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 .
Priority
This application is a 371 of PCT/CA2022/050751 which claims the benefit of US Provisional Applications 63/334,544 and 63/187,493 with an effective filing date of 12 May 2021 as reflected in the filing receipt mailed on 18 April 2024.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDSs) submitted are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements have been considered by the examiner.
Status of the Claims
Claims 39-63 are new.
Claims 1-39 are currently cancelled.
Claim Objections
Claims 41, 57, and 58 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 41, lines 5-8 and Claim 57, lines 5-8 state “and/or recycling at least a portion of the heat energy produced in step a), produced in step c), produced in step e), or a combination thereof, and/or for removing excess moisture from the biomass, for generating electric power for use in step a)” which appears to include typographical mistakes. Claims 41 and 57, lines 5-8 are interpreted to state “and/or recycling at least a portion of the heat energy produced in step a), produced in step c), produced in step e), or a combination thereofand/or for generating electric power for use in step a)”.
Claim 57, lines 2-5 state the same recycling “of the process water” which appears to be a typographical mistake. Claim 57, lines 2-5 are interpreted to state “
Claim 58 step ii) states “ii) for removing excess moisture from the biomass i;” which appears to include a typographical mistake. Claim 58 step ii) is interpreted to state “ii) for removing excess moisture from the biomass.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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.
Claims 39-63 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Price et al. (WO2021087618, filed on 06 November 2020, published 14 May 2021, hereinafter Price) in view of Hawkes et al. (US20090235587, published 24 September 2009, hereinafter Hawkes).
The applied reference Price et al. has common inventors and a common assignee with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2).
The below rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C.102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B); or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement, see generally MPEP § 717.02.
Regarding the limitations of instant application claims 39, 40, and 52, Price teaches a process for preparing synthetic hydrocarbons from a biomass feedstock, comprising: a) electrolyzing steam in a high temperature electrolyzer to produce oxygen, enhanced hydrogen rich syngas and heat energy, see Claims 1 & 4; Paras. [027];[030]-[031];[038]-[039]; Fig. 2, b) feeding the oxygen generated in step a), and the biomass feedstock into a gasifier, and gasifying the feedstock under partial oxidation reaction conditions to generate a hydrogen lean syngas, see Claim 1, wherein the biomass feedstock optionally undergoes a step of removing excess moisture prior to being fed to the gasifier, see Claim 2; c) cooling the hydrogen lean syngas obtained in step b) to generate process water and heat energy, see Claims 5 and 6; Paras. [0027];[0040]; Fig. 2; d) adding at least a portion of the enhanced hydrogen rich syngas generated in step a) to the hydrogen lean syngas to formulate hydrogen rich syngas, see Claim 1; e) reacting the hydrogen rich syngas in a Fischer Tropsch (FT) reactor to produce the synthetic hydrocarbons, process water, heat energy and refinery gas, see Claims 1 & 8; Paras. [034]-[037], and f) recycling at least a portion of the refinery gas produced in step e) to the electrolyzer to generate enhanced hydrogen rich syngas, and adding a portion of the enhanced hydrogen rich syngas in step d) to augment formulation of the hydrogen rich syngas, see Paras. [027];[045]; Fig. 2, meeting most of the limitations in instant application claim 39, in instant application claim 40, and in instant application claim 52.
Regarding the limitations of instant application claims 41, 56, and 57, Price teaches further comprising: recycling at least a portion of the heat energy produced in step a), produced in step c), produced in step e), or a combination thereof, for generating steam for use in step a), see Fig. 2; Claims 1, 3-7, 9, & 11; recycling at least a portion of the process water produced in step c), produced in step e), or both for use in step a), see Fig. 2; Claim 1; and/or recycling at least a portion of the heat energy produced in step a), produced in step c), produced in step e), or a combination thereof, and/or for removing excess moisture from the biomass, for generating electric power for use in step a), see Fig. 2; Claims 1, 3-7, 9, & 11, meeting the recycle of heat energy and process water or steam limitations in instant application claim 41, in instant application claim 56, and in instant application claim 57.
Regarding the limitations of instant application claims 42, Price teaches further comprising recycling at least a portion of the refinery gas produced in step e) for removing excess moisture from the biomass, generating electric power for use in step a), or both, see Claims 9, 11; Fig. 2, meeting the recycle for removing excess moisture limitations in instant application claim 42.
Regarding the limitations of instant application claim 43, Price teaches wherein the hydrogen lean syngas is treated to a carbon dioxide separation operation prior to the reaction in the FT-reactor, and the process further comprises: and/or ii) compressing at least a portion of the separated carbon dioxide to generate high purity carbon dioxide for sequestration or market, see Para. [047]; Claim 14; Fig. 2, i.e. a CO2 product is obtained which must inherently be compressed for market, see MPEP 2112, meeting the CO2 separation and product in instant application claim 43.
