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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 3/10/2026 has been entered.
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.
Claims 28–46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable overFoody et al. (US 9,108,894 B1) in view of Lehoux et al. (US 2016/0186072 A1) and further in view of Antonini et al. “hydrogen production from natural gas and biomethane with carbon capture and storage” Sustainable Energy & Fuels, 2020, 4, 2967–2986.
Foody teaches producing fuel from methane-containing feedstocks, including biomass-derived sources (col. 3–5), via methane reforming to produce syngas comprising hydrogen and carbon monoxide, separating hydrogen, and feeding the hydrogen to downstream fuel-producing processes, while generating CO₂ and capturing CO₂ from reforming-related streams including syngas and/or flue gas and providing such CO₂ for carbon capture and storage (CCS) to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and carbon intensity (col. 2, line 63 – col. 3, line 14; col. 5, lines 20–67; col. 7, lines 10–45; col. 18, lines 31–42; col. 24, lines 10–12), wherein CO₂ associated with biomass-derived feedstocks is inherently biogenic.
Foody does not expressly disclose anaerobic digestion and digestate processing.
Lehoux teaches anaerobic digestion producing biogas and digestate and processing the digestate including combustion to generate CO₂-containing flue gas (¶[0216]; Figs. 4–5).
Antonini et al. teach biomethane-derived reforming systems in which CO₂ is generated in both syngas and flue gas streams (p. 2971–2972; Fig. 1), captured from multiple process locations including syngas and flue gas (p. 2972–2973), and provided for permanent geological storage (p. 2973), thereby reducing lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions and carbon intensity, including achieving net-negative emissions when biogenic CO₂ is captured and stored (p. 2974–2976).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Foody to utilize biomethane produced via anaerobic digestion and digestate processing as taught by Lehoux and to capture CO₂ from multiple biomass-derived process stages and provide the captured CO₂ for substantially permanent storage as taught by Antonini et al. in order to further reduce greenhouse gas emissions and carbon intensity, since increasing capture and storage of CO₂ from known process streams predictably reduces lifecycle emissions.
Claims 29–35
Foody teaches producing fuels and fuel intermediates from hydrogen and/or syngas components (CO and/or CO₂), including hydrocarbons, alcohols, and other products (Foody, col. 6, lines 10–55; col. 8, lines 20–60). Use of hydrogen with CO and/or CO₂ in downstream synthesis (e.g., Fischer–Tropsch, alcohol synthesis) is well known.
Claim 36
Lehoux teaches processing digestate and handling residue streams prior to combustion (Lehoux ¶[0216]). Separation of solids and liquids prior to combustion is a well-known and routine step to improve combustion efficiency.
Claims 37–38
Foody teaches that carbon capture and storage reduces lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions and carbon intensity (Foody, col. 2, line 63 – col. 3, line 14; col. 24, lines 10–12). The degree of carbon intensity reduction, including low or negative values, is a result-effective variable that would have been optimized by one of ordinary skill in the art (In re Aller).
Claims 39 and 41
Lehoux teaches combustion of digestate producing flue gas comprising carbon dioxide (Lehoux ¶[0216]). Foody teaches capturing carbon dioxide from flue gas for CCS (Foody, col. 10, lines 5–30; col. 18, lines 31–42).
Claim 40
Foody teaches biomass feedstocks including agricultural residues (Foody, col. 4, lines 15–40).
Claim 42
Lehoux teaches processing biomass residues via thermal and chemical conversion processes (Lehoux ¶[0216]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the process of Lehoux by utilizing a wet oxidation because wet oxidation is a known alternative processing method.
Claim 43
Foody teaches methane reforming (including SMR) producing flue gas and capturing carbon dioxide from flue gas streams (Foody, col. 7, lines 10–45; col. 10, lines 5–30). Selection of flue gas as the capture source represents a known alternative.
Claim 44
Foody teaches using methane-containing streams both as feedstock and as fuel for reforming heat (Foody, col. 7, lines 30–60).
Claims 45–46
Obvious for the same reasons as claims 28-35.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that the cited combination fails to teach or suggest (i) capturing biogenic carbon dioxide from the claimed process stages, (ii) providing such carbon dioxide for substantially permanent storage, (iii) a multi-tier carbon capture and storage (CCS) system, and (iv) reduction of carbon intensity (CI) as recited. Applicant further contends that modifying Foody to store carbon dioxide would render Foody inoperable for its intended purpose. These arguments are not persuasive. Foody expressly teaches systems utilizing biomass-derived (non-fossil) feedstocks (Foody, col. 3–5), such that carbon dioxide generated within the process is inherently biogenic. Foody further teaches capturing carbon dioxide from multiple process streams, including reforming-related streams such as syngas and flue gas, and providing the captured carbon dioxide for CCS, including geological sequestration, in order to reduce lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions and carbon intensity (Foody, col. 2, line 63 – col. 3, line 14; col. 18, lines 31–42; col. 24, lines 10–12). Thus, Foody establishes that carbon dioxide associated with biomass-derived systems may be captured and stored to achieve CI reduction.
While Foody does not expressly disclose digestate processing, Lehoux teaches anaerobic digestion producing digestate and combustion of at least a portion of the digestate to generate carbon dioxide-containing flue gas (Lehoux ¶[0216]). The combination therefore provides multiple biomass-derived carbon dioxide sources, including (i) biogas upgrading streams, (ii) digestate processing streams, and (iii) methane reforming streams.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to capture carbon dioxide from these multiple biomass-derived process stages and to provide the captured carbon dioxide for substantially permanent storage within Foody’s CCS system in order to further reduce greenhouse gas emissions and carbon intensity, since increasing the amount of carbon dioxide captured and stored predictably results in greater emission reduction. The claimed multi-tier CCS arrangement thus represents the predictable application of Foody’s CCS framework to multiple known carbon dioxide sources, as supplemented by Lehoux.
Applicant’s argument that the proposed modification would render Foody inoperable is not persuasive. Foody expressly identifies reduction of greenhouse gas emissions and carbon intensity through CCS as a primary objective (Foody, col. 2, line 63 – col. 3, line 14). Although Foody discloses embodiments in which carbon dioxide may be reused, Foody does not require reuse in all embodiments. The selection of directing carbon dioxide to storage rather than reuse represents a design choice within Foody’s system depending on the desired balance between product yield and emissions reduction. Applying CCS, including substantially permanent storage, to additional biomass-derived carbon dioxide streams therefore furthers Foody’s stated purpose rather than defeating it.
Accordingly, the combination of Foody and Lehoux teaches or renders obvious the claimed invention, including capturing biogenic carbon dioxide from multiple process stages and providing the captured carbon dioxide for substantially permanent storage as part of a multi-tier CCS process to reduce carbon intensity. The rejection is therefore maintained.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAM M NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1452. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Frid.
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 C Singh can be reached at 571-273-6381. 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.
/TAM M NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771
Prosecution Insights