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 .
Summary
This is a non-final office action for application 18/437,508 filed on 25 September 2023. Claims 1-9 are currently pending in this application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1 and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hongxi (CN-112892508-A) in view of Wright et al. (US-7846237-B2), hereinafter “Wright”, Gardner (US-5294246-A) and Krutka et al. (US-20140112856-A1), hereinafter “Krutka”.
Regarding Claim 1, Hongxi discloses a gas production system adapted for producing a gas from an object (this invention utilizes high-temperature plasma to pyrolyze organic matter; see [0026]), said gaseous fuel production system comprising: a gasification unit including a furnace that defines a processing space (carbon activation furnace; see [0030]), an object-feeding subunit that is connected to said furnace and that is adapted for feeding the object into said processing space (conveying equipment to discharge the desorbed activated carbon into the carbon activation furnace; see [0040]), a gas inlet subunit that is connected to said furnace and that is adapted for introducing at least one auxiliary gas into said processing space (introduce nitrogen into the activation furnace; see [0040]), and a conversion subunit that is connected downstream of said furnace (VOCs are converted… in a high-temperature plasma ionizer 4; see [0039] and Fig. 1 Parts 4 and 5), and that defines a processing chamber which is in spatial communication with said processing space (the activated carbon canister can be desorbed. The high boiling point substances desorbed at this time can be connected to the high temperature plasma; see [0038]) and which is adapted for accommodating plasma (a high-temperature plasma ionizer; see [0039]).
Hongxi does not explicitly teach the claimed purification unit. However, Wright discloses a purification unit connected downstream of said gasification unit, and including at least two adsorbing devices that are connected in parallel (adsorption vessels 13, 14; see col. 10 Lines 6-7 and Fig. 3) and that are adapted for adsorbing a target gas (adsorption beds contains adsorbent for the removal of carbon dioxide; see Col. 10 Lines 13-14), a mixture space that is connected downstream of said at least two adsorbing devices (outlet paths 17, 18 join downstream to provide a single outlet 21; see Col. 10 Lines 15-18), a detector (carbon dioxide sensor; see Col. 10 Line 36), and an electric control subunit that is signally connected to said detector (carbon dioxide sensor provides input to the processor; see Col. 10 Lines 35-36 and “processor controls the flow…”; see Col. 11 Line 16), each of said at least two adsorbing devices being convertible between an adsorbing state (one adsorber bed is in an on-stream mode, during which adsorbate is adsorbed from a feed gas mixture; see Col. 6 Lines 65-67… said beds alternate between said modes; see Col. 7 Line 3), in which fluid communication between said adsorbing device and upstream gas flow (adsorbed from a feed gas mixture passing through the bed; see Col. 6 Line 67), fluid communication between said adsorbing device and said mixture space is permitted (with vessel 13 on-stream. Air passes through open valve 7 to vessel 13 and through open valve 19 to the outlet 21; see Col. 10 Lines 46-47), and a desorption state (while another adsorber bed is in a regeneration mode, during which the carbon dioxide is desorbed from the bed; see Col. 9 Lines 1-3), the fluid communication between said adsorbing device and said mixture space is prevented and the fluid communication between said adsorbing device and upstream gas flow is prevented (valve 14 is cut off from the air feed. Valves 20, 23, 24, 26, 10 and 11 are all closed; see Col. 10 Lines 49-50) so that the target gas is extracted from said adsorbing device (to commence regeneration of the bed in adsorption vessel 14… the purge gas passes through the vessel 14 carbon dioxide is desorbed; see Col. 10 Lines 50-60); wherein, when said purification unit is in operation, all of said at least two adsorbing devices are not simultaneously in the desorption state (cyclical swing adsorption process in which one adsorber bed is in an on-stream mode… while another adsorber bed is in a regeneration mode; see Col. 8 Line 65-Col. 9 Line 2); wherein the electric control unit sets at least one of said at least two adsorbing devices to be in the adsorbing state based on the measured concentration of the target gas (a processor for predicting, from said monitored concentration, the time required to complete the on-stream mode; see Col. 9 Lines 38-39), and also converts one of said at least two adsorbing devices that are in the adsorbing state into the desorption state based on the measured concentration of the target gas (at the end of the regeneration period, valve 24 is closed and valve 26 is opened… whereby vessel 14 is placed on-stream. The vessel 13 may then be regenerated in a similar manner… The processor estimates from the carbon dioxide concentration from sensor the time required to complete the on-stream step; see Col. 11 Lines 4-15).