Regarding the limitations of instant application claim 44, Price teaches compressing at least a portion of the separated carbon dioxide to generate high purity carbon dioxide for sequestration or market, see Paras. [042]-[047];[066]-[068]; Claims 10, 11 & 14; Fig. 2, i.e. a CO2 product is obtained which must inherently be compressed for market, see MPEP 2112, meeting the CO2 product in instant application claim 44.
Regarding the limitations of instant application claims 45 and 58 Price teaches further comprising fractionating the synthesized hydrocarbons, wherein additional refinery gas is generated, and the process further comprises recycling at least a portion of the additional refinery gas: i) to the electrolyzer to augment the production of the enhanced hydrogen rich syngas, ii) for removing excess moisture from the biomass in step b); iii) for generating electric power for use in step a); or iv) a combination thereof, see Paras. [042]-[047];[066]-[068]; Claims 10, 11 & 14; Fig. 2, meeting fractionation and recycle in instant application claim 45 and in instant application claim 58.
Regarding the limitations of instant application claims 46, Price teaches compressing at least a portion of the separated carbon dioxide to generate high purity carbon dioxide for sequestration or market, see Paras. [042]-[047];[066]-[068]; Claims 10, 11 & 14; Fig. 2 meeting the CO2 product in instant application claim 46.
Regarding the limitations of instant application claims 47 and 59, Price teaches further comprising: recycling at least a portion of heat energy generated in step a) for removing excess moisture from the biomass feedstock, see Claim 4; and/or recycling at least a portion of excess heat generated in step c) for removing excess moisture from the biomass feedstock, meeting the heat energy recycle in instant application claim 47 and in instant application claim 59.
Regarding the limitations of instant application claims 48 and 60 Price teaches wherein the heat energy generated in step c) is in the form of steam, and the process further comprises recycling at least a portion of the steam to an electricity generator to produce electricity to supplement electricity for the electrolyzer, see Claim 6; Fig. 2; Para. [0040], meeting the heat energy recycle in instant application claim 48 and in instant application claim 60.
Regarding the limitations of instant application claims 49 and 61 Price teaches wherein the heat energy generated in step e) is in the form of steam, and the process further comprises recycling at least a portion of the steam to an electricity generator to produce electricity to supplement electricity for the electrolyzer, and/or to remove excess moisture from the biomass, see Paras. [034]-[037]; Fig. 2; Claims 3, 7, meeting the heat energy recycle to supplement the electrolyzer and to remove moisture in instant application claim 49 and in instant application claim 61.
Regarding the limitations of instant application claims 50 and 62, Price teaches further including subjecting the synthesized hydrocarbons to one or more upgrading operations, see Claims 12 & 13; Paras. [048]-[051]; Fig. 2, meeting the upgrading in instant application claim 50 and in instant application claim 62.
Regarding the limitations of instant application claims 51 and 63, Price teaches a cyclic process further comprising: treating a portion of the enhanced hydrogen rich syngas to generate a high purity hydrogen stream, see Paras. [010];[061]; Line 137 in Fig. 2; and/or recovering and recycling excess water removed from the biomass for supplementing water for generating steam for use in step a), see Fig. 2; Paras. [027]-[040]; Claim 1, meeting the treating and recovery of water throughout the process in instant application claim 51 and in instant application claim 63.
Regarding the limitations of instant application claim 55, Price teaches wherein the process further comprises compressing at least a portion of the separated carbon dioxide to generate high purity carbon dioxide for sequestration or market, see Fig. 2; Para. [060], i.e. a CO2 product is obtained which must inherently be compressed for market, see MPEP 2112, meeting the obtaining a CO2 product in instant application claim 55.
Price does not teach:
The instant application claim 39 limitations of electrolyzing steam and CO2 in a high temperature co-electrolyzer;
The instant application claim 43 limitations of adding at least a portion of the separated carbon dioxide to the co-electrolyzer;
The instant application claims 44 and 46 limitations of refinery gas CO2 separation and adding at least a portion of the separated carbon dioxide to the co-electrolyzer;
The instant application claims 40, 43, 44, 46, 48, 52, 60, and 61 co-electrolyzer; and,
The limitations of instant application claims 53 and 54.
Hawkes is in the known prior art field of methods “and systems are provided for producing syngas utilizing heat from thermochemical conversion of a carbonaceous fuel to support decomposition of at least one of water and carbon dioxide using one or more solid-oxide electrolysis cells”, see Abstract, with the recycle and generation of heat, energy, hydrogen, oxygen, and carbon dioxide throughout the Fischer Tropsch process, see Paras. [0019]-[0021];[0044];[0054];[0060].
