exchanger (see figure 1 and paragraph [0020]).
In regards to Claim 13, Wolfgang discloses wherein said at least one catalytic material is located within at least one of said at least one flow path (#9) or said at least one counter flow path (#14) (see figure 1).
In regards to Claim 14, Wolfgang discloses wherein said methane oxidation unit (#10) is located substantially equidistant the length of said at least one flow path (#9) and said at least one counter flow path (#14) (see figure 1).
In regards to Claim 15, Wolfgang discloses wherein said heat exchanger comprises an insulation unit (#6) for insulating the device to reduce heat loss to the external environment (see figure 1 and paragraph [0017]).
In regards to Claim 16, Wolfgang discloses wherein said device (#2) comprises a plurality of heat exchangers (see figure 2 and paragraph [0033]).
In regards to Claim 17, Wolfgang discloses wherein said device (#2) further comprises a heater unit (#28) for heating fluid within the methane oxidation unit (#10) which in use (see figure 1 and paragraph [0024]).
In regards to Claim 18, Wolfgang discloses wherein said device (#2) is substantially cuboid (see figure 1).
In regards to Claim 19, Wolfgang discloses the device as recited in claim 1. Although Wolfgang does not explicitly disclose wherein said device is substantially V-shaped, changing the shape of the device to a V-shaped is a mere engineering design choice, in order to obtain a desired end-result, such as for aesthetic appearance, and is considered prima facie obvious, absent evidence to the criticality or new or unexpected results. See MPEP 2144.04.
In regards to Claim 20, Wolfgang discloses wherein said device (#2) further comprises a connection means (pipe connecting inlet #3 with inlet chamber #12) for connecting said inlet (#3) to a methane collection unit (#12) (see figure 1 and paragraph [0019]).
In regards to Claim 21, Wolfgang discloses wherein said device (#2) further comprises a methane collection unit (#12) for collecting methane emissions emitted by a methane source (see figure 1 and paragraph [0019]).
Examiner notes that although Wolfgang does not explicitly disclose wherein the methane emissions are emitted by an animal, utilizing another source of methane emission, such as emissions emitted by an animal is a mere engineering design choice in order to obtain a desired end-result, such as for removing methane emissions from an animal, and is considered prima facie obvious, absent evidence to the criticality or new or unexpected results. See MPEP 2144.04.
In regards to Claim 23, Wolfgang discloses wherein said device (#2) further comprises at least one sensor (#18) (see figure 1 and paragraph [0022]).
In regards to Claim 24, Wolfgang discloses wherein said device (#2) further comprises a pump (#5 blower) for assisting fluid flow through the device (#2) while in use (see figure 1 and paragraph [0017]).
Claims 4 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wolfgang in view of Leyshon et al. (US Pat. No. 4,876,409, hereinafter Leyshon).
In regards to Claim 4, Wolfgang discloses the device as recited in claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein the heat exchanger is a regenerative heat exchanger.
However, Leyshon teaches a device for the conversion of methane to higher hydrocarbons. The device comprises a methane oxidation unit comprising a monolithic reactor bed (#1). The monolithic reactor bed (#1) comprises channels (#2) therethrough for the passage of reaction gases. The feed gases comprised of methane and oxidant are introduced into channels (#2) through an inlet (#3), and reaction product gases at elevated temperatures are removed from channels (#2) at exit (#4), i.e. outlet. When feed gases pass through channels (#2), they are heated by heat of reaction conducted axially through solid (#1) in a direction opposite to the gas flow to a sufficiently high temperature such that the gases undergo the desired conversion of methane to higher hydrocarbons. The system depicted in FIG. 1 can be considered as comprised of two zones, a first preheat zone and a later reaction zone. There is no sharp demarcation between these zones--i.e. the feed gases may begin reacting while still being heated to higher reaction temperature. The cool feed gases upon reaching reaction temperature undergo the exothermic conversion to the desired products, the heat of reaction thus generated flowing axially to preheat additional feed gases (see figures 1a-1b and column 4, line 46 to column 5, line 2). This is considered equivalent to a regenerative heat exchanger, as claimed by the applicant.
It would have been obvious by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify the device as disclosed by Wolfgang by substituting a known heat exchanger for another known heat exchanger, such as a regenerative heat exchanger, as claimed by the applicant, with a reasonable expectation of success, as Leyshon teaches a device for the conversion of methane to higher hydrocarbons comprising a methane oxidation unit a monolithic reactor bed comprising channels therethrough for the passage of reaction gases, wherein feed gases comprised of methane and oxidant are introduced into channels through an inlet, and reaction product gases at elevated temperatures are removed from channels at exit, whereby when feed gases pass through channels, they are heated by heat of reaction conducted axially through solid in a direction opposite to the gas flow to a sufficiently high temperature such that the gases undergo the desired conversion of methane to higher hydrocarbons, and wherein the feed gases may begin reacting while still being heated to higher reaction temperature, the cool feed gases upon reaching reaction temperature undergo the exothermic conversion to the desired products, the heat of reaction thus generated flowing axially to preheat additional feed gases, thereby obtaining a device with improved heat transfer (see figures 1a-1b and column 4, line 46 to column 5, line 2).
In regards to Claim 10, Wolfgang discloses the device as recited in claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein said at least one flow path and said at least one counter flow path are at least one of substantially curved or U-shaped.
However, Leyshon teaches a device for the conversion of methane to higher hydrocarbons. The device comprises a methane oxidation unit (#430), a heat exchanger (heat exchange occurring between flow path #450 and counter flow path #460) for recovering heat, an inlet (#470) in fluid communication with a source of methane emissions, an outlet (outlet for withdrawing reaction gas product mixture), at least one flow path (#450) connecting said inlet (#470) to said outlet, and at least one counter flow path (#460) and the at least one flow path (#450) and counter flow path (#460) are arranged to permit heat transfer therewith, and wherein said at least one flow path and said at least one counter flow path are at least one of substantially curved or U-shaped (see figure 4 and column 11, lines 20-39).
