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 11-23 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.
Claim 11 recites “a so-called ‘combustion’ residual gas flow”. Examiner respectfully submits the limitations “so-called” represent an indefinite scope, wherein someone of ordinary skill in the art would not be sure if “combustion” is part of the scope of the claim. Claims 12-23 depend on claim 11 and hence are also rejected.
Claim 11 recites “a so-called ‘depleted’ residual gas flow”. Examiner respectfully submits the limitations “so-called” represent an indefinite scope, wherein someone of ordinary skill in the art would not be sure if “depleted” is part of the scope of the claim.
Claim 15 recites “for example by liquification or compression”. Regarding claim 15 , the phrase "for example" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 15 recites “or instead 0.5% vol. of methane to be able to discharge the depleted flow into the atmosphere”. Regarding claim 15 , the phrase "or instead" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 16 recites “may be discharged to the atmosphere”. Examiner notes the limitations “may be” represent a limitation which is not positively set forth, and therefore the limitations “may be” are indefinite.
Claim 16 recites “or instead valorized to produce”. Regarding claim 16 , the phrase "or instead" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 16 recites “for example liquified carbon dioxide”. Regarding claim 16 , the phrase "for example" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 17 recites “may be discharged to the atmosphere”. Examiner notes the limitations “may be” represent a limitation which is not positively set forth, and therefore the limitations “may be” are indefinite.
Claim 17 recites “or instead valorized to produce”. Regarding claim 17 , the phrase "or instead" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 17 recites “for example liquified carbon dioxide”. Regarding claim 17 , the phrase "for example" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 18 recites “may be discharged to the atmosphere”. Examiner notes the limitations “may be” represent a limitation which is not positively set forth, and therefore the limitations “may be” are indefinite.
Claim 18 recites “or instead valorized to produce”. Regarding claim 18 , the phrase "or instead" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 18 recites “for example liquified carbon dioxide”. Regarding claim 18 , the phrase "for example" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 20 recites “a so-called ‘combustion’ residual gas flow”. Examiner respectfully submits the limitations “so-called” represent an indefinite scope, wherein someone of ordinary skill in the art would not be sure if “combustion” is part of the scope of the claim. Claims 12-23 depend on claim 11 and hence are also rejected.
Claim 23 recites “for example to liquify or compress it”. Regarding claim 23 , the phrase "for example" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
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.
Claims 11-13, 15-17, 19, 20, 22, 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by Ungerank et al(2015/0336046).
Ungerank et al in figure 1 teaches a purification unit constituted of three membrane stages(membrane stage 1 ,2, and 3) configured to receive an incoming flow of biogas(para 0001 stating “separation of gas mixtures, especially in the processing of biogas or natural gas”) and to separate said incoming flow of biogas(raw gas stream 17) received into: a flow of biomethane, containing at least 90% methane(retenate stream 8 in figure 1; noting table 1 para 0118 stating retenate stream 8 c(CH4)% showing at least 90% methane), a residual gas flow (second permeate stream 9a and 9b), the methane content of which is greater than 25%(para 0087 stating “the concentration of at least one permeate gas of said feed stream separation stage 1, after returning said second permeate stream 9b and said third retenate stream 10b, is raised in said feed stream 5, preferably by not less than 2%, more preferably by not less than 3% and even more preferably by 3 to 40%, all compared with the concentration of said raw gas stream 17”, wherein examiner notes an increase of concentration of 40% corresponds to a residual gas flow in second permeation stream 9a and 9b having a methane content of which is greater than 25%; also noting para 0102 stating “the gas separation membrane modules have a mixed gas selectivity of components A(CO2) and B(CH4)) , a depleted gas flow, the methane content of which is below a predetermined threshold(permeate stream 11 in figure 1; noting table 1 para 0118 stating permeate stream 11 c(CH4)% showing less than or equal to 0.62% methane). Examiner furthermore notes that claim 11 states “three membrane stages configured to”, wherein anticipation is based on a prior art reference providing three methane stages and whether a certain membrane stage is only capable of providing the claimed concentration of a certain component of the mixed biogas stream.
With regards to claim 12 , Ungerank et al further teaches a first membrane stage(1) configured to receive the incoming flow of biogas and separate it into a first retentate and a first permeate, a second membrane stage(2) configured to receive the first retentate(7) and separate it into a second retentate, corresponding to the flow of biomethane, and a second permeate, corresponding to the combustion flow, a third membrane stage(3) configured to receive the first permeate(6) and separate it into a third retentate, which is recirculated in the incoming flow of biogas, and a third permeate, corresponding to the depleted flow.
With regards to claim 13 , Ungerank et al further teaches a first membrane stage(1) configured to receive the incoming flow of biogas and separate it into a first retentate and a first permeate, a second membrane stage(2) configured to receive the first retentate and separate it into a second retentate, corresponding to the flow of biomethane, and a second permeate(9a), which is recirculated in the incoming flow of biogas, a third membrane stage(3) configured to receive the first permeate and separate it into a third retentate, corresponding to the combustion flow, and a third permeate, corresponding to the depleted flow.