Hongxi and Wright are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of purification. Modifying Hongxi by incorporating the purification system of Wright would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because it would enable the carbon dioxide generated by Hongxi to be adsorbed and removed by the purification system of Wright, therefore obtaining a purer gas.
Hongxi modified by Wright does not explicitly teach a pump for desorption. However, Gardner discloses a pump for desorbing an adsorption column (vacuum pump to be activated pulling a vacuum on the adsorber by means of a nitrogen back-purge, desorbing the solvent vapors; see Col. 3 Lines 51-54), wherein the pump has fluid communication with the adsorption column exclusively during the desorption state (in this adsorption mode, the vacuum pump is maintained in shut-down status; see Col. 4 Lines 12-13).
Hongxi and Gardner are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of regeneration. This modification would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because Gardner offers the motivation of the pump providing a vacuum (see Col. 3 Lines 15-17), which helps with desorption (see Col. 2 Lines 6-7).
Modified Hongxi does not explicitly teach the control subunit being configured to change modes based on downstream concentration. However, Krutka discloses wherein when the concentration of the target gas in the fluid located downstream of the adsorbers measured by the sensor indicates a specified amount, the controller converts the mode to either regeneration or adsorption (see [0157]).
Hongxi and Krutka are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of regeneration. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a downstream sensor as taught by Krutka because Krutka offers the motivation of enabling indication of when the sorbent is at or near its collection capacity (see [0167]).
Regarding the limitation claiming a second detector, this is merely a duplication of parts. The court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. See In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). In this case, both detectors perform the same function of detecting an amount of target gas and communicating that amount with the controller. It therefore would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a second detector to achieve the expected results of acquiring a concentration reading.
Regarding Claim 8, Hongxi, Wright, Gardner, and Krutka together disclose the gas production system as claimed in claim 1. Wright further discloses wherein said electric control subunit of said purification unit includes at least two conversion mechanisms that are respectively disposed on said at least two adsorbing devices (inlet control valves 7, 8; see Col. 10 Lines 3-4), each of said at least two conversion mechanism including an inlet valve that interconnects said upstream gas flow and the respective one of said at least two adsorbing devices (see Fig. 3, Parts 13-14 and 7-8), an outlet valve that interconnects said mixture space and the respective one of said at least two adsorbing devices (outlet control valves 19,20. The separate outlet paths 17, 18 join downstream of the control valves 19, 20 to provide a single outlet 21; see Col. 10 Lines 16-18), and a control member that is operable to urge each of said inlet valve and said outlet valve to open or close (a processor for predicting, from said monitored concentration, the time required to complete the on-stream mode, said control circuit modifying at least one regeneration mode operating condition in response to changes in said predicted time; see Col. 9 Lines 38-42 and “control valves” see Col. 10), for each of said at least two adsorbing devices, when in the adsorbing state, said inlet valve and said outlet valve of the respective one of said conversion mechanisms being open (with vessel 13 on-stream, air passes through open valve 7 to vessel 13 and through open valve 19 to the outlet 21; see Col. 10 Lines 46-47), and when in the desorption state, said inlet valve and said outlet valve of the respective one of said conversion mechanisms being closed (valve 8 is closed as adsorption vessel 14 is cut off from the air feed. Valve 20 is closed; see Col. 10 Lines 48-50). This modification would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because Wright offers the motivation of controlling the adsorption process to have phased cycles of operation (see Col. 11 Lines 11-12) and limiting the amount of impurities that breakthrough the on-stream vessel; see Col. 11 Lines 25-27). Additionally, Gardner further discloses a suction valve that interconnects said air extractor pump and the respective one of said at least two adsorbing devices (the desorption stream is conducted from the adsorber 3 to the vacuum pump 20 via piping 6 containing a manual block valve 27 provided for vacuum pump 20; see Col. 4 Line 67-Col. 5 Line 2), wherein said suction valve is closed during adsorption and open during desorption (the desorption stream is conducted from the adsorber 3 to the vacuum pump 20 via piping 6 containing a manual block valve 27 provided for vacuum pump 20; see Col. 4 Line 67-Col. 5 Line 2; and “necessary valves are closed… vacuum pump to be activated pulling vacuum on the adsorber… desorbing the solvent vapors… the pump is turned off and the valving is changed as appropriate”; see Col. 3 Lines 45-58). Incorporate the suction valve of Gardner would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because Gardner offers the motivation of vacuum pump isolation during maintenance operations (see Col. 5 Lines 1-2). Regarding the limitation claiming that a control member is operable to urge the suction valve to open or close, this would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art when modifying Hongxi and Wright by incorporating the suction valve of Gardner. Wright discloses a control mechanism to control the adsorption/desorption process, which includes control of all of the valves in the system. When incorporating the pump and corresponding suction valve from Gardner, it would have naturally followed that the suction valve would also be a part of the control scheme disclosed by Wright.
