DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-26 are pending in the instant application.
Priority
This application filed on October 17, 2023 claims priority to U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 63/416,848 filed October 17, 2022.
Response to Restriction Requirement
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (i.e. claims 1-8) in the reply by Applicants’ representative Douglas W. Swartz filed on 05/18/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 9-26 are withdrawn from further consideration as non-elected subject matter pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142 (b). Claims 1-8 are under examination on the merits.
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 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Specifically, claim 2 defines the waste residues comprising slop refinery residue, asphaltenes, biomass, other high calorific value waste products, or a combination thereof. However, asphaltenes is one type of slop refinery residue or other high calorific value waste products. See Google search “Is asphaltene slop refinery residue of petroleum?”_07232026.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). Therefore, claim 2 is indefinite.
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 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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 95/13339 (“the `339 publication”) to Mahagaokar et al., in view of U.S. Patent No. 6,530,966 B1 (“the `966 patent”) to Kriech et al. and U.S. Patent No. 8,696,797 B2 (“the `797 patent”) to Raymond Steele.
Applicant’s claim 1 is drawn to a method comprising: contacting coal, petcoke, or both with water to form a fuel slurry; contacting one or more surfactant polymers with water to form a surfactant slurry; mixing the fuel slurry and the surfactant slurry to form a fuel emulsion; and providing the fuel emulsion to a gasifier to produce a synthesis gas comprising carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, and sulfur.
Determination of the scope and content of the prior art (MPEP §2141.01)
The `339 publication (Abstract) discloses a method for the gasification of a petroleum coke feedstock comprising the steps of admixing an ash-deficient substantially dry petroleum coke feed with at least a slag-forming material selected from the group consisting of blast furnace slag, power plant fly ash, coal gasification slag, sand, X, Al2O3, and SiO2, where X is a basic component of the ash selected from the group consisting of CaO, CaCO3, MgO, MgCO3, iron oxides, boron oxides, sodium oxides and potassium oxides and mixtures thereof, thereby producing a mixture; and the said mixture has the appropriate composition to form a substantially liquid-phase slag at gasifying conditions; and gasifying said mixture in a gasifier, having an inner wall and a slag tap, under gasifying conditions and in the presence of steam, thereby producing a gas comprising hydrogen and carbon monoxide. The `339 publication (page 1) discloses petroleum coke has emerged as an economically attractive feedstock for gasification to synthesis gas ("syngas"). Petroleum coke is a byproduct of the oil refining process and is specifically produced in the processing of oil residue, and often, the residual fuel oil is high in sulphur (sulfur) content. Gasification in a reducing atmosphere converts the sulphur to H2S. Therefore, the produced syngas comprises carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, and sulfur. The `339 publication (page 7) discloses the feed is fed to the gasifier either dry or in a water slurry. The `339 publication (page 13) discloses appropriate amounts of steam are added to the gasifier through the burners. This steam participates in the gasification reaction, supplying both the oxygen molecule and the hydrogen molecule. As a result, the coke is gasified to high conversion levels at moderate gasification temperatures that are normally used with coal. The hydrogen molecule supplied by steam enables the gasifier to make up the hydrogen deficiency in coke. Thus, a concentration of hydrogen in the syngas is produced that is normally produced with coal gasification.
Ascertainment of the difference between the prior art and the claims (MPEP §2141.02)
The difference between Applicant’s claim 1 and the `339 publication is that the prior art does not specifically discloses the steps of contacting coal, petcoke, or both with water to form a fuel slurry; and contacting one or more surfactant polymers with water to form a surfactant slurry. Instead, the `339 publication teaches admixing an ash-deficient substantially dry petroleum coke feed with at least a slag-forming material selected from the group consisting of blast furnace slag, power plant fly ash, coal gasification slag, sand, X, Al2O3, and SiO2. The slag-forming material is interpreted as surfactant polymers (i.e., chemical and earth materials) in light of Applicant’s specification [0090].
Finding of prima facie obviousness--rational and motivation (MPEP §2142-2413)
However, for one skilled in the art, Applicant’s claim 1 would have been obvious over the `339 publication because including water to form a fuel slurry and a surfactant slurry for making a fuel emulsion to produce a synthesis gas is taught and/or suggested by the same prior art because the `339 publication (page 7) discloses the feed is fed to the gasifier in a water slurry. The `339 publication (page 13) discloses appropriate amounts of steam are added to the gasifier through the burners. This steam participates in the gasification reaction, supplying both the oxygen molecule and the hydrogen molecule. Furthermore, the difference is further taught and/or suggested by the `966 patent. The `966 patent (Abstract) teaches binder compositions for converting coal waste into fuel including a distillable petroleum hydrocarbon emulsified with a surfactant and water. One ordinary skilled in the art would have been motivated to include water in making both a fuel slurry and a surfactant slurry for making a fuel emulsion used in a gasifier to produce a synthesis gas. Therefore, the `339 publication and the `966 patent would have rendered claim 1 obvious.
In term of claim 2 comprising mixing the fuel slurry and the surfactant slurry with waste residues to form the fuel emulsion, the waste residues comprising slop refinery residue, asphaltenes, biomass, other high calorific value waste products, or a combination thereof, the `339 publication (Abstract) discloses a method for the gasification of a petroleum coke feedstock comprising the steps of admixing an ash-deficient substantially dry petroleum coke feed with at least a slag-forming material, wherein the ash-deficient substantially dry petroleum coke is a slop refinery residue, asphaltenes, or high calorific value waste product.
In term of claim 3 comprising converting the carbon monoxide in the synthesis gas to hydrogen and additional carbon dioxide, forming a shifted synthesis gas, the `339 publication (page 13) discloses appropriate amounts of steam are added to the gasifier through the burners. This steam participates in the gasification reaction, supplying both the oxygen molecule and the hydrogen molecule, which is a shifted synthesis gas.
In term of claims 4-8, the `339 publication (page 4) discloses gasification in a reducing atmosphere converts the sulphur to H2S. The H2S can be almost completely recovered as clean elemental sulphur by using well established sulphur removal technologies. In addition, removing at least a portion of the carbon dioxide and hydrogen sulfide in the shifted synthesis gas, and remaining impurities from the cleaned synthesis gas to form hydrogen gas are taught by the `797 patent.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because the claim fails to describes what the claimed method to be used for. The phrase “A method comprising” is suggested to be replaced with “A method for producing a synthesis gas comprising”. Claims 2-8 depending on objected claim 1 are objected, accordingly. Appropriate correction is required.
Conclusions
Claims 1-8 are rejected.
Claims 1-8 are objected to.
Claims 9-26 are withdrawn.
Telephone Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Yong L. Chu, whose telephone number is (571)272-5759. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30am-5:00pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Amber R. Orlando can be reached on 571-270-3149. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
/YONG L CHU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1731
Prosecution Insights