With regards to claim 15 , Ungerank et al further teaches wherein the predetermined threshold is 10%, to valorize the depleted flow in a valorization module, for example by liquefaction or compression, or instead 0.5% vol. of methane to be able to discharge the depleted flow into the atmosphere (Examiner notes that the limitations of claim 15 are directed to a function of the claimed purification unit, wherein the membrane stages are expected to provide for a predetermined threshold is 10%) .
With regards to claim 16 , Ungerank et al further teaches a first membrane stage(1) configured to receive the incoming flow of biogas and separate it into a first retentate and a first permeate, a second membrane stage(2) configured to receive the first retentate and separate it into a second retentate, corresponding to the flow of biomethane, and a second permeate, corresponding to the combustion flow, a third membrane stage(3) configured to receive the first permeate and separate it into a third retentate(10a), which is recirculated in the incoming flow of biogas, and a third permeate, corresponding to the depleted flow, which may be discharged to the atmosphere or instead valorized to produce, for example, liquefied carbon dioxide.
With regards to claim 17 , Ungerank et al further teaches a first membrane stage (1) configured to receive the incoming flow of biogas and separate it into a first retentate and a first permeate, a second membrane stage(2) configured to receive the first retentate and separate it into a second retentate, corresponding to the flow of biomethane, and a second permeate(9a), which is recirculated in the incoming flow of biogas, a third membrane stage(3) configured to receive the first permeate and separate it into a third retentate, corresponding to the combustion flow, and a third permeate, corresponding to the depleted flow, which may be discharged to the atmosphere or instead valorized to produce, for example, liquefied carbon dioxide.
With regards to claim 19 , Ungerank et al further teaches at least one purification unit according to claim 11, electrically supplied, at least one valorization module configured to receive the depleted flow in order to valorize it(para 0105 stating “a pure retentate stream 8 ,… utilization in a combined heat and power plant”).
With regards to claim 20 , Ungerank et al further teaches a method of purification of an incoming flow of biogas, said method, implemented by a purification unit according to claim 11, comprising the steps of: reception of an incoming flow of biogas(17 in figure 1), separation of said incoming flow of biogas received into a flow of biomethane containing at least 90% methane(retenate stream 8), a residual gas flow, the methane content of which is greater than 25%(residual gas flow 9a and 9b), and a depleted residual gas flow, the methane content of which is less than a predetermined threshold(permeate stream 11).
With regards to claim 22 , Ungerank et al further teaches the methane content of the depleted residual gas flow being less than 0.5%(permeate stream 11 in figure 1; noting table 1 para 0118 stating permeate stream 11 c(CH4)% showing less than or equal to 0.62% methane, with example 1 in the table less than 0.5%), the method comprises a step of discharging the depleted residual gas flow into the atmosphere.
With regards to claim 23 , Ungerank et al further teaches a step of valorization of the depleted flow in a valorization module, for example to liquefy or compress it.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 14,18,21 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 14 recites “a first membrane stage configured to receive the incoming flow of biogas and separate it into a first retentate and a first permeate,
a second membrane stage configured to receive the first retentate and separate it into a second retentate, corresponding to the flow of biomethane, and a second permeate of which one part is recirculated in the incoming flow of biogas and another part is routed in the combustion flow, a third membrane stage configured to receive the first permeate and separate it into a third retentate, of which one part is routed in the combustion flow to the combustion module and another part is recirculated in the incoming flow of biogas, and a third permeate, corresponding to the depleted flow.”. Ungerank et al teaches a second membrane stage with a second retentate and a second permeate, however Ungerank et al does not teach or suggest a second permeate of which one part is recirculated in the incoming flow of biogas and another part is routed in the combustion flow.
Claim 18 recites “a first membrane stage configured to receive the incoming flow of biogas and separate it into a first retentate and a first permeate,
a second membrane stage configured to receive the first retentate and separate it into a second retentate, corresponding to the flow of biomethane, and a second permeate of which one part is recirculated in the incoming flow of biogas and another part is routed in the combustion flow, a third membrane stage configured to receive the first permeate and separate it into a third retentate, of which one part is recirculated in the incoming flow of biogas and another part is routed in the combustion flow, and a third permeate, corresponding to the depleted flow, which may be discharged to the atmosphere or instead valorized to produce, for example, liquefied carbon dioxide.”. Ungerank et al teaches a second membrane stage with a second retentate and a second permeate, however Ungerank et al does not teach or suggest a second permeate of which one part is recirculated in the incoming flow of biogas and another part is routed in the combustion flow.
Claim 21 recites “comprising a step of combustion of the combustion residual gas flow in a combustion module.”. Ungerank et al teaches a combustion residual gas flow, however Ungerank et al does not teach or suggest a step of combustion of the combustion residual gas flow in a combustion module.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT A HOPKINS whose telephone number is (571)272-1159. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 6am-4pm.
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, Jennifer Dieterle can be reached at 5712707872. 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.
/ROBERT A HOPKINS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1776
July 15, 2026
Prosecution Insights