Regarding the limitations of instant application claims 39, 40, 43, 44, 46, 48, 51-53, 60, and 61, Hawkes teaches “[t]he feed stream 426 may include from about 36% to about 56% by volume water, from about 12% to about 32% by volume hydrogen, from about 11% to about 31% by volume carbon dioxide, and from about 1% to about 21% by volume carbon monoxide”, where “the water and carbon dioxide may be subjected to co-electrolysis to form an oxygen stream 104 and a syngas 140. As a non-limiting example, the syngas 140 may include less than about 5% by volume water, from about 58% to about 78% by volume hydrogen, less than about 5% by volume carbon dioxide, and from about 22% to about 42% by volume carbon monoxide”, see Paras. [0067]-[0069]; Figs. 1, 3-6, and the “term “electrolytic process” means and includes a high temperature electrolysis or a co-electrolysis process. The term “high temperature electrolysis process” is used to refer to the … “co-electrolysis process” is used to refer to the simultaneous electrolytic decomposition of water into hydrogen and oxygen and carbon dioxide into carbon monoxide and oxygen”, see Para. [0018], meeting the high temperature co-electrolysis of the water and carbon dioxide to form hydrogen and oxygen in instant application claim 39, in instant application claim 40, in instant application claim 43, in instant application claim 44, in instant application claim 46, in instant application claim 48, in instant application claim 51, in instant application claim 52, in instant application claim 53, in instant application claim 60, and in instant application claim 61.
Regarding the limitations of instant application claims 43, 44, 46, and 54, Hawkes teaches the CO2 is separated from the differing product streams 310, 310’, and 310’’ and reused and recycled through the process in order to produce zero total carbon dioxide emissions, see Para. [0020];[0031];[0043]-[0052]; Fig. 3, meeting the separation and recycle of the CO2 to the co-electrolyzer from various product streams limitations in instant application claim 43, in instant application claim 44, in instant application claim 46, and in instant application claim 54.
In reference to the above claims, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Price to rearrange the separation and recycle lines, see MPEP 2144.04 VI., and co-electrolyze for efficient heat, energy, hydrogen, oxygen, and carbon dioxide recovery throughout the system as taught by Hawkes with a reasonable predictability of success for the purpose of efficiently “producing syngas from a carbonaceous fuel, such as biomass, coal, or other solid or nonconventional heavy hydrocarbons by utilizing the heat from thermochemical conversion of the carbonaceous fuel to support electrolysis of steam and/or co-electrolysis of steam and carbon dioxide in one or more solid-oxide electrolysis cells” with a net zero carbon dioxide emission, see Hawkes, Paras. [0002]-[0004];[0008];[0020].
A rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art. Another rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that the substitution of one known element for another yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of modifying the separation and recycle lines of Prize by applying the known technique of co-electrolyze for efficient heat, energy, hydrogen, oxygen, and carbon dioxide recovery throughout the system as taught by Hawkes with a reasonable predictability of success for the purpose of efficiently “producing syngas from a carbonaceous fuel, such as biomass, coal, or other solid or nonconventional heavy hydrocarbons by utilizing the heat from thermochemical conversion of the carbonaceous fuel to support electrolysis of steam and/or co-electrolysis of steam and carbon dioxide in one or more solid-oxide electrolysis cells” with a net zero carbon dioxide emission, see Hawkes, Paras. [0002]-[0004];[0008];[0020]; and MPEP 2143 I. B-D.
The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that “a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that product [was] not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense”, see MPEP 2143 I.E. Since patents are part of the literature of the prior art relevant for all they contain, see MPEP 2123, and Price and Hawkes both teach efficient heat, energy, hydrogen, oxygen, and carbon dioxide recovery and recycle in an electrolyzer in combination with a Fischer Tropsch system, a person of ordinary skill in the art has good reason to modify Price by relying upon Hawkes before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for knowledge generally available within the electrolyzer in combination with a Fischer Tropsch system art, see MPEP 2143 B & G and 2141, for the benefit of efficiently “producing syngas from a carbonaceous fuel, such as biomass, coal, or other solid or nonconventional heavy hydrocarbons by utilizing the heat from thermochemical conversion of the carbonaceous fuel to support electrolysis of steam and/or co-electrolysis of steam and carbon dioxide in one or more solid-oxide electrolysis cells” with a net zero carbon dioxide emission, see Hawkes, Paras. [0002]-[0004];[0008];[0020]; and, MPEP 2141 and 2143 I. B-D.
