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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 5/24/2024 has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 3 and 4 are objected to because of the following informalities:
(i) Claim 3 (line 2) recites “holes sizes”. It is respectfully suggested to amend the limitation to “hole sizes.”
(ii) Claim 4 (line 2) recites “holes or opening sized”. It is respectfully suggested to amend the limitation to “holes or openings sized”
Appropriate correction is required.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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, 5, 10-13, 15, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatented over Juranitch (US 2011/0288185 A1, hereinafter as “Juranitch”) in view of Junaedi et al., (US 2014/0178270 A1, hereinafter as “Junaedi”).
Regarding claim 1, Juranitch teaches a method and system for converting waste using plasma into methane, including a solid-waste processing chamber, plasma heating, hydrogen-rich gas generation, carbon dioxide handling, and downstream Sabatier reactor (The Sabatier process is known process to produce water and methane through a reaction of hydrogen and carbon dioxide) (Abstract; ¶¶ [0030-00341]).
Juranitch teaches the water generation system comprising:
plasma melter 112 receiving municipal waste or biomass 110 for thermal processing (Fig.1, ¶¶ [0035-0040]), which meets the limitation, “a first stage defining a processing chamber;”
an electrical power 116 supplied to plasma melter 112 to facilitate plasma/thermal processing (Fig.1, ¶¶ [0035-0040]), which meets the limitation, “a heating element operably coupled to the first stage;”
a plasma melter 112 operating in pyrolysis mode in municipal waste/biomass 110 to produce hydrogen-rich syngas 118 (Fig. 1, ¶¶ [0035-0037]). Plasma pyrolysis/gasification necessarily reaches temperatures above 350oC to convert waste to syngas as evidenced by Bhatt et al., (A critical review on solid waste treatment using plasma pyrolysis technology, Chemical Engineering and Processing - Process Intensification, 2022, 177, 108989, pp. 1-17; p. 8, left column, 3.2.5 Biomass, first paragraph, lines 1-15) which meets the limitation, “configured to cause a temperature of the processing chamber to reach at least 350 ºC to perform a gasification operation on solid waste deposited within the processing chamber to release gaseous hydrogen”.
hydrogen and CO2 routed to Sabatier reactor 128 for methane production (Fig. 1, ¶¶ [0035-0038]) which meet the limitation, “a second stage defining a reaction chamber”.
But Juranitch does not explicitly disclose “a reaction chamber that includes a reacting catalyst arranged within the reaction chamber, the reacting catalyst configured to catalyze gaseous hydrogen released from the solid waste and carbon dioxide to generate methane and water.
However, Junaedi teaches catalyst bed Sabatier for an efficient conversion of carbon dioxide (CO2) and hydrogen (H2) into methane and water (Abstract; ¶¶ [0036-0038])
Juranitch and Junaedi are analogous art because both addresses hydrogen/carbon dioxide gas conversion to methane using Sabatier-type processing.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Juranitch’s Sabatier reactor with Junaedi’s catalyst bed Sabatier reactor to address the feature of the methane generation system of Juranitch is also a water generation system because such modification and emphasis provides the benefit of predictable catalytic conversion and production of water and methane with improved conversion and selectivity (Junaedi: ¶¶ [0038).
In regard to claim 5, Juranitch discloses pretreatment/separation step 120, water-gas shift reaction 122, and process step 112, and Sabatier reactor 128 (intermediate gas-transfer/processing stage) (Fig.1, ¶¶ [0035, 0037]).
In regard to claim 10, Junaedi teaches Sabatier catalysts including ruthenium on gamma alumina and rhodium catalysts (Ru/Rh catalyst on alumina support) (¶¶ [0009,0048, 0053]).
In regard to claim 11, Junaedi teaches carbon dioxide from an ambient environment including CO2 in space (¶ [0005]).
In regard to claim 12, Juranitch teaches municipal waste, municipal solid waste, or biomass 110 as feed to plasma melter 112 (Fig.1, ¶¶ [0024, 0035]).
In regard to claim 13, Juranitch teaches plasma melter 112 operated in pyrolysis mode using electrical power 116 to facilitate plasma production (plasma heating element/plasma torch heating) (Fig.1, ¶ [0035]).
In regard to claim 15, Juranitch teaches plasma melter 112 as a first waste-processing stage and Sabatier reactor 128 as a downstream reaction stage in methane-producing system 100 (first stage and downstream second stage in an integrated housing/system arrangement) (Fig. 1, ¶¶ [0035-0038]). Locating the stages at opposite ends of a housing would have been an obvious compact reactor-packaging arrangement.
In regard to claim 20, Juranitch electrical power 116 delivered to plasma melter 112 (electrical power source connected to plasma heating element) (Fig.1, ¶ [0035]).
Claims 2, 3, 4 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatented over Juranitch in view of Junaedi, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Shah (US 11,851,617 B2, hereinafter as “Shah”).
