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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant has amended claims 1, 5, 7, 11, 12, 14, 15, 17, and 20 and canceled claims 13 and 25. Claims 1-12 and 14-24 are pending. Claims 20-24 are withdrawn from consideration.
The amendments to the claims have overcome the claim objections of record.
The amendments to the claims have overcome the 112(b) rejections of record.
The amendments to the claims have necessitated new 103 rejections over the prior art previously relied upon. See 103 rejections below for details.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 6 of Remarks, filed 7/23/2026, with respect to the claim objections have been fully considered and are persuasive.
Specifically, Applicant has argued that the amendments to the claims have overcome the claim objections of record. Therefore, the claim objections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 6-7, filed 7/23/2026, with respect to the 112(b) rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive.
Specifically, Applicant has argued that the amendments to the claims have overcome the 112(b) rejections of record. Therefore, the 112(b) rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 7-11 of Remarks, filed 7/23/2026, with respect to the 103 rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant has argued that “the combination of Greene in view of Strezov and Stafford [fails] to teach or suggest, at least "the pyrolysis gases are prepurified by the bed of biomass in piece form," together with combination of a biomass feed materials, water content, median particle diameter, heating rate, pyrolysis temperature, dwell time and oxygen free atmosphere as recited in claim 1,” (Page 8 of Remarks). Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The combination of Greene, Strezov, and Stafford suggests and invention which satisfies all of the requirements of claim 1 in the manner described in the 103 rejection of claim 1 set forth below. See 103 rejection below for details.
Applicant has alleged that “one of skill in the art would understand that the carbonization of coal and the pyrolysis of biomass are not interchangeable,” (Page 8 of Remarks). Examiner Finds this argument unpersuasive.
As an initial matter, Examiner notes that the terms “carbonization” and “pyrolysis” are substantially synonymous.
Biomass pyrolysis and coal pyrolysis may not be “interchangeable” in that they may require different conditions and produce somewhat different results. Nevertheless, it remains that a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that pyrolysis processes can be easily adapted to pyrolyze a variety of carbonaceous materials. It is well within the level of ordinary skill in the art to identify and implement necessary changes to operating conditions to adapt a pyrolysis process to a new feed material.
Furthermore, as noted in the 103 rejection of claim 1 set forth in the previous Office Action, Greene (the primary reference in the rejections) provides indication that their method can be applied to the pyrolysis of other carbonaceous materials besides coal (Page 3 Lines 84-87). It is understood that biomass is a type of carbonaceous material. Thus, the notion that biomass and coal pyrolysis are not interchangeable is insufficient to show that biomass pyrolysis would be non obvious in the context of Greene.
In view of the above, Examiner maintains it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method of Greene by adapting said method to pyrolyze biomass rather than coal, in order to obtain a predictably functional method which yields biomass pyrolysis products.
Applicant alleges that “A carbonization of coal process removes all volatile material from the coal as efficiently as possible,” (page 8 of Remarks) and “In contrast, pyrolysis of biomass requires two reaction steps: (1) the actual cracking of the biomass to release the pyrolysis gases; and (2) the reforming step of the pyrolysis gases to form higher molecular weight component therein,” (page 8 of Remarks). Examiner respectfully disagrees.
As an initial matter, Examiner notes that the “initial cracking of biomass” is understood to refer merely to pyrolysis of the biomass1.
Concerning coal pyrolysis/carbonization, Examiner does not concede that a coal pyrolysis/carbonization process necessarily “removes all volatile material from the coal as efficiently as possible”. Likewise, Examiner does not concede that a biomass pyrolysis process would necessarily not remove all volatile material as efficiently as possible.
Insofar as Applicant’s assertions are intended to imply that coal pyrolysis/carbonization does not involve “cracking” compounds in the coal to release pyrolysis gases, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Pyrolysis/carbonization necessarily involves reactions which crack (i.e. pyrolyze) compounds in the feed material thereby releasing pyrolysis gas, whether that material is coal, biomass, or some other carbonaceous feedstock.
