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 .
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.
Specification
The specification and drawings have been reviewed and no clear informalities or objections have been noted.
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.
Claim 10 is 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.
In claim 10, Applicant claims “the process”. This term lacks antecedent basis rendering the claim indefinite. Clarification is required.
In claim 10, Applicant claims that the third aqueous flow is drawn from a main water supply and then recites “subjecting said main water supply to electrolysis”. The specification actually teaches dividing the supply: part is used as the third aqueous flow and another portion is routed to electrolysis (see paragraph 22 and 76 of the instant published application). As claimed, the entire water supply is electrolyzed which renders the claim indefinite as it is not clear how the claimed water supply can be entirely electrolyzed and still be mixed in aqueous form with the second aqueous supply, as claimed. Clarification is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 7, 12 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ampulski (US 2013/0247448).
Regarding claims 1 and 15, Ampulski discloses a method for converting organic waste and/or biological waste into combustible products, comprising:
feeding a first flow including organic waste and/or biological waste (see Fig. 1 which illustrates a biomass feed stream),
performing a pyrolysis (see torrefaction unit 112 in Fig. 1 and see paragraph 16 which discloses pyrolyzation occurring in the torrefaction unit 112) of said first flow to obtain one or more liquid pyrolysis products (termed condensable, see Fig. 1), one or more gaseous pyrolysis products (termed non-condensables, see Fig. 1), and one or more solid pyrolysis products (char exiting the torrefaction reactor 112 in Fig. 1),
mixing said one or more solid pyrolysis products with a first aqueous flow, and subjecting the mixture to oxidation to obtain oxidation products (such as the gasification process occurring in gasifier 114 and see paragraph 16 that teaches that the gasifier combines steam/water with the char to produce a syngas or oxidation product),
taking a first gaseous flow from said oxidation products (such as the syngas exiting the gasifier 114 in Fig. 1),
subjecting said one or more gaseous pyrolysis products to reforming, thereby obtaining one or more reforming products (see paragraph 20 which discloses reacting the non-condensable gases from the torrefaction/pyrolysis reactor 112 with steam/oxygen to produce a syngas which is produced via a reformation process),
taking a second gaseous flow from said reforming products (second gaseous flow is the flow of syngas produced in the reformer 116), and
subjecting said first gaseous flow and said second gaseous flow to catalytic hydrogenation to obtain at least one first combustible (such as the methanol synthesis reaction that converts the syngas of the first and second flow into methanol via a hydrogenation reaction).
Regarding claim 3, Ampulski further discloses subjecting said one or more liquid pyrolysis products to hydrogenation to obtain a second combustible, including diesel oil (see paragraph 40 which discloses utilizing the disclosed process to produce diesel or gasoline).
Regarding claim 7, Ampulski further discloses reforming comprises one of: steam reforming, catalytic gasification, supercritical water gasification, and partial oxidation (see paragraph 20 which discloses combining steam and oxygen with the feed stream which will produce steam reforming and partial oxidation reactions).
Regarding claim 12, Ampulski further discloses said first gaseous flow comprises carbon dioxide (paragraph 25).
Regarding claim 13, Ampulski further discloses said second gaseous flow comprises carbon dioxide and hydrogen (see paragraph 20 which discloses the presence of both CO2 and H2 in the stream exiting the catalytic converter/reformer 116).
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.
Claim(s) 2 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ampulski (US 2013/0247448) in view of Marrella (US 7,553,476).
Regarding claim 2, Ampulski teaches combining the char produced in the torrefaction/pyrolysis reactor with water to produce a gasification feed stream but is silent as to where this water comes from. In addition, Ampulski does not teach taking an aqueous flow from the reformer product.
Marrella also discloses a reformer (see abstract).
Marrella teaches a reformer (16) that, like Ampulski, reforms a carbonaceous material to produce a synthesis gas (see abstract and col. 2 lines 17-23). Marrella teaches that in the reformation process the produced gas stream contains water which can be condensed and utilized as a water source for other processes in the system (see col. 2 lines 23-44 which discloses that water condensed in the reformate stream is recycled back to the reformer or for heat exchange).
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention add the condensation and recycling steps of Marrella to the process of Ampulski as such a modification would remove water from the reformed gas stream of Ampulski (thus producing a second aqueous flow stream) such that it could be recycled as the water source for the gasification step. Such a modification would be favorable to one of ordinary skill in the art as it would reduce the need for external water for the gasification step.
Regarding claim 9, Ampulski, as modified above, further discloses feeding a third aqueous flow to mixing with said one or more solid pyrolysis products, whereby said first aqueous flow comprises said second aqueous flow and said third aqueous flow (Ampulski, as modified above, teaches a second water supply (as modified by Marrella) to the gasification feed stream along with a source of water that is supplied and disclosed by Ampulski (this is the third aqueous feed stream and described in paragraph 16 of Ampulski which teaches a water/steam source).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ampulski (US 2013/0247448) in view of Brucato (US 2018/0117561).
Regarding claim 4, Ampulski teaches gasification/oxidation of the char from the pyrolysis/torrefaction reaction (as disclosed above), but is silent regarding the specific type of gasification/oxidation that occurs. More specifically, Ampulski does not teach said oxidation comprises a supercritical water oxidation.
Brucato also discloses a plant for processing biomass (see paragraph 58 which discloses several feedstocks for the disclosed process, including biomass and char from a pyrolysis plant, similar to that produced in Ampulski).
Brucato teaches a gasifier (SCWG reactor as depicted in Fig. 1) which is fed water (as described in paragraph 121) and, like Ampulski, char from a pyrolysis process (see paragraph 58 which discloses one of the feeds is a char product from a pyrolysis process). Brucato teaches that the gasifier is operated as a SCWG (super critical water gasification/oxidation) and teaches such a process because it provides more complete conversion with fewer byproducts and a high-pressure syngas suitable for downstream processes (paragraphs 104 and 105).
