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 Status
Claims 1-7 were filed 1/4/2024. In a preliminary amendment filed on the same day, claims 1, 2, and 4-6 were amended and claims 3 and 7 were canceled. Claims 1, 2, and 4-6 are pending.
Priority
The instant application was filed 1/4/2024 and claims the benefit of priority to:
PNG
media_image1.png
152
1002
media_image1.png
Greyscale
See filing receipt dated 8/7/2024. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
Figure 2 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). See [0003] of the specification as filed.
Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 5, and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koskinen (US2013/0072583, published on 3/21/2013) in view of Masel (US2018/0127668, published on 5/10/2018).
Applicant claims a method for improving a synthetic fuel production facility to reduce an amount of atmospheric emission of carbon dioxide generated in an apparatus of an existing synthetic fuel production facility,
The synthetic fuel production facility comprising:
A gasification apparatus for gasifying waste by reacting the waste, oxygen, and water at a high temperature to produce a gasified gas containing carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, and hydrogen;
A carbon dioxide separation apparatus for separating carbon dioxide form the gasified gas produced in the gasification apparatus; and a FT synthesis apparatus for producing a synthetic fuel by Fischer-Tropsch synthesis from a synthetic gas from which carbon dioxide has been separated in the carbon dioxide separation apparatus,
The improvement method being characterized by adding to the facility, a carbon dioxide electrolysis apparatus for electrolyzing the carbon dioxide separated in the carbon dioxide separation apparatus to produce an electrolyzed gas containing carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide,
A methanol synthesis apparatus for reacting the electrolyzed gas produced in the carbon dioxide electrolysis apparatus with hydrogen to produce methanol, and
A water electrolysis apparatus for electrolyzing water to produce oxygen and hydrogen, the produced hydrogen being supplied to the methanol synthesis apparatus and the produced oxygen being supplied to the gasification apparatus (claim 5).
Applicant also claims a method for producing a synthetic fuel comprising the use of the apparatus produced above (claim 1).
Koskinen teaches a method of producing a hydrocarbon composition, the method including providing a biomass raw-material; gasifying the raw-material in the presence of oxygen to produce a gas containing carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, hydrogen and hydrocarbons possibly together with inert components; separately increasing the hydrogen-to-carbon monoxide ratio of the gas to a value of about 2; feeding the gas to a Fischer-Tropsch (FT) reactor; converting in the FT reactor at least a significant part of the carbon monoxide and hydrogen contained in the gas into a hydrocarbon composition containing C4-90 hydrocarbons; and recovering the hydrocarbon composition. Fresh external hydrogen is introduced into the gas before feeding into the FT reactor. By using an external hydrogen feed, the capacity of the biomass gasification process can be increased and any need for a water gas shift (WGS) for producing hydrogen from carbon monoxide and steam can be eliminated. See abstract and claims. The process of Koskinen is described in the following Fig. 2:
PNG
media_image2.png
692
1018
media_image2.png
Greyscale
. See [0080-0093]. Figure 3 teaches an analogous reaction wherein external hydrogen unit (1) is specifically a reformer (10) and shift reactor (11). See [0094-0097]. Koskinen further teaches that hydrogen production unit (1) may include a water electrolysis unit, wherein the oxygen produced can additionally be fed to the gasification step. See [0041].
Koskinen teaches that a biomass raw material, including wastes [0022], oxygen and water (steam/moisture) are fed to a gasifier to produce a gasification gas comprising carbon monoxide (CO), carbon dioxide (CO2), and hydrogen (H2) as main components along with some water or steam (H2O). See [0021-0027]. Koskinen teaches that the gasification temperature is in the range of about 700-1200 °C. See [0023] and paragraph [0029] of the specification as filed. Koskinen teaches that it is known that at a temperature of 750-1200°C, that gasification is largely complete, but that at temperatures of 750-950°C, that some unreacted hydrocarbons can remain. In the latter case, the gasification effluent can be fed into a reformer to further produce a syngas mixture comprising less by-products. See [0005-0006].
Figures 2 and 3 show embodiments wherein the gasification feed exiting the “gasifier” is fed to a reformer (2, 12) to produce the final syngas mixture comprising carbon monoxide, hydrogen, and carbon dioxide. The syngas from the reformer is then fed to a reverse water gas shift reactor (RWGS, 3, 13) with an external source of hydrogen (obtained from 1 in Fig. 2 or 10 and 11 in Fig. 3) and carbon dioxide obtained from carbon dioxide removal unit (5) to increase the concentration of water and carbon monoxide in the syngas. The syngas exiting the RWGS unit is conducted through a series of washing units (4, 14) for specific removal of carbon dioxide (5, 15). A further purification step (9, 19), pure CO2 can be vented from the process. After unit (5) there can be an optional washer unit (7, 17) before the syngas is fed to the Fischer-Tropsch reactor (8, 18), wherein hydrocarbons are synthesized by reacting carbon monoxide and hydrogen. See [0033-0079]. The hydrocarbons can be used as synthetic fuels. See [0019, 0027-0032].
Thus, regarding claims 1 and 5, Koskinen teaches an existing synthetic fuel production facility comprising a gasification apparatus for gasifying waste by reacting the waste, oxygen, and water at a high temperature to produce a gasified gas containing carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, and hydrogen;
A carbon dioxide separation apparatus (5) for separating carbon dioxide from the gasified gas produced in the gasification apparatus, after optional treatment in (2/12, 3/13, and/or 4/14) to modify the CO/H2 ratio in the gas for optimum reaction in the FT reactor; and
An FT synthesis apparatus for producing a synthetic fuel by FT synthesis from a synthetic gas (syngas) from which carbon dioxide has been separated in the carbon dioxide separation apparatus.