Concerning biomass pyrolysis, Examiner does not concede that biomass pyrolysis necessarily comprises two reaction steps as alleged. Biomass pyrolysis does necessarily comprise a step of “cracking”, i.e. pyrolyzing”, the biomass to release pyrolysis gas, as is necessarily the case in pyrolysis of any carbonaceous material. However, biomass pyrolysis does not necessarily comprise a step of reforming step of the pyrolysis gases to form higher molecular weight component(s). Likewise, such a reforming step is not necessarily absent from coal pyrolysis/carbonization.
Furthermore, it is noted that the claims do not require a step of reforming the pyrolysis gases to form higher molecular weight component(s) therein.
Applicant has argued that “the claimed invention provides for the first time a pyrolysis of biomass including a reforming process in the same reactor and achieving a significantly improved compactness,” (page 9 of Remarks). Examiner finds this argument unpersuasive.
The features upon which applicant relies (i.e. a reforming step carried out in the same reactor as a pyrolysis step) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant attributes the claimed method’s alleged “reforming process in the same reactor” and “significantly improved compactness”, Applicant attributes these results to the pyrolysis gases being “contacted again with the bed of feed material formed ensuring that the bed material acts as a catalyst for the reforming step” and to the operating conditions within the reactor, but specifically operating temperature. This could be viewed as Applicant alleging that the claimed method yields unexpected results by contacting the pyrolysis gases “again with the bed of feed material formed ensuring that the bed material acts as a catalyst for the reforming step” and/or by operating at the claimed operating conditions (temperature). Examiner finds such an argument to be unpersuasive for several reasons.
First, it is noted that the claims lack any language requiring that the “contacted again with the bed of feed material formed ensuring that the bed material acts as a catalyst for the reforming step”. While the claims do implicitly require some contact between the bed of feed material and the pyrolysis gas, i.e. by the requirement that the “gases are prepurified by the bed of biomass in piece form”, there is certainly no requirement to a reforming step wherein the bed material acts as a catalyst for said reforming step. Accordingly, the alleged unexpected results are not commensurate in scope with the claims (see MPEP 716.02(d)).
Second, Examiner does not see any support in the specification for a reforming step occurring in the reactor, wherein the bed material acts as a catalyst for said reforming step.
Third, concerning the contacting of pyrolysis gas with feed material acting as a catalyst, Examiner’s understanding is that it is specifically feed material which has already been pyrolyzed, and thus converted to coke/char, which would act as a catalyst in a reforming step like that described by Applicant. Indeed, Applicant’s specification supports this understanding (Page 1 Lines 10-12 of the specification as filed 6/13/2024). Thus, to the extent that Applciant’s invention involves the use of feed material in the reactor as a reforming catalyst, it seems that Applciant’s invention achieves this by passing the feed material bed and the pyrolysis gas cocurrently through the reactor (in this case co-currently upward), such that the pyrolysis gas would contact coke/char produced by the feed material before being discharged from the reactor.
The reactor of Greene passes feed material and pyrolysis gas produced therefrom cocurrently upwards through the reactor by the same mechanism as the claimed invention, i.e. by a conveying unit in the form of a screw (Green: Figure 1, Page 2 Lines 44-70; see 103 rejections of claims 1, 11, 16, and 17 below for further discussion of Green’s conveying unit 20). In operation, Greene’s reactor converts feed material to coke and pyrolysis gas before it is discharged from the top of the reactor space by the conveying unit (Figure 1, Page 2 Lines 52-61), thereby ensuring extended contact between the pyrolysis gas and the coke (which is understood to be capable of functioning as a reforming catalyst). Therefore, contact between the feed material and the pyrolysis gas does not distinguish Applicant’s process from that of Greene, and such contact cannot be argued to be a source of unexpected results. Accordingly, if Applicant’s invention achieves unexpected results over Greene, such unexpected results are not achieved by contacting the pyrolysis gas with the feed material, but rather by the operating conditions used in Applciant’s method.
Fourth, it is acknowledged that Applciant’s invention processes biomass whereas Greene’s processes coal. However, Examiner’s understanding is that coke/char will be capable of functioning as a catalyst for a reforming reaction involving pyrolysis gas, regardless of the material(s) from which the pyrolysis gas and the catalyst are produced. Accordingly, the use of biomass as opposed to coal as the feed material cannot be used to explain the alleged unexpected results (reforming reactions occurring within the reactor) produced by Applicant’s invention.
