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 .
The amendment dated 03/31/2026 has been considered and entered. The response was considered but was not found to be persuasive. Therefore, the previous rejections are maintained. Also, further new grounds of rejections are made below in view of Katsui et al. (JP 2022161757A) and Stuermer er al. (US 2015/0284651) as necessitated by the IDS filed on 05/29/2026.
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 1 – 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Babicki et al. (WO 2017/165981A1)
In regards to claim 1, Babicki teaches method for converting biomass to hydrocarbon fuel, comprising the step of generating hydrogen from electrolysis of water and using the hydrogen for biomass conversion into a hydrocarbon fuel (abstract). The conversion of biomass may comprise pyrolysis of the biomass, gasification of the biomass etc., and wherein the biomass conversion process produces water which is further used to generate additional hydrogen (such as in the electrolysis process, i.e., recycling) (page 2 lines 23 – 27 and Fig 1). Other conversion process includes anaerobic digestion to produce methane and carbon dioxide and using the hydrogen to convert the carbon dioxide to additional methane (page 3 lines 1 – 2). Pyrolysis of biomass inherently generates heat.
Biomass can be any plant or animal material that is useful for fuel or energy (page 4 line 11). A biological process is used for converting the biomass carbon into hydrocarbons (page 4 lines 31 – 33). The biomass conversion process coproduces water and carbon oxides such as carbon dioxide through pyrolysis and gasification (page 5 lines 2 – 14). A biological process can be used to produce methane (i.e., biomethanation) by reaction of hydrogen with carbon dioxide (page 6 lines 1 – 5). The water formed and separated from the biomass conversion process is recycled and used in the electrolyzer for convention in to hydrogen (page 6 lines 20 – 26).
The use of plant or animal material thus makes the use of waste plant or animal materials such as from municipal waste supplies quickly envisaged or obvious. The system produces fuel/energy and is therefore a waste-energy process as claimed. Pyrolysis conventionally utilizes burning in oxygen or air which makes the claimed units obvious. The process allows for the coupling of various units such as pyrolysis, gasification, reactor/bio-methanation, electrolyzer etc. to be coupled together and to allow separation of products and recycling of materials such as hydrogen gas and water [Fig 1]. The discharge from one unit would flow to other input units as claimed
In regards to claim 2, Babicki teaches the system comprising a pyrolysis step which typically uses air or oxygen for burning, i.e., oxidizing agent.
In regards to claim 3, Babicki teaches the system for producing energy/fuel i.e., methane, carbon residue etc. which is/are useful for producing heat or electricity are stored and/or transported and are useful in residential, commercial, or agricultural applications and as fuel (page 3 lines 4 – 14). The storage provides an energy input user facility as claimed.
In regards to claims 4 – 7, Babicki teaches the system having the units as claimed configured to interact with one another as previously discussed.
In regards to claims 8, 9, Babicki teaches the system that incorporates recycling of materials such as water from the fuel conversion process to be used in the water facility, and hydrogen from the electrolyzer to the fuel conversion process. While Babicki does not particularly recite the step of using heat generated from a process such as during pyrolysis or fuel conversion in the electrolyzer, such would be obvious as products from one process are generally useful as inputs in order processes.
In regards to claim 10, Babicki teaches the system having the claimed limitations as previously stated.
In regards to claims 12 – 21, Babicki teaches the method having the claimed system and processes as previously discussed. Babicki teaches the method wherein an electrolyzer is used to generate hydrogen from water and the products from the process are sent to the hydrocarbon converter [Fig 1]. The products of the electrolysis of water are hydrogen and oxygen, and thus such oxygen would be suitable for use during pyrolysis of the biomass used in the hydrocarbon conversion process (page 1 lines 25 – 26).