Regarding Claim 9, Hongxi, Wright, Gardner, and Krutka together disclose the gas production system as claimed in claim 1. Wright further discloses wherein the detector of said purification unit is configured to be a gas detector that is operable to measure a concentration of carbon dioxide (carbon dioxide sensor 35; see Col. 10 Line 35). Configuring the gas sensor to specifically be a carbon dioxide sensor would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention as a matter of routine design choice depending on the intended target gas. A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have understood that the configuration of the gas sensor in the process should align with the target gas chosen according to the chosen manner of operation.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hongxi (CN-112892508-A) in view of Wright et al. (US-7846237-B2), hereinafter “Wright”, Gardner (US-5294246-A), Krutka et al. (US-20140112856-A1), hereinafter “Krutka”, and Wang (CN-204325282-U).
Regarding Claim 2, Hongxi, Wright, Gardner, and Krutka together disclose the gas production system as claimed in claim 1.
Modified Hongxi does not explicitly teach a cyclone separator. However, Wang discloses a cyclone separator (cyclone separator 4; see [0024]) that is connected downstream of a plasma conversion unit (plasma reforming chamber 3, cyclone separator 4; see [0024] and Fig. 1), wherein the conversion subunit generates a gas stream with particulates (inside the plasma reforming chamber 3, the syngas and fly ash are heated by a plasma torch… the syngas carrying fly ash then enters the cyclone separator 4; see [0029]), and the cyclone separator is adapted for separating the particulates from the gas stream (under the action of the cyclone, the fly ash is removed; see [0029]). Regarding the limitation that the stream is an air stream with particulates, the instant specification supports a broad interpretation of “air” as being a flowing gas stream and not actual atmospheric air. This is the interpretation taken by Examiner.
Hongxi and Wang are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of plasma gasification. This modification would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because Wang offers the motivation of removing dust by using the cyclone, which further purifies the syngas (see [0029]).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hongxi (CN-112892508-A) in view of Wright et al. (US-7846237-B2), hereinafter “Wright”, Gardner (US-5294246-A), Krutka et al. (US-20140112856-A1), hereinafter “Krutka”, and Takeda (JP-2010255892-A).
Regarding Claim 3, Hongxi, Wright, Gardner, and Krutka together disclose the gas production system as claimed in claim 1.
Modified Hongxi does not explicitly teach a swirler. However, Takeda discloses a gas inlet of a gasification unit that includes an inlet body that defines an introducing chamber (gas is ejected from the gap between the fuel nozzle and the cooling medium flow pipe into the gasification furnace; see [0010]), and a swirler that is disposed in said introducing chamber that (A swirl vane 60 is provided for jetting into the furnace; see [0035]) is adapted for introducing an auxiliary gas into said processing space via a vortex (The swirl vane 60 has a known configuration in which gas is swirled; see [0035]).
Hongxi and Takeda are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of gasification furnaces. Modifying Hongxi to incorporate the swirler of Takeda would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because Takeda offers the motivation of effectively cutting off high radiant heat from the inside of the furnace in certain areas, which makes it possible to extend the life of the burner by significantly reducing the degree of fatigue, sulfide corrosion, and the like (see [0037]).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hongxi (CN-112892508-A) in view of Wright et al. (US-7846237-B2), hereinafter “Wright”, Gardner (US-5294246-A), Krutka et al. (US-20140112856-A1), hereinafter “Krutka”, Takeda (JP-2010255892-A), and Davis et al. (US-20090272822-A1), hereinafter “Davis”.