Even if Applicant were to maintain that the use of biomass was a source of said unexpected results, there is no objective evidence in the record supporting such an assertion. The burden is on Applicant to provided evidence of unexpected results (see MPEP 716.01 and 716.02 for guidance).
Fifth, concerning the notion that the various claimed operating conditions (e.g. temperature) unexpectedly allow reforming reactions to occur in the reactor, there is no objective evidence in the record which shows that the claimed operating conditions are critical to the achieving the alleged results, nor is there any objective evidence showing that the alleged results are unexpected and significant (see MPEP 716.02(b)I).
Applicant has argued that “given the number of parameters that must be selected in order to arrive at the claimed process starting from Greene's coal carbonization apparatus, the modification proposed by the Action is not simply routine experimentation,” (page 9 of Remarks). Examiner respectfully disagrees.
This argument alleges allowability on the basis of an allegedly large number of parameters that must be selected in order to arrive at the claimed process, without particularly pointing out which parameters patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the references. Thus, said argument amounts to an unpersuasive general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
Regardless, the 103 rejections provide thorough technical reasoning showing that the tunable parameters argued by Applicant would be recognized as result-effective variables by those of ordinary skill (see 103 rejections below for details). Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would seek to find workable/optimal ranges for said parameters. The fact that Applicant’s claims define an allegedly large number of tunable parameters does not change this, nor does it amount to evidence that tunning said parameters would go beyond routine experimentation.
Applicant has argued that “the Action alleged that several of the missing features would have been easily modified by ‘routine experimentation’ or that ‘it is notoriously well understood’ without providing any reasoning in the cited prior art for such statements,” (page 9 of Remarks).
The 103 rejections provide thorough technical reasoning showing that the tunable parameters argued by Applicant would be recognized as result-effective variables by those of ordinary skill (see 103 rejections below for details). By said technical reasoning, a person having ordinary skill in the art would conclude that the tunable parameters argued by Applicant are result effective variables, regardless of whether or not said reasoning is expressly articulated by the cited prior art.
Applicant has argued that “Absent any teaching or suggestion in the cited references as to how these numerous parameters interact to enable both the initial cracking of biomass and the subsequent reforming of the released pyrolysis gases by contact with the bed of feed material, one of skill in the art would have had no reasonable expectation of success in arriving at the claimed invention,” (pages 9-10 of Remarks).
This argument alleges allowability on the basis of “numerous parameters” that allegedly “ interact to enable both the initial cracking of biomass and the subsequent reforming of the released pyrolysis gases by contact with the bed of feed material”. However, said argument does not clearly point out which parameters patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the references. Thus, said argument amounts to an unpersuasive general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
Regardless, Examiner finds this argument unpersuasive for several additional reasons.
First, Examiner reiterates that the “initial cracking of biomass” is understood to refer merely to pyrolysis of the biomass. As discussed in the rejections below, a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that pyrolysis processes can be easily adapted to pyrolyze a variety of carbonaceous materials. Indeed, Greene provides indication that their method can be applied to the pyrolysis of other carbonaceous materials besides coal (Page 3 Lines 84-87). It is understood that biomass is a type of carbonaceous material. Thus, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in tunning the operating parameters of Greene to achieve “initial cracking”, i.e. pyrolysis, of biomass.
Second, there is nothing in the claims which requires that the claimed invention involves reforming of the released pyrolysis gases by contact with the bed of feed material. Thus, whether or not there is evidence that such reforming would occur is immaterial whether one would have a reasonable expectation of success in arriving at the claimed invention.
Third, insofar as Applicant is alleging that the claimed reforming reactions are unexpected results of operation using the claimed parameters, Applicant has not provided any objective evidence supporting such an assertion. See MPEP 716.01 and 716.02 for guidance.
Applicant makes the following argument on page 10 of the Remarks:
Rather, the Action is relying on hindsight reconstruction, which is impermissible. A claimed invention must be considered "[a]s a whole, . . . [which] prevents evaluation of the invention part by part[;] . . . [t]his form of hindsight reasoning, using the invention as a roadmap to find its prior art components, would discount the value of combining various existing features or principles in a new way to achieve a new result . . . ." Ruiz v. A.B. Chance Co., 357 F.3d 1270, 1275 (Fed. Cir. 2004). It is improper to use knowledge gleaned only from Applicant's application as a motivation to combine cited art. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