As stated in Sakraida v. Ag Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273, 189 USPQ 449, reh’g denied,
426 U.S. 955 (1976), “[w]hen a work is available in one field of endeavor, design
incentives and other market forces can prompt variations of it, either in the same field
or a different one. If a person of ordinary skill can implement a predictable variation, §
103 likely bars its patentability. For the same reason, if a technique has been used to
improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it
would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its
actual application is beyond his or her skill”, see MPEP 2141.
In addition, “[i]t is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means,” such as the separation, the recycle, and the recovery of reactants, products, and heat energy created in the process, “is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions. In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438, 4 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1929)”, see MPEP 2144.05.
Claims 39-54 and 56-63 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boissonnet et al. (US20150275112, published 01 October 2015, hereinafter Boissonnet) in view of Hawkes et al. (US20090235587, published 24 September 2009, hereinafter Hawkes).
Boissonnet is in the known prior art field of “an integrated process for the production of liquid hydrocarbons starting from a feed containing at least one fraction of biomass and optionally at least one fraction of another feed, said process comprising at least one pre-treatment step, a gasification step, a step for conditioning synthesis gas, a water scrubbing step, a step for eliminating acid gases, a final purification step, and a catalytic Fischer-Tropsch synthesis reaction step”, see Abstract, where the process “presents optimized integration of the various steps in order to obtain improved production yields and better energetic and economic performances (energy efficiency, production costs, etc.), while complying with environmental constraints such as the emissions of greenhouse gases the thresholds for which are becoming ever more constrained”, see Paras. [0008]-[0025]; Figs. 1-2, and the feed is contacted with hydrogen obtained from the “electrolysis of water”, see Para. [0108].
Regarding the limitations of instant application claims 39 and 52, Boissonnet teaches “an integrated process for the production of liquid hydrocarbons from a feed”, see Paras. [0009]-[0025], where hydrogen for the process is obtained from the “electrolysis of water”, see Para. [0108], meeting some of step a) in instant application claim 39 and in instant application claim 52;
The “feed comprising at least one fraction of biomass”, see Paras. [0048]-[0051]. The feed is pretreated by drying to a water content of “less than 25% by weight, preferably less than 15% by weight and more preferably less than 10% by weight”, see Para. [0054]. Then the feed is fed to a gasifier to obtain a synthesis gas “mainly composed of carbon monoxide (CO), hydrogen (H2), carbon dioxide (CO2), and water (H2O) and comprises impurities initially deriving from the biomass fraction and/or from the fraction of another feed, in particular a hydrocarbon feed”, see Paras. [0078]-[0080];[0088], where “[t]he gasification step employs a partial oxidation reaction which converts the feed into a synthesis gas mainly comprising carbon monoxide and hydrogen. The gasification step is advantageously operated in the presence of a programmed quantity of oxygen in the form of a stream the flow rate of which is controlled and containing at least 90% by volume of oxygen, preferably at least 96% by volume of oxygen”, see Paras. [0079];[0145], and as depicted in Figs. 1-2 after step c lean syngas is produced then recycled production gas is added to the above lean stream leaving the gasification step before step d1, see Figs. 1-2, meeting most of step b) gasification in instant application 39 and in instant application claim 52;
After a “first preliminary cooling step, the synthesis gas is directed towards a heat exchanger to produce steam”, where “the synthesis gas then passes through a section for separating the gas phase and the solid phase using any technique which is known to the skilled person, for example cartridge filters. A portion of this cooled synthesis gas which is depleted in particles is recycled to the outlet from the gasifier to cool the synthesis gas leaving from the head of the gasifier”, see Para. [0087], i.e., steam process water and heat energy is generated and recovered, meeting step c) cooling in instant application claim 39 and in instant application claim 52;
After gasification “gas which is rich in hydrogen may be injected at any point of the line located downstream of the gasification step c)”, where the gas rich in hydrogen is obtained from the “electrolysis of water”, see Para. [0108], meeting step d) adding hydrogen rich gas from the electrolysis of steam to the effluent of the gasification reactor in instant application claim 39 and in instant application claim 52;
After optional steps of conditioning synthesis gas, a water scrubbing step, a step for eliminating acid gases, and/or a final purification step are performed to modify the gasification effluent syngas, a catalytic Fischer-Tropsch synthesis reaction step i) is performed on the hydrogen rich gasification effluent syngas to produce “a stream comprising liquid synthesis hydrocarbons and at least one gaseous effluent”, see Abstract; Paras. [0108];[0129]-[0138]; Figs. 1-2, where “at least one gaseous fraction obtained from the Fischer-Tropsch synthesis (step i) is advantageously recycled to gasification step c) in order to be converted into synthesis gas and thus improve the mass yield of the process line … at least a portion of the gaseous fraction obtained from the Fischer-Tropsch synthesis i) is advantageously sent to an independent unit for the production of synthesis gas (for example POx: Partial oxidation, SMR: Steam Methane Reforming, ATR: Autothermal Reforming, EHTR.: Enhanced Heat Transfer Reformer, etc.); this synthesis gas may be recycled to any point of the line between the outlet from step c) and step i) … at least a portion of the gaseous fraction obtained from step i) may supply the energy for the drying operations a1) and/or the torrefaction operations a2) in order to maximize the energy efficiency of the process line … the gaseous fraction obtained from step i) can be used to produce electricity in a combined cycle which may be supplied in part by steam produced in steps c), d3) and i) in order to increase the energy efficiency of the process line”, see Paras. [0107];[0134]-[0138]; Figs. 1-2, meeting:
Step e) reacting synthetic hydrocarbon, steam process water, heat energy, and refinery gas in instant application claim 39 and in instant application claim 52.