Regarding Claim 4, Hongxi, Wright, Gardner, Krutka, and Takeda together disclose the gas production system as claimed in claim 3. Takeda further discloses wherein said swirler of said gas inlet subunit surrounds a swirler axis and has a plurality of vanes that are arranged around the swirler axis (vanes twisted in a predetermined direction are arranged at a predetermined interval over the circumferential direction; see [0035]), each of the vanes substantially extending in a radial direction of said swirler.
Modified Hongxi does not explicitly teach the vanes extending radially. However, a swirler with swirl vanes that extend radially around the axis of the swirler is a well-known structure, as taught by Davis (swirl vanes 24; see [0018] and Fig. 5).
Davis is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is reasonably pertinent to a problem with which the instant application is concerned, namely swirling an incoming gas flow. Incorporating the swirler design of Davis into modified Hongxi would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because Davis offers the motivation of helping to impart a tangential velocity and impart swirl, which enhances mixing (see [0018]).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hongxi (CN-112892508-A) in view of Wright et al. (US-7846237-B2), hereinafter “Wright”, Gardner (US-5294246-A), Krutka et al. (US-20140112856-A1), hereinafter “Krutka”, and Xu (CN-101824338-A).
Regarding Claim 5, Hongxi, Wright, Gardner, and Krutka together disclose the gas production system as claimed in claim 1.
Hongxi does not explicitly teach a heater in the furnace. However, Xu discloses a furnace that includes a main body (1 is the furnace body; see [0015]) that defines a processing space (A reaction chamber 5 is provided in the cavity of the gasifier; see [0018] and Fig. 1, parts 1 and 5), and at least one heater that is disposed in said processing space (The automatic temperature-controlled electric heater 14 is located in the reaction chamber; see [0023]).
Hongxi and Xu are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of gasification furnaces. This modification would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because Xu offers the motivation of ensuring that the reaction temperature is within the reaction temperature value and keeping the reaction effect in a stable state (see [0023]).
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hongxi (CN-112892508-A) in view of Wright et al. (US-7846237-B2), hereinafter “Wright”, Gardner (US-5294246-A), Krutka et al. (US-20140112856-A1), hereinafter “Krutka”, and Li et al. (US-20090014423-A1), hereinafter “Li”.
Regarding Claim 6, Hongxi, Wright, Gardner, and Krutka together disclose the gas production system as claimed in claim 1.
Hongxi does not explicitly teach electrodes. However, Li discloses a plasma converter that includes a positive electrode that extends along an imaginary axis, and a negative electrode that surrounds the positive electrode, that extends in an extending direction of the imaginary axis, and that is spaced apart from said positive electrode in a radial direction thereof such that said positive electrode and said negative electrode cooperatively define a gas channel therebetween (a plasma reaction zone is defined as an area inside annular channel between a tube-shaped outer electrode 1225 and a tube shaped central electrode 1224, positioned concentrically along a longitudinal axis with respect to tube shaped outer electrode 1225; see [0036]).
Hongxi and Li are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of plasma converters. This modification would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because Li offers the motivation the annular channel resulting in less conductive film build up between the concentric electrodes, which can allow for the apparatus to be run continuously for long periods of time; see [0029]).
Regarding Claim 7, Hongxi, Wright, Gardner, Krutka, and Li together disclose the gas production system as claimed in claim 6. Li further discloses wherein said gasification unit further includes a collection tank that is disposed at an end of said gas channel and that is adapted for collecting ash (nanoparticles produced within the plasma reactor chamber may exit through an exit port on outlet port flange 1218b into a nanoparticle collection chamber; see [0036]). This modification would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because Li offers the motivation of collecting solid particles produced during the plasma reaction (see [0049]). Further, Hongxi discloses that removal of solid particles, or ash, results in better quality and higher safety for use (see [0026]). A person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that the appropriate removal of ash from the plasma converter would require some method of safe collection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALYSSA LEE KUYKENDALL whose telephone number is (571)270-3806. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday 9:00am-5:00pm.
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.
/A.L.K./Examiner, Art Unit 1774
/CLAIRE X WANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1774
Prosecution Insights