In regards to claims 11, 22, Babicki teaches the system and method for biomass pyrolysis to prepare carbon dioxide, electrolysis to prepare hydrogen and a bio-methanation reaction to generate energy such as methane fuel etc., and wherein pyrolysis volatiles are further quenched (i.e., in an energy exchanger)., but does not particularly recite the devices and steps of generating electricity and energy exchange as claimed (page 5 lines 25 – 31). Yin, Hong-wen (CN 111057567A) teaches biomass pyrolysis gasification similar to Babicki can be useful for preparing electricity, wherein a pyrolysis boiler is used for biomass combustion and the steam generated is sent to a steam turbine (i.e., expander) for generation of electricity (abstract).
Thus, persons of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have incorporated the steps of process of Yin into Babicki, by further using energy generated from pyrolysis gasification for making electricity, as energy generated from pyrolysis is conventionally known to be useful for generating electricity in view of Yin. The energy such as electricity extracted from the process are conventionally sent to end users at other facilities or homes.
Claims 1 – 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Katsui et al. (JP 2022161757A)
In regards to claim 1, Katsui teaches a combustion system including a combustion device burning objects to be burned by using an oxidant, a water electrolysis device that applied electrolysis of water, oxygen supply means for supplying oxygen generated by the water electrolysis device to the combustion device as an oxidant, carbon dioxide separation means for separating carbon dioxide from combustion exhaust gas generated in the combustion device, and methane gas generation means for generating methane gas by synthesizing hydrogen generated by the water electrolysis device and carbon dioxide separated from the combustion exhaust gas by the carbon dioxide separation means (abstract).
The feed for combustion includes waste such as refuse or waste generated in our daily lives or from waste treatment facility (i.e., municipal waste), and the combustion products includes heat which is recovered from the flue gas to generate steam, and the product also includes electricity, and the methanation process uses a Sabatier reaction that reacts CO2 and hydrogen in the presence of a catalyst to provide methane and water (specification). While biomethanation is not particularly recited, they are known equivalents and the use of biomethanation in the place of Sabatier reaction would have been obvious to persons of ordinary skill in the art.
For instance, Stuermer er al. (US 2015/0284651) teaches methanation process which can be chemical & catalyst similar to Katsui, or bio-methanation for preparing methane from CO2, which makes it obvious to interchange the process of methanation [0006, 0007].
In regards to claim 2, Katsui and Stuermer teach the system having the claimed limitations as previously stated. Katsui teaches products are separated from impurities and thus the use of substantially pure oxygen in order not to contaminate or generate unwanted products would be obvious.
In regards to claim 3, Katsui and Stuermer teach the system as claimed. The system is connected from the input to output through supply means for supplying product streams from one system to the other as discussed above.
In regards to claims 4 – 10, 12 – 21, Katsui and Stuermer teach the system having the claimed limitations and wherein the units coupled with one another and wherein products from one stage/process such as heat, oxygen and hydrogen is/are each used in other stages/processes thus making the reuse/recycle of heat, water, and other products of the methanation process obvious in other stages/processes as needed.
In regards to claims 11, 22, Katsui teaches the system and products including the generation of electricity using steam turbines thus providing the steps of expansion, and the use of mechanical energy to generate electricity as claimed (specification).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the waste to energy unit of Babicki fails to produce energy in the form of heat, mechanical energy or electrical energy. The argument is not persuasive.
Babicki teaches pyrolysis of biomass. Pyrolysis is a process that produces heat.
Applicant argues that the Babicki fails to teach that the CO2 separation unit is coupled with the flue gas discharge output, and a flue gas output coupled with the bio-methanation unit which uses the CO2 for preparing methane, but instead the CO2 is captured. Also, applicant argues that the CO2 used in methanation is not prepared from pyrolysis. The argument is not persuasive.
Babicki teaches a system wherein all the units are connected and thus provides the connections of the claims. The pyrolysis and gasification process produces CO2, and while the biomethanation process converts biomass to methane and CO2, Babicki also teaches a further addition of hydrogen step that converts the remaining CO2 to methane and thus makes obvious the conversion of the CO2 from the pyrolysis to methane.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAIWO OLADAPO whose telephone number is (571)270-3723. The examiner can normally be reached 8-5pm.
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, Prem Singh can be reached at 571-272-6381. 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.
/TAIWO OLADAPO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771
Prosecution Insights