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
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Status
Claims 1-10 in the amended claim set filed 1.11.2024 are pending.
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.
Claims 1-10 are 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
It is unclear what structural elements are included in at least claims 1 and 10. Both claims contain language that appears to make an element unnecessary/optional depending on an intended use. For example, claim 1, lines 10-11 recite “a photo-thermal coupled catalytic reactor, during power generation, …”, which makes it unclear if this is a required element. First, it is unclear how/where the photo-thermal coupled catalytic reactor is structurally attached to the “system for complementarily coupling”. Second, it appears that this catalytic reactor is only necessary when the device is performing power generation. Thus, is this actually a structural element as it is not clear how it is structurally incorporated into the system and when the device is not performing power generation it appears unnecessary.
Additionally, it is unclear how the synthesis reactor, RSOC and gasification chamber are physically coupled/connected. There are no connection devices, no controller controlling the operation, etc.
Another example of indefiniteness concerns the a heat source which appears to be only required when the gasification chamber requires its use when there are no other power sources. Additionally, there is no structure as to how or even if, the heater is physically actually attached to the gasification chamber. The claim does not provide any specifics and the heater does not appear to be positively recited as a necessary structural element in the claim. It appears optional if the unstable energy source is not available.
Additionally, the language “provided by power of unstable renewable energy from abandoned wind and light” is relative and appears to add confusion as to what is required in the claim. How does one determine when something is “abandoned” or “unstable” (note claim 7 also contains this language)?
Lastly, regarding the RSOC, this too appears optional, as it only appears necessary when electrolysis is happening and there is no structure connecting it with the other elements.
Hence, the claims fails to provide positively recited (not optional depending on use) structure and how the structure is physically connected to be commensurate in scope with the preamble. What is “complementarily coupling”? Thus, as most structure appears optional depending on how the device is functioning, given the BRI, so long as a gasification chamber, a RSOC, a synthesis reactor, a heater and a photo-thermal catalytic reactor are found, this appears to read on the claim.
Please note that the same reasoning applies to dependent claims. For example, claim 2 recites an oxygen-rich air storage tank, yet it is optionally utilized only during electrolysis and there is no structure as to connecting it physically to the list of items in claim 1.
Claim 5 recites the RSOC can be “1 to more”, it is unclear what “to more” entails. Additionally, if there is a single cell recited in claim 1, how then can claim 5 recite that a single cell is more than 1?
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, 3-7 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (Frontier in Energy Research April 14, 2021, volume 9) or Clausen (Applied Energy, 2018) in view of RU2277119.
Regarding claims 1 and 10, please note all of the intended use language included in the claim. For example, the gasification chamber provides synthesis gas; the RSOC provides a second synthesis gas only during electrolysis, the synthesis reactor produces hydrocarbon fuel, the catalytic reactor produces hydrocarbon fuel, and the heater appears to support the gasification chamber, but only when it is performing a particular intended use. Thus, note that a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967) and In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458,459 (CCPA 1963). MPEP 2115
Given the BRI, claims 1 and 10 appears to require a gasification reaction chamber, a RSOC, a synthesis reactor, a heat source, and a photo-thermal catalytic reactor as the structural elements, however, their attachment structure does not appear or appears optionally necessary when performing a certain use.
Thus, Zhang teaches a biomass gasification and RSOC which can flex between power generation and power storage (see page 1, col. 2, page 2, and figure 1). Zhang teaches a heat exchanger and a methane production unit, i.e. production hydrocarbon. Zhang also teaches the use of the above components in order to arrive at a carbon neutral power source. As noted in the 4. Application section part of the paper, RSOC plants can provide biomass-to-electricity or biomass-to-chemical or reserve capacity.
Additionally, Clausen also teaches a biomass gasification, a heat source, and RSOC device with a methane reactor (see fig.3-6, page 325). Clausen also teaches a use for these components in which an energy system is configured to be carbon neutral wherein wind and solar and SOFC are utilized to store energy using bio-syngas via biomass gasification and electrolytic hydrogen when electricity prices are low and produce electricity when prices are high (see abstract).
While the claimed photo-thermal catalytic converter appears to be necessary only during when the device is operating in power generation, it is noted that neither Zhang nor Clausen appear to disclose a photo-thermal catalytic reactor.
However, RU2277119 teaches that a photo-thermal reactor can be utilized in the production of fuel from biomass to offset emissions.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective file date of the present invention to utilize a phot-thermal reactor in the device of Zhang or Clausen in order to provide a clean energy means to produce fuel from a biomass.
Regarding claim 3, Zhang teaches a system that can select a production or consumption of energy (abstract). Zhang teaches a reversible SOC that receives gas and converts it to CO2and H2O which would have some mechanism by which to store, even if for a brief moment, these components. Figure 5 depicts a system in which there are numerous flow meters connected to the gasifier.
Regarding claim 4, biomass/coal are the materials worked upon by the device. "Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation a device is of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim." Exparte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969). Furthermore, "[i]nclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims." In re Young, 75 F.2d * > 996 , 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935) (as restated in In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458,459 (CCPA 1963)). MPEP 2115. However, it is noted that Zhang teaches the use of biomass like wood or waste all depending on where in the world one is located and what is available (see section 4.2). Additionally, Clausen teaches the use of wood (see section 2.1.1).
Regarding claim 5, both Zhang (see section 2) and Clausen (see section 2.1.1) teach a gas purification and syngas storage.
Regarding claim 6, Zhang teaches that multiple RSOC can be utilized (see section 2).
Regarding claim 7, both Zhang (see introduction) and Clausen (see introduction) teach that solar and wind energy is intermittent and that the RSOC systems at this time require stable energy sources as well in case intermittent systems are unavailable.
Claim(s) 2, 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (Frontier in Energy Research April 14, 2021, volume 9) or Clausen (Applied Energy, 2018) and RU2277119, as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of AU2020102830.
Regarding claims 2, 8 and 9, as noted above, it is unclear as to what this oxygen storage tank is coupled too or if it is even positively recites as a necessary structural element. However, while both Zhang and Clausen teach a RSOC, which would logically follow require hydrogen and oxygen storage tanks for operation, they do not explicitly recite them.
However, AU 2020102830 teaches the requirements of a RSOC which include an oxygen tank and a hydrogen tank (i.e. oxygen poor tank)(see fig. 1), fuel storage tanks.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective file date of the present invention that an oxygen rich and poor storage tank would be necessary in either Zhang or Clausen in order for the RSOC to function.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Please refer to the PTO-892 with multiple pertinent prior art references.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER M DIETERLE whose telephone number is (571)270-7872. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9:30-5:30 EST.
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, Patricia Mallari can be reached at 571-272-4729. 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.
/Jennifer Dieterle/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1776
Prosecution Insights