Regarding the limitations of instant application claims 41, 42, and 57, Boissonnet teaches “at least a portion of the gaseous fraction obtained from step i) may supply the energy for the drying operations a1) and/or the torrefaction operations a2) in order to maximize the energy efficiency of the process line … the gaseous fraction obtained from step i) can be used to produce electricity in a combined cycle which may be supplied in part by steam produced in steps c), d3) and i) in order to increase the energy efficiency of the process line”, see Paras. [0134]-[0138], meeting:
Recycling energy produced to remove moisture and to generate electric power in instant application claim 41, in instant application claim 42, and in instant application claim 57.
Regarding the limitations of instant application claims 43, 44, and 46, Boissonnet teaches a cyclic process of recycling the product gases, where “[s]tep g) of the invention is dedicated to eliminating acid gases such as sulphur-containing compounds (H2S) or CO2 remaining in the synthesis gas obtained from step f)”, see Paras. [0123]-[0124]; Figs. 1-2, meeting the treating the syngas and all product fractionated gases to remove CO2 limitations in instant application claim 43, in instant application claim 44, and in instant application claim 46.
Regarding the limitations of instant application claims 45, 49, 50, 58, 61, and 62, Boissonnet teaches “[t]he process of the invention integrates in particular into the process line a step for fractionation of the synthesis gas obtained from a gasifier into at least two effluents, a first portion and a complementary portion, in which said first portion undergoes a step for elimination of halogenated compounds, in particular chlorine, on at least one appropriate guard bed before being sent to a water gas shift step; and said complementary portion undergoes a step for catalytic hydrolysis of COS and HCN before a step for recombination of the two treated effluents,” see Para. [0008], where “at least one gaseous fraction obtained from the Fischer-Tropsch synthesis (step i) is advantageously recycled to gasification step c) in order to be converted into synthesis gas and thus improve the mass yield of the process line … at least a portion of the gaseous fraction obtained from the Fischer-Tropsch synthesis i) is advantageously sent to an independent unit for the production of synthesis gas (for example POx: Partial oxidation, SMR: Steam Methane Reforming, ATR: Autothermal Reforming, EHTR.: Enhanced Heat Transfer Reformer, etc.); this synthesis gas may be recycled to any point of the line between the outlet from step c) and step i) … at least a portion of the gaseous fraction obtained from step i) may supply the energy for the drying operations a1) and/or the torrefaction operations a2) in order to maximize the energy efficiency of the process line … the gaseous fraction obtained from step i) can be used to produce electricity in a combined cycle which may be supplied in part by steam produced in steps c), d3) and i) in order to increase the energy efficiency of the process line”, see Paras. [0107];[0134]-[0138]; Figs. 1-2, meeting:
Fractionating into refinery gases that are recycled in the process to dry the biomass and/or to generate electrical energy in instant application claim 45 and in instant application claim 58;
Steam heat energy recycled in the process to dry the biomass and/or to generate electrical energy in instant application claim 49 and in instant application claim 61; and,
The upgrading operations in instant application claim 50 and in instant application claim 62.
Boissonnet does not teach:
The instant application claims 39 and 52 limitations of a) electrolyzing steam and CO2 in a high temperature co-electrolyzer to produce oxygen, enhanced hydrogen rich syngas and heat energy; b) feeding the oxygen generated in step a);
The instant application claims 43, 44, and 46 limitations of the process further comprises: i) adding at least a portion of the separated carbon dioxide to the co-electrolyzer, and/or ii) compressing at least a portion of the separated carbon dioxide to generate high purity carbon dioxide for sequestration or market;
The instant application claim 52 step f) limitation; and,
The limitations of instant application claims 40, 47, 48, 51, 53, 54, 56, 59, 60, and 63.