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to utilize the supercritical water oxidation/gasification of Brucato in the gasification step of Ampulski to provide more complete conversion with fewer byproducts and a high-pressure syngas suitable for downstream processes.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ampulski (US 2013/0247448) in view of Mealey (US 6,658,893).
Regarding claim 6, Ampulski teaches the presence of propane in the gaseous pyrolysis products (paragraph 25) but does not teach separating the propane from the gaseous stream to produce an LPG stream.
Mealey also discloses the production of hydrocarbon gases (see abstract).
Mealey teaches the process of removing propane from a stream in the interest of producing an LPG stream to be sold (see abstract for propane separation and see Background of the Invention that discusses favorable markets for propane/LPG).
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to remove the propane of the gaseous stream of modified Ampulski, as suggested by Mealey, in order to sell an LPG stream.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ampulski (US 2013/0247448) in view of Mealey (US 6,658,893).
Regarding claim 8, Ampulski teaches steam reforming in the catalytic converter 116 (as discussed above) and also teaches a Fischer Tropsch reactor in the hydrogenation section (see paragraph 40). Ampulski, however, does not teach steam from the hydrogenation section is sent to the reformer.
Clark also discloses a gasification system (see abstract).
Clark, like Ampulski, teaches a reformer (140) that requires a steam inlet (as depicted in Fig. 1C) as well as a Fischer Tropsch reactor (144). Clark goes on to teach that the Fischer Tropsch reactor/hydrogenation reactor comprises a catalyst (paragraph 24) and teaches that the exothermic nature of the Fischer Tropsch reaction generates heat that can be captured by producing steam (as depicted in FT reactor 140 in Fig. 1C). Clark goes on to teach that this produced steam can be recycled back as the steam input for the reforming reactor (paragraph 25 which states that the steam generated in the FT reactor can be used elsewhere in the process including the reformer).
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to utilize the steam produced in the FT reactor/hydrogenation reactor of Ampulski in the reformer of Ampulski, as suggested by Clark. Such a modification would reduce the need for external steam to be brought into the system for the reformer increasing the thermal efficiency of the process.
Claim(s) 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ampulski (US 2013/0247448) in view of Marrella (US 7,553,476) and further in view of Clark (US 2008/0275278).
Regarding claims 10-11, Ampulski teaches supplying the gasifier with a third aqueous stream (steam/water that is described in paragraph 16) that is taken from a main water supply (this vague term can be interpreted in several ways, including the source of the water in paragraph 16 of Ampulski). Ampulski, however, does not teach electrolyzing a water supply to produce an oxygen stream which is supplied to the oxidation/gasification process.
Clark also discloses a gasification system (see abstract).
Clark, like Ampulski, teaches an oxidation/gasification reactor (10) that is provided with a stream of oxygen (22) to gasify a carbonaceous feedstock (21, see paragraph 33). Clark goes on to teach an electrolyzer (150) that electrolyzes a water source to produce an oxygen stream and a hydrogen stream where the oxygen stream is sent to the gasifier/Primary combustion chamber (10) to act as an oxidizing agent (paragraph 45). Clark teaches sending pure oxygen to the gasifier as utilizing pure oxygen rather than atmospheric air in order to facilitate autothermal operation as well as promoting the production of hydrogen and carbon monoxide (paragraph 40).
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to utilize and electrolyzer on the main water supply and produce a pure oxygen stream for the gasifier, as taught by Clark, in the process of modified Ampulski, in order to facilitate autothermal operation as well as promote the production of hydrogen and carbon monoxide.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ampulski (US 2013/0247448) in view of Wang (US 2004/0198845).
Regarding claim 14, Ampulski, as modified above, teaches a gas stream exiting the gasifier/oxidizer (or first gaseous stream) but is silent regarding the precise components of this stream or how it is treated prior to being sent to a methanol synthesis reactor. More specifically, Ampulski does not teach:
said first gaseous flow further comprises oxygen, the method further comprising subjecting said first gaseous flow to deoxygenation before being subjected to catalytic hydrogenation to obtain the at least one first combustible.
Wang also discloses a process comprising generation of syngas and Fischer Tropsch synthesis (see paragraph 62 and abstract).
Wang goes on to teach that the gas stream exiting the syngas generator (10) comprises residual oxygen (paragraph 66) and teaches that this oxygen is preferably removed in deoxygenation reactor (20) because oxygen is a poison to Fischer Tropsch reactors (paragraphs 11 and 62).
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to add the deoxygenation reactor of Wang to the process of modified Ampulski in order to remove oxygen which poisons Fischer Tropsch catalysts.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 5 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The closest prior art, Ampulski, teaches a gasifier which produces a hot exhaust gas and goes on to teach a reformer. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would not place the heat released by the gasifier to the heat input of the reformer because the reformer of Ampulski is exothermic and therefore does not require heat input. The prior art neither teaches nor suggests such a feature in addition to remainder of the claim limitations.
Relevant Prior Art
US 2011/0088320 A1 – Discloses pyrolyzing biomass into product gases, liquids/tars and char and uses recovered water as stream to reform the gases and tar and gasifies the char into syngas, which is supplied to a FT process, similar to the claimed invention.
US 2015/0126627 A1 – Discloses biomass gasification/pyrolysis where unconverted char is oxidized in a combustor where the gaseous product is reformed and then sent to a FT process, similar to the disclosed invention.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW J MERKLING whose telephone number is (571)272-9813. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8am-6pm.
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, Basia Ridley can be reached at 571-272-1453. 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.
/MATTHEW J MERKLING/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725
Prosecution Insights