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 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 1-4 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 as to what ‘low carbon intensity hydrogen in a net-zero’ means in claim 1- and the similar limitation in claim 3-, given that gasifiers use electricity and thus generate greenhouse gases. Specification paragraphs 21-36 do not clearly elaborate on this; it is not clear why in specification para 23 cutting down trees and burning them ‘do not contribute to atmospheric [CO2] emissions’, even before taking into account the CO2 emissions of the power plant generating the electricity used to power the oven which provides the heat needed for the pyrolysis. The document of specification para 21 (or relevant portions thereof) should be submitted.
Paragraph 26 contrasts production of blue versus gray hydrogen, but overlooks the fact that blue hydrogen is so named because it includes a CCS step. Therefore, the actual production of hydrogen is not relevant to the distinction.
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.
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.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Best et al. 20240246813.
Best teaches, especially in paras 7-12, 32-42 and fig. 1 elements 105, 202, 212, making syngas from hydrocarbons and reforming biomass to make syngas. While the ratio of the effluent streams is not taught, the biomass is implied as supplemental and thus the ratio is obvious as a matter of optimization; see para 44.
While the process is lower footprint than claimed, the performance characteristic of claim 3 does not limit an apparatus and claim 2 is obvious to attain the desired amount of carbon credits. Table 2 teaches a value of 0.45, rendering the claimed value obvious.
For claim 3, a shift reactor is taught in para 11 and CO2 capture is extensively discussed. PSA is taught in para 42.
For claim 4, the systems are linked together, thus using a common power source is obvious, noting the comments above.
Arriving at the claimed carbon intensity is obvious to reduce greenhouse gases.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fiato 20090286889.
Fiato teaches, especially in fig. 1 and paras 7-10, coal, biomass and natural gas parallel units making syngas, combining the streams and further processing. The CO2 is sequestered in the urea made.
This does not teach the ratios of the two syngas streams, however para 14 suggests minimizing the amount of biomass, thus rendering the claimed ratio obvious.
For claim 2, para 7 teaches low greenhouse gas emissions.
For claim 3, see para 19 for PSA and shift reactions to process the effluent.
For claim 4, the systems are linked together, thus using a common power source is obvious, noting the comments above.
Arriving at the claimed carbon intensity is obvious to reduce greenhouse gases.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jack et al. 10287508.
Jack teaches, especially in fig. 2 and columns 2-4 and 7, parallel process units of biomass and natural gas to make syngas and combining the streams.
This does not teach the ratios of the two syngas streams, however col. 6 lines 30-45 teach control of the amounts of the streams, rendering the claims obvious.
For claim 2, arriving at the claimed carbon intensity is obvious to reduce greenhouse gases.
For claim 3, PSA to purify H2 is shown. See also col. 8. Column 21 teaches a shift reaction.
For claim 4, the systems are linked together, thus using a common power source is obvious, noting the comments above.
State of the art:
Madigan 20240141242 para 123 is noted.
Sorensen para 36 is noted.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STUART L HENDRICKSON whose telephone number is (571)272-1351. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 9 to 5. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Anthony Zimmer, can be reached on 571-270-3591. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/STUART L HENDRICKSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1736