Hawkes is in the known prior art field of methods “and systems are provided for producing syngas utilizing heat from thermochemical conversion of a carbonaceous fuel to support decomposition of at least one of water and carbon dioxide using one or more solid-oxide electrolysis cells”, see Abstract, with the recycle and generation of heat, energy, hydrogen, oxygen, and carbon dioxide throughout the Fischer Tropsch process, see Paras. [0019]-[0021];[0044];[0054];[0060].
Regarding the limitations of instant application claims 39, 40, 52, and 53, Hawkes teaches “[t]he feed stream 426 may include from about 36% to about 56% by volume water, from about 12% to about 32% by volume hydrogen, from about 11% to about 31% by volume carbon dioxide, and from about 1% to about 21% by volume carbon monoxide”, where “the water and carbon dioxide may be subjected to co-electrolysis to form an oxygen stream 104 and a syngas 140. As a non-limiting example, the syngas 140 may include less than about 5% by volume water, from about 58% to about 78% by volume hydrogen, less than about 5% by volume carbon dioxide, and from about 22% to about 42% by volume carbon monoxide”, see Paras. [0067]-[0069]; Figs. 1, 3, 4, 6, and the “term “electrolytic process” means and includes a high temperature electrolysis or a co-electrolysis process. The term “high temperature electrolysis process” is used to refer to the … “co-electrolysis process” is used to refer to the simultaneous electrolytic decomposition of water into hydrogen and oxygen and carbon dioxide into carbon monoxide and oxygen”, see Para. [0018], meeting the step a) high temperature co-electrolysis of the water and carbon dioxide to form hydrogen and oxygen in instant application claim 39, in instant application claim 52, and in instant application claim 53;
The feed stream 426 is fed into the co-electrolysis 414, the oxygen effluent 104 from the co-electrolysis 414 is fed into gasifier 406, see Paras. [0061];[0067]-[0069]; Figs. 3, 4, 6, meeting the step b) feeding the oxygen of step a) in instant application claim 39 and in instant application claim 52;
The process is cyclic with recycle lines to the co-electrolysis 414, where “[t]he hydrogen stream 112′ removed during the recovery process 204 and the hydrogen stream 112 produced by the electrolytic process 114 may be combined”, see Paras. [0042];[0045]; Figs. 2-4, 6, meeting:
Step d) combining the electrolytic hydrogen with the syngas hydrogen in instant application claim 39 and in instant application claim 52; and,
Step f) recycling to the co-electrolyzer in instant application claim 40 and in instant application claim 52.
Regarding the limitations of instant application claims 40, 47, 48, 51, 52, 56, 59, 60, and 63, Hawkes teaches “[t]he system includes an apparatus configured to thermochemically convert a carbonaceous fuel into heat and a mixed gas that may include carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, hydrogen and water, a heat exchange device configured to transfer the heat produced during the conversion of the carbonaceous fuel to at least one of the carbon dioxide and water and at least one solid-oxide electrolysis cell operably coupled to at least one power source and configured to electrolyze at least one of water and carbon dioxide to form oxygen and at least one of hydrogen and carbon monoxide”, where “[t]he system utilizes heat in the mixed gas produced by the apparatus during the thermochemical conversion of the carbonaceous fuel to perform electrolysis or co-electrolysis and, thus, only electricity may be provided by an external source”, and steam is formed by the heat exchange of the differing process components, see Paras. [0015];[0021];[0027];[0033];[0039];[0074], meeting:
Recycling and recovering heat, energy, steam, water, such as “to convert water in the product stream 110 to steam”, and energy from process gas to perform heat exchange throughout the system including “a thermochemical conversion process 106, the electrolytic process 114, a power generation process 116, a heat exchange process 124, a Fischer-Tropsch process 135, and, optionally, a water shift process (not shown), a water knockout process (not shown), and a gas cleanup process (not shown)”, see Paras. [0021];[0027]; Fig. 1, in instant application claim 40, in instant application claim 47, in instant application claim 48, in instant application claim 51, in instant application claim 52, in instant application claim 56, in instant application claim 59, in instant application claim 60, and in instant application claim 63.
Regarding the limitations of instant application claims 43, 44, 46, 53, and 54, Hawkes teaches the CO2 is separated from the differing product streams 310, 310’, and 310’’ and reused and recycled through the process in order to produce zero total carbon dioxide emissions, see Paras. [0020];[0031];[0043]-[0052]; Fig. 3, meeting the separation and recycle of the CO2 to the co-electrolyzer from various product streams limitations in instant application claim 43, in instant application claim 44, in instant application claim 46, in instant application claim 53, and in instant application claim 54.
