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 .
Summary
This is the initial Office action based on application 18677992 filed 5/30/24.
Claims 1-27 are pending and have been fully considered.
Information Disclosure Statement
IDS filed on 12/18/24, 11/18/24, 10/2/24, 9/18/24, 9/5/24, 8/9/24, 7/23/24, and 5/30/24 have been considered by the examiner and copies of the Form PTO/SB/08 are attached to the office action.
Drawings
The Drawings filed on 5/30/24 are acknowledged and accepted by the examiner.
Specification
The Specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification. MPEP § 608.01
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 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 of this title, 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 1-27 are rejected under 103(a) as being obvious over LYUBOVSKY ET AL. (US PG PUB 20220267810; filed 2/2021) in its entirety. Hereby referred to as LYUBOVSKY.
Regarding claims 1-27:
LYUBOVSKY teaches in the abstract that the invention relates to a method for reduction of the carbon intensity of an ethanol production process by utilizing waste heat from a co-located water electrolysis system for heating duty of the ethanol plant; using oxygen (O2) produced by the water electrolysis system for oxy-combustion of hydrocarbon fuel to produce the required thermal energy; and capturing carbon dioxide (CO2) from the fermentation process and from the oxy-combustion process, combining it with hydrogen (H2) produced by electrolysis, to produce additional hydrocarbon fuels and durable chemicals.
LYUBOVSKY teaches in para [0051] The method of this invention provides for reduction of carbon intensity of an ethanol plant by: 1) substituting heat produced by combustion of hydrocarbon fuels with the waste heat produced by a water electrolysis system; 2) utilizing oxygen produced by the water electrolysis system for oxycombustion of the hydrocarbon fuel to produce additional heat; and 3) capturing CO2 emitted by the fermentation process and the oxycombustion process and combining it with the hydrogen produced by water electrolysis in a hydrocarbon synthesis reactor to produce a renewable liquid hydrocarbon product.
LYUBOVSKY teaches in para [0052] Referring to FIG. 1 of the first embodiment of the method of this invention comprises the following. Locating at least one electrolysis system 10 which utilizes water 12 and a low-carbon electric power source 11 to produce hydrogen 14 and oxygen 15 in close proximity of the ethanol plant 20, which converts the carbohydrate feed stream 21 into ethanol 26; placing the water electrolysis systems 10 in close proximity to the ethanol plant 20; and utilizing at least a part of the waste heat 113 from the water electrolysis systems 10 to provide at least part of the heating duty of the ethanol plant 20. The term “locating” means to build, construct, or otherwise situate in a particular place. The term “close proximity” means within a short distance where it is feasible to send streams back and forth between the ethanol plant and the electrolysis system. A distance of less than one mile is considered close proximity.
LYUBOVSKY teaches in para [0053] Low-carbon electric power 11 can be supplied by (1) the electricity grid in the region if it has a high penetration of renewable or nuclear based energy supplying it or (2) by directly connecting to renewable energy sources. The carbon intensity of the low-carbon electric supply will be lower than the carbon intensity of natural gas (NG) combustion, commonly used for providing heat for the ethanol plant, which is about 200 kg CO2/MWh. Preferably, the low-carbon electric energy 11 is supplied by directly connecting the water electrolysis system 10 to a carbon free renewable power system, such as wind farm, solar panels or other known types.
LYUBOVSKY teaches in para [0054] The water electrolysis systems 10 can be of any known type. Three water electrolysis technologies are currently available—alkaline electrolysis, proton exchange membrane electrolysis (PEM) and Solid Oxide electrolysis (SOEC). The system properties and operating conditions for these water electrolysis technologies are well known in the art and are described in multiple publications. The particular water electrolysis technology selected for integration with a specific application will be determined, in part, based on the temperature requirements of the ethanol plant 20 and the intermittency of the low-carbon electric energy supply 11. Alkaline electrolysis is the most mature technology. It operates in the temperature range between 60 to 90° C. and can be started and stopped rapidly in response to variations in the intermittent supply of renewable energy. PEM electrolysis systems in the megawatt power range are commercially available from several manufacturers. PEM electrolysis operates in the temperature range between 60 to 80° C. PEM systems can also be started and stopped rapidly and, therefore, can be integrated with intermittent renewable power systems. SOEC electrolysis systems operate at much higher temperatures, between 600 to 900° C., have higher energy efficiency per unit of hydrogen production and can provide waste heat of higher quality than other electrolysis technologies. SOFC system, though, are not as mature as PEM and alkaline technologies, and require much longer times for starting and stopping. Considering the last point, they are not well suited to the intermittency of renewable energy. Thus, they should only be used with continuous low-carbon electric energy supplied by a low-carbon based electricity grid.
LYUBOVSKY teaches in para [0056] The ethanol plant 20, can be any type of a known fermentation process, which utilizes carbohydrate feed to produce a fermentation product with CO2 as a by-product, and requires process heat input at different stages of the process. Wet mill and dry mill ethanol plants are the most common example of commercial ethanol plants in the USA.
LYUBOVSKY teaches in para [0065] Carbon Intensity can be calculated by a number of methods. Argonne National Labs has developed the GREET Model to calculate carbon intensities of fuels produced by various processes. The California Air Resources Board has developed a specific version of the GREET model and all low carbon fuels sold in the state receive a Carbon Intensity score from that model. Specifically, the California GREET model referred to in this application is the CA_GREET 3.0 model that was adopted by the Air Resources Board in September 2018. The current approved ethanol fuel pathways from corn or corn kernels via fermentation have a range of carbon intensities from 53 to 85. Ethanol produced by the processes described here have carbon intensities preferably lower than 50, more preferably less than 40, and even more preferably less than 30.
From the teachings of the references it is apparent that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in producing the claimed invention. Therefore, the invention as a whole was prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, as evidenced by the references, especially in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
Furthermore, "The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results." KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,416 (2007). "If a person of ordinary skill can implement a predictable variation, § 103 likely bars its patentability." Id. at 417.
“Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties.” A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical product, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Also see in re Papesch, 315 F.2d 381, 391, 137 USPQ 43, 51 (CCPA 1963) (“From the standpoint of patent law, a compound and all its properties are inseparable.”).
Finally, it has been held that obviousness is not rebutted by merely recognizing additional advantages or latent properties present in the prior art process and composition. Further, the fact that applicant has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd.Pat. App. & Inter. 1985). Thereby meeting the claim limitations.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHANTEL GRAHAM whose telephone number is (571)270-5563. The examiner can normally be reached on M-TH 9:00 am - 7:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, 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 on 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 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://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have 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 Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CHANTEL L GRAHAM/
Examiner, Art Unit 1771
/ELLEN M MCAVOY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771