In regard to claim 2, Juranitch teaches a methane-producing system using municipal waste or biomass in a plasma melter (Abstract; Fig. 1, ¶¶ [0035-0041]) and Junaedi teaches catalyst bed Sabatier conversion of CO2 and H2 into methane and water to generate water and methane (Abstract; ¶¶ [0036-0038]).
But Junanitch and Junaedi do not disclose the processing chamber that is defined between a first perforated plate and a second perforated plate, wherein the second perforated plate is arranged between the processing chamber and the reaction chamber in a flow direction of the gaseous hydrogen.
However, Shah teaches a pyrolysis chamber 31 and gas reactor 34 separated by a first partition 35 having apertures 41 providing fluid communication from the pyrolysis chamber to the gas reactor (perforated plate/partition between processing chamber and reaction chamber in gas flown direction) (Abstract; Fig. 2, col. 9, lines 35-49).
Shah is analogous art to Juranitch, Junaedi because Sha addresses pyrolysis reactor-stage separation, apertured has transfer, and carbonaceous-product discharge, which are reasonably pertinent to separating solids from hydrogen-containing gas before downstream catalytic methanation.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the modified water-generation system taught by Juranitch in view of Junaedi with Shah’s apertured partition because this allows maintaining stage separation while allowing gas transfer and removing carbonaceous byproduct (Shah: col. 9, lines 22-26).
In regard to claim 3, Shah teaches apertures through which pyrolysis gas flows from the pyrolysis chamber to the gas reactor (aperture sized for gas passage) (Fig. 2, col. 9, lines 35-49) and Juranitch teaches syngas pretreatment/cleaning/separation step 120 before downstream processing (particulate gas clean up before processing) (Fig.1, ¶¶ [0035, 0037]). It would have been obvious to size apertures or include filtering structure to permit hydrogen containing gas passage while reducing particulate carryover.
In regard to claim 4, Shah teaches producing a solid carbonaceous pyrolysis product and discharging it though product outlet 44 from pyrolysis chamber 31 (opening/outlet sized for carbonaceous byproduct discharge) (Fig. 2, col. 9, lines 54-61).
In regard to claim 9, Shah teaches catalyst use in gas reactor receiving pyrolysis gas, including catalyst for carbon deposition from pyrolysis gas (processing/gas-reaction catalyst in a pyrolysis-gas processing zone) (col. 3 lines 59-65; col. 5, lines 40-43). It would have been obvious to include catalyst in the processing/gas-reaction zone to promote gas conversion reactions.
Claim 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatented over Juranitch in view of Junaedi, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hanson et al., (US 5,977,421, hereinafter as “Hanson”).
In regard to claim 14, Juranitch teaches a methane-producing system using municipal waste or biomass in a plasma melter (Abstract; Fig. 1, ¶¶ [0035-0041]) and Junaedi teaches catalyst bed Sabatier conversion of CO2 and H2 into methane and water to generate water and methane (Abstract; ¶¶ [0036-0038]).
But Juranitch and Junaedi do not teach the heating element comprises at least one heating coil operably and thermally connected to a housing of the first stage.
However, Hanson teaches an oven design pyrolysis which permits rapid expansion of the isoprene gas away from the high temperature reactor region of the oven to a cooler region where the gas forms limonene and condenses (Abstract). Hanson discloses cylindrical housing 44 and heater coil 42 located in the housing for heating scrap tire pieces to pyrolysis temperature, with the coil heated above 400oC (heating coil thermally connected to reactor housing for pyrolysis) (Fig. 1, col. 7, lines 18-50).
Hanson is analogous art to Juranitch, Junaedi because Hanson addresses heating carbonaceous waste in a reactor housing using an internal heating coil to reach pyrolysis temperatures, which is reasonably pertinent to hearing a solid-waste processing chamber.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the modified Juranitch in view of Junaedi’s water generation system with a heating coil configuration taught by Hanson because a heating coil in a reactor housing for heating carbonaceous waste to pyrolysis temperature enables enhanced and easy separation of the solid, liquid and gas phases produced during pyrolysis (Hanson: Abstract).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatented over Juranitch in view of Junaedi, as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Cherish et al., (US 4,282,010, hereinafter as “Cherish”).
In regard to claim 6, Juranitch teaches a methane-producing system using municipal waste or biomass in a plasma melter (Abstract; Fig. 1, ¶¶ [0035-0041])) and Junaedi teaches catalyst bed Sabatier conversion of CO2 and H2 into methane and water to generate water and methane (Abstract; ¶¶ [0036-0038]).
But Junanitch and Junaedi do not disclose the transfer stage comprises: an inner housing; and an outer housing, wherein the solid waste is deposited into the first stage through an interior of the inner housing and the gaseous hydrogen travels from the first stage to the second stage through an annular passage defined between the inner housing and the outer housing.