In reference to the above claims, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Boissonnet to rearrange the separation and recycle lines, see MPEP 2144.04 VI., and co-electrolyze for efficient heat, energy, hydrogen, oxygen, and carbon dioxide recovery throughout the system as taught by Hawkes with a reasonable predictability of success for the purpose of efficiently “producing syngas from a carbonaceous fuel, such as biomass, coal, or other solid or nonconventional heavy hydrocarbons by utilizing the heat from thermochemical conversion of the carbonaceous fuel to support electrolysis of steam and/or co-electrolysis of steam and carbon dioxide in one or more solid-oxide electrolysis cells” with a net zero carbon dioxide emission, see Hawkes, Paras. [0002]-[0004];[0008];[0020].
A rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art. Another rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that the substitution of one known element for another yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of modifying the separation and recycle lines of Boissonnet by applying the known technique of co-electrolyze for efficient heat, energy, hydrogen, oxygen, and carbon dioxide recovery throughout the system as taught by Hawkes with a reasonable predictability of success for the purpose of efficiently “producing syngas from a carbonaceous fuel, such as biomass, coal, or other solid or nonconventional heavy hydrocarbons by utilizing the heat from thermochemical conversion of the carbonaceous fuel to support electrolysis of steam and/or co-electrolysis of steam and carbon dioxide in one or more solid-oxide electrolysis cells” with a net zero carbon dioxide emission, see Hawkes, Paras. [0002]-[0004];[0008];[0020]; and MPEP 2143 I. B-D.
The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that “a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that product [was] not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense”, see MPEP 2143 I.E. Since patents are part of the literature of the prior art relevant for all they contain, see MPEP 2123, and Boissonnet and Hawkes both teach efficient heat, energy, hydrogen, oxygen, and carbon dioxide recovery and recycle in an electrolyzer in combination with a Fischer Tropsch system, a person of ordinary skill in the art has good reason to modify Boissonnet by relying upon Hawkes before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for knowledge generally available within the electrolyzer in combination with a Fischer Tropsch system art, see MPEP 2143 B & G and 2141, for the benefit of efficiently “producing syngas from a carbonaceous fuel, such as biomass, coal, or other solid or nonconventional heavy hydrocarbons by utilizing the heat from thermochemical conversion of the carbonaceous fuel to support electrolysis of steam and/or co-electrolysis of steam and carbon dioxide in one or more solid-oxide electrolysis cells” with a net zero carbon dioxide emission, see Hawkes, Paras. [0002]-[0004];[0008];[0020]; and, MPEP 2141 and 2143 I. B-D.
As stated in Sakraida v. Ag Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273, 189 USPQ 449, reh’g denied,
426 U.S. 955 (1976), “[w]hen a work is available in one field of endeavor, design
incentives and other market forces can prompt variations of it, either in the same field
or a different one. If a person of ordinary skill can implement a predictable variation, §
103 likely bars its patentability. For the same reason, if a technique has been used to
improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it
would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its
actual application is beyond his or her skill”, see MPEP 2141.
In addition, “[i]t is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means,” such as the separation, the recycle, and the recovery of reactants, products, and heat energy created in the process, “is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions. In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438, 4 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1929)”, see MPEP 2144.05.
Claim 55 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boissonnet et al. (US20150275112, published 01 October 2015, hereinafter Boissonnet) in view of Hawkes et al. (US20090235587, published 24 September 2009, hereinafter Hawkes), as applied to claims 39-54 and 56-63 in the 35 USC 103 rejection above, in further view of Jahnke et al. (US20160351930, published 01 December 2016, hereinafter Jahnke).
Boissonnet is in the known prior art field of “an integrated process for the production of liquid hydrocarbons starting from a feed containing at least one fraction of biomass and optionally at least one fraction of another feed, said process comprising at least one pre-treatment step, a gasification step, a step for conditioning synthesis gas, a water scrubbing step, a step for eliminating acid gases, a final purification step, and a catalytic Fischer-Tropsch synthesis reaction step”, see Abstract, where the process “presents optimized integration of the various steps in order to obtain improved production yields and better energetic and economic performances (energy efficiency, production costs, etc.), while complying with environmental constraints such as the emissions of greenhouse gases the thresholds for which are becoming ever more constrained”, see Paras. [0008]-[0025]; Figs. 1-2, and streams rich in CO2 are “purified of H2S and advantageously recycled to gasification step c)”, see Paras. [0123]-[0124].
Boissonnet does not teach the limitations of instant application claim 55.