Koskinen does not explicitly teach a carbon dioxide electrolysis step of electrolyzing the carbon dioxide separated in the carbon dioxide separation step to produce an electrolyzed gas containing carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide; a methanol synthesis step of reacting the electrolyzed gas produced in the carbon dioxide electrolysis step with hydrogen to produce methanol; and a water electrolysis step to produce oxygen and hydrogen, the produced hydrogen being supplied to the methanol synthesis step and the produced oxygen being supplied to the gasification step.
Masel teaches a system and process for the production of renewable fuels and chemicals. Masel teaches the following general embodiment in Fig. 1:
PNG
media_image3.png
732
1028
media_image3.png
Greyscale
. See [0088-0097]. Fig. 2 illustrates operation to produce mainly fuels such as gasoline [0098], Fig. 3 illustrates operation to produce mainly olefins such as propylene [0099], and Fig. 4 illustrates and embodiment for the co-production of gasoline and propylene [0104-0111].
In Fig. 1, the renewable fuel production system (100) includes a carbon dioxide electrolyzer (111) for converting CO2 to CO and a water electrolyzer (112) for converting water to hydrogen and oxygen. See [0089-0090]. Masel teaches that the carbon dioxide source (131) for the electrolyzer (111) is a source of renewable carbon dioxide from a sustainable source, including CO2 derived from waste. See [0086]. Masel teaches that electrolyzer (111) produces a mixture of CO2 and CO (line 161) which is fed to mix point (133) to be mixed with hydrogen (line 162) from electrolyzer (112). The electrolyzers also produce oxygen (lines 163 and 164). The gas exiting mix point (133) is compressed (108) and fed to a reactor (102) for converting CO, CO2, and H2 to methanol. The methanol (181) is then fed to reactor (103) for converting methanol into dimethyl ether, and the dimethyl ether (182) is fed into reactor (104) to produce olefins or gasoline (a MTG method according to claims 2 and 6). See [0092-0097] and claims 8, 15, and 16.
It would have been prima facie obvious to combine the teachings of Koskinen and Masel to arrive at the instantly claimed process with a reasonable expectation of success before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine the carbon dioxide electrolysis step/apparatus; the methanol synthesis step/apparatus; and the water electrolysis step/apparatus of Masel with the gasification; carbon dioxide separation, and FT synthetic fuel steps/apparatus of Koskinen because Masel teaches that this is a known and predictable order of operations to produce synthetic fuel from carbon dioxide sources. Koskinen teaches the separation and purification of a CO2 stream from the gasification step and teaches that the carbon dioxide may be recycled completely or partially to a RWGS reactor or emitted to the ambient to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. See [0063, 0068, 0091] and claims 11-14 and 18. Masel teaches that synthetic fuel can also be produced from sustainable sources of CO2, including CO2 waste streams. See [0068]. Therefore, subjecting the purified CO2 feed of Koskinen, especially that which is intended to be emitted to the atmosphere, to the process steps of Masel will predictably enhance the sustainability of the process and increase the yield of synthetic fuel obtained from the reaction by providing another valuable use for the CO2 produced in, but not required for, the process of Koskinen. It would have been further prima facie obvious to feed the outlet oxygen streams (163, 164) obtained from the electrolyzers of Masel to the gasifier of Koskinen because Masel does not provide a use for the oxygen in the outlets and Koskinen teaches that oxygen obtained from water hydrolysis can be fed to the gasifier. See [0041]. Therefore, the combination of Koskinen and Masel would also predictably result in an improved method for using the oxygen electrolyzer by-products of Masel, thus making the overall process more efficient and sustainable. Also see MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koskinen (US2013/0072583, published on 3/21/2013) in view of Masel (US2018/0127668, published on 5/10/2018), as applied to claims 1, 2, 5, and 6 below, and further in view of Sunfire (WO2015180752, published on 12/3/2015).
Applicant claims a method further comprising an oxygen separation step of separating oxygen from air, the separated oxygen being supplied to the gasification step. Koskinen teaches that gasification can be promoted by feed steam, air or oxygen into the reactor, with exemplary results being obtained with oxygen or oxygen in combination with steam. Masel teaches that carbon dioxide can be recovered from the air, but not oxygen. Therefore, neither reference teaches separating oxygen from air.
Sunfire teaches a hydrocarbon production apparatus for the production of gaseous and/or liquid hydrocarbons from solid, liquid or gaseous carbonaceous carrier comprising a gasifier (6) for the production of a carbon monoxide sustainable gasification gas, a shift-process (22) to produce hydrogen and carbon dioxide form carbon monoxide and water vapour, and a synthesis process for the production of gaseous and/or liquid hydrocarbons from carbon monoxide and hydrogen (43). See abstract; claims; Fig. 1 and p. 19-20. This process and system is analogous to the method of Koskinen for the transformation of a carbon waste source to synthetic fuel through gasification (6), CO2 separation (27), and a FT reaction (43). Sunfire teaches that oxygen for use as a gasification agent (line 2) can be obtained from electrolysis of water (33) and/or an air separation plant (via line 55, but not shown). See p. 8, first paragraph and p. 12, lines 13-22.
It would have been prima facie obvious to combine the teachings of Koskinen, Masel, and Sunfire to arrive at the instantly claimed process with a reasonable expectation of success before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to include an air separation unit in the combined process of Koskinen and Masel because Sunfire teaches that air separations units can provide make-up oxygen for gasification units. Therefore, the combination of Koskinen, Masel, and Sunfire will predictably result in a process for obtaining all of the oxygen required for gasification using known sources. Also see MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMY C BONAPARTE whose telephone number is (571)272-7307. The examiner can normally be reached 11-7.
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 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.
/AMY C BONAPARTE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1692
Prosecution Insights