It would have been obvious by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify the device as disclosed by Wolfgang by further changing said at least one flow path and said at least one counter flow path are at least one of substantially curved or U-shaped, as claimed by the applicant, with a reasonable expectation of success, as Leyshon teaches a device for the conversion of methane to higher hydrocarbons, wherein the device comprises a methane oxidation unit, a heat exchanger for recovering heat, an inlet in fluid communication with a source of methane emissions, an outlet, at least one flow path connecting said inlet to said outlet, and at least one counter flow path and the at least one flow path and counter flow path are arranged to permit heat transfer therewith, and wherein said at least one flow path and said at least one counter flow path are at least one of substantially curved or U-shaped, thereby improving the heat transfer between both flow paths (see figure 4 and column 11, lines 20-39).
Claims 22 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wolfgang in view of Norris et al. (WO2018/234729A1, hereinafter Norris).
In regards to Claim 22, Wolfgang, discloses the device as recited in claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein said device further comprises positioning means for positioning said device proximate the head of an animal.
However, Norris teaches a methane conversion device for oxidizing methane gas from livestock. The methane conversion device (#10) comprises a reaction chamber (#14), i.e. methane oxidation unit, comprising a housing (#12) having an inlet for introducing methane containing gas from the exterior of the device (#10) towards the reaction chamber (#14), and an exhaust (#22), i.e. outlet, to channel a gas stream from the reaction chamber (#14) towards the exterior of the device (#10), a palladium containing catalytic bed is located within the reaction chamber (#14) and is in thermal contact with a heating element (#24) (figures 1-4 and page 7, lines 1-13).
Norris further teaches a positioning means for positioning said device (#10) proximate the head of an animal, such that the methane gas passing over the device (#10) is catalytically oxidized in the reaction chamber (#14) and a product gas containing water vapor and carbon dioxide is expelled from the device via exhaust (#22) (see figures 1-4 and page 4, lines 20-26 and page 7, lines 15-26).
It would have been obvious by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify the device as disclosed by Wolfgang by further including positioning means for positioning said device proximate the head of an animal, as claimed by the applicant, with a reasonable expectation of success, as Norris teaches a methane conversion device for oxidizing methane gas from livestock comprising a reaction chamber, i.e. methane oxidation unit, comprising a housing having an inlet for introducing methane containing gas from the exterior of the device towards the reaction chamber, and an exhaust, i.e. outlet, to channel a gas stream from the reaction chamber towards the exterior of the device, a palladium containing catalytic bed located within the reaction chamber and in thermal contact with a heating element, and a positioning means for positioning said device proximate the head of an animal, such that the methane gas passing over the device is catalytically oxidized in the reaction chamber and a product gas containing water vapor and carbon dioxide is expelled from the device via the exhaust, thereby efficiently reducing methane emissions from livestock (see figures 1-4, page 4, lines 20-26 and page 7, lines 1-26).
In regards to Claim 25, Wolfgang, discloses the device as recited in claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein said device further comprises an emissions separation unit for separating the emissions based on at least one emission characteristic while in use.
However, Norris teaches a methane conversion device for oxidizing methane gas from livestock. The methane conversion device (#10) comprises a reaction chamber (#14), i.e. methane oxidation unit, comprising a housing (#12) having an inlet for introducing methane containing gas from the exterior of the device (#10) towards the reaction chamber (#14), and an exhaust (#22), i.e. outlet, to channel a gas stream from the reaction chamber (#14) towards the exterior of the device (#10), a palladium containing catalytic bed is located within the reaction chamber (#14) and is in thermal contact with a heating element (#24) (figures 1-4 and page 7, lines 1-13).
Norris further teaches the device (#10) may comprise filtration means, i.e. emission separator unit, configured to inhibit the entry of one or more gaseous species other than methane into the reaction chamber (#14). This helps to increase the methane concentration in the reaction chamber to a level above the lower explosive limit of methane, so that the methane becomes oxidized as it passes over the heating element. A carbon dioxide filter, i.e. emission separator unit, is provided to inhibit the passage of carbon dioxide to the device (#10) (page 3, lines 3-12, page 6, lines 5-7, and page 8, lines 21-27).
It would have been obvious by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify the device as disclosed by Wolfgang by further including an emissions separation unit for separating the emissions based on at least one emission characteristic while in use, as claimed by the applicant, with a reasonable expectation of success, as Norris teaches a methane conversion device for oxidizing methane gas from livestock comprising a reaction chamber, i.e. methane oxidation unit, comprising a housing having an inlet for introducing methane containing gas from the exterior of the device towards the reaction chamber, and an exhaust, i.e. outlet, to channel a gas stream from the reaction chamber towards the exterior of the device, a palladium containing catalytic bed located within the reaction chamber and in thermal contact with a heating element, and the device may comprise filtration means, i.e. emission separator unit, configured to inhibit the entry of one or more gaseous species other than methane into the reaction chamber, which helps to increase the methane concentration in the reaction chamber to a level above the lower explosive limit of methane, so that the methane becomes oxidized as it passes over the heating element (page 3, lines 3-12, page 6, lines 5-7, and page 8, lines 21-27).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JELITZA M PEREZ whose telephone number is (571)272-8139. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00am-6:00pm.
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, Claire Wang can be reached at (571) 270-1051. 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.
/JELITZA M PEREZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1774
Prosecution Insights