Jahnke is in the known prior art field of a reformer-electrolyzer-purifier (REP) system including a REP assembly, see Para. [0012]; Fig. 1, where the assembly is “used in combination with a gasification assembly in order to provide a system that gasifies carbonaceous fuel, such as biomass or coal, to produce hydrogen without CO2 emissions”, see Paras. [0134]-[0140], “the first, second and third heat exchangers 1002, 1004, 1006 may be the same heat exchanger adapted to recover waste heat from the hydrogen mixture and the methane mixture and to use this waste heat to preheat the ADG and water mixture”, see Paras. [0118]-[0121]. Steam and CO2 are supplied to the electrolyzer to produce oxygen, hydrogen, and heat energy, see Paras. [0027];[0039]-[0041]; Fig. 1, and the REP system is “integrated with reactor off gases, such as the off gas from a Fischer-Tropes reactor, to facilitate recycling of hydrogen off gas from the system”, “with low temperature fuel cell systems, with power generating systems operating on coal, with a gasifier, and other systems”, see Para. [0041].
Regarding the limitations of instant application claim 55, Jahnke teaches “the CO2 pump/REP assembly 720 generates and separately outputs an oxidant gas comprising a mixture of about 2/3 carbon dioxide and 1/3 oxygen”, where “cooled CO2 gas can then be compressed so that all of the CO2 from the system 700 can be captured and sequestered without further purification. As shown in FIG. 7, heat recovered from the flue gas in the heat exchanger 750 is used for heating water to produce steam for the reforming reaction”, see Paras. [0064]-[0067]; Fig. 7, meeting the compression, purification, and sequestration of CO2 in instant application claim 55.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Boissonnet to recover CO2 throughout the system as taught by Jahnke with a reasonable predictability of success for the purpose of efficiently incorporating “a high temperature electrochemical purification system to remove CO2 from the reformed gas during the reforming process and to drive the conversion of methane to H2 and CO2 to completion, producing hydrogen from fuel in a manner which approaches the theoretical minimum of CO2 emissions”, see Jahnke, Paras. [0005];[0027];[0030];[0065];[0121].
A rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art. Another rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that the substitution of one known element for another yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of modifying Boissonnet by applying the known techniques of the recovery, the recycle, and the capture of CO2 throughout the system as taught by Jahnke with a reasonable predictability of success for the purpose of efficiently incorporating “a high temperature electrochemical purification system to remove CO2 from the reformed gas during the reforming process and to drive the conversion of methane to H2 and CO2 to completion, producing hydrogen from fuel in a manner which approaches the theoretical minimum of CO2 emissions”, see Jahnke, Paras. [0005];[0027];[0030];[0065];[0121]; and MPEP 2143 I. B-D.
The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that “a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that product [was] not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense”, see MPEP 2143 I.E. Since patents are part of the literature of the prior art relevant for all they contain, see MPEP 2123, and Boissonnet and Jahnke both teach efficient heat, energy, hydrogen, oxygen, and carbon dioxide recovery and recycle in an electrolyzer in combination with a Fischer Tropsch system, a person of ordinary skill in the art has good reason to modify Boissonnet by relying upon Jahnke before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for knowledge generally available within the electrolyzer in combination with a Fischer Tropsch system art, see MPEP 2143 B & G and 2141, for the benefit of efficiently incorporating “a high temperature electrochemical purification system to remove CO2 from the reformed gas during the reforming process and to drive the conversion of methane to H2 and CO2 to completion, producing hydrogen from fuel in a manner which approaches the theoretical minimum of CO2 emissions”, see Jahnke, Paras. [0005];[0027];[0030];[0065];[0121]; and, MPEP 2141 and 2143 I. B-D.
As stated in Sakraida v. Ag Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273, 189 USPQ 449, reh’g denied,
426 U.S. 955 (1976), “[w]hen a work is available in one field of endeavor, design
incentives and other market forces can prompt variations of it, either in the same field
or a different one. If a person of ordinary skill can implement a predictable variation, §
103 likely bars its patentability. For the same reason, if a technique has been used to
improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it
would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its
actual application is beyond his or her skill”, see MPEP 2141.
In addition, “[i]t is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means,” such as the separation, the recycle, and the recovery of reactants, products, and heat energy created in the process, “is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions. In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438, 4 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1929)”, see MPEP 2144.05.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Y. Lynnette Kelly-O'Neill whose telephone number is (571) 270-3456. The examiner can normally be reached Tuesday-Friday, 8:30 a.m. - 6:30 p.m., EST, with Flex Time.
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, Scarlett Yen-Ye Goon can be reached at (571) 270-5241. 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.
/YO/Examiner, Art Unit 1692
/FEREYDOUN G SAJJADI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1699
Prosecution Insights