However, Cherish teaches A coaxial feed system for fluidized bed coal gasification
processes including an inner tube for injecting particulate combustibles into a transport gas, an inner annulus about the inner tube for injecting an oxidizing gas, and an outer annulus about the inner annulus for transporting a fluidizing and cooling gas (Abstract). Cherish discloses a feed system for bed coal gasification processes comprising an inner tube 28 transporting solid combustibles, intermediate tube 30 surrounding inner tube 28 to form outer annulus 36 for gas flow (inner housing/feed tube, outer housing and annular gas passage) (Fig. 2, col. 3, lines 25-48).
Cherish is analogous art to Juranitch, Junaedi because Cherish addresses gasification reactor feed and gas-routing architecture using concentric tubes and annular passages which are reasonably pertinent to routing solid feed and hydrogen containing gas in an integrated gasification/methanation system.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use Cherish’s coaxial feed/gas routing structure in Juranitch in view of Junaedi’s teachings of the water generating system to feed solid waste inwardly while routing gas through an annular passage because the concentric feed-tube and annular gas passage structures in a gasification reactor provides provide separate flow rate control of each of the three input mediums such as steam or air, allowing adjustment to the optimum conditions for each reactor (col 4, lines 39-42).
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatented over Juranitch in view of Junaedi and Cherish, as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Klepper (US 6,863,878 B2, hereinafter as “Klepper”)
In regard to claim 7, Juranitch teaches a methane-producing system using municipal waste or biomass in a plasma melter (Abstract; Fig. 1, ¶¶ [0035-0041]) and Junaedi teaches catalyst bed Sabatier conversion of CO2 and H2 into methane and water to generate water and methane (Abstract; ¶¶ [0036-0038]). Cherish teaches inner tube transporting solid combustibles, intermediate tube surrounding inner tube to form outer annulus for gas flow (Fig. 2, col. 3, lines 25-48).
But Juranitch, Junaedi and Cherish do not teach delivery mechanism is arranged within the inner housing and configured to assist depositing the solid waste into the first stage.
However, Klepper teaches internal auger 50 for moving feed material through devolatilization reactions chambers 14 (delivery mechanism within feed passage assisting solid feed delivery) (AbstractFig.1, col. 2, lines 6-32).
Klepper is analogous art to Juranitch, Junaedi and Cherish because Klepper addresses controlled delivery of carbonaceous material into high-temperature devolatilization/gasification reactors using augers and one-way sealed valves, which is reasonably pertinent to feeding solid waste through a feed tube.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to place Klepper’s auger in the modified Juranitch in view of Junaedi’s water generating system with Cherish’s inner feed tube of the coaxial feed system for fluidized bed coal gasification processes as set forth above, because auger feeding and one way sealed valves for carbonaceous material entering high temperature reaction sections provide high purity syn gas and avoids production of slag (Klepper: Abstract).
In regard to claim 8, Klepper teaches augers 50 and feed valve 52 driven by motor through chain 56 and sprocket 57-61 (motor driven screw/auger feeder) (Fig.1, col. 2, lines 24-31).
Claims 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatented over Juranitch in view of Junaedi, as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Cherish.
In regard to claim 16, Cherish teaches feed tubes extending into a gasification reactor including inner tube 28 for transporting solid combustibles and transport gas (feed tube extending from inlet into reactor/processing chamber) (Abstract; Fig. 2, col. 3, lines 25-48).
In regard to claim 17, Cherish teaches a coaxial feed system for bed coal gasification processes comprising inner tube 28, intermediate tube 30, and outer tube 32, arranged concentrically to form annular passage 34 and 36 around the inner tube (annular gas passage between feed tube exterior and surrounding housing/tube interior that defines the transfer stage) (Fig. 2, col. 3, lines 25-48).
Claims 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatented over Juranitch in view of Junaedi and Cherish, as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Klepper
In regard to claim 18, Klepper teaches internal auger 50 in reaction chambers and motor driven operation (screw/auger feeder arranged within the feed path) (Fig.1, col. 2, lines 24-31). It would have been obvious to arrange Klepper’s auger in Cherish’s feed tube to convey solid waste into the processing chamber.
In regard to claim 19, Klepper teaches sealed valve 52 between the feed hopper 12 and first devolatilization section, the valve being one-way sealed valve/rotating cup that directs feed material into the devolatilization section (one-way feed valve selectively depositing solid feed into processing chamber) (Fig.1, col. 2, lines 12-32).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communication from the examiner Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communication from the examiner should be directed to Wilson Mendoza whose telephone number is (571) 272-8443. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Friday from 9:00 AM until 5:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, an applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview request at http://www.uspto.gov.intwerviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, In Suk Bullock can be reached on 571-272-5954. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or processing is assigned is 571-273-8300.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, In Suk Bullock can be reached on 571-272-5954. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or processing 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 PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have any questions on access to the private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Serv ice Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/WILSON GALLARDO MENDOZA/Examiner, Art Unit 1772
/YOUNGSUL JEONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1772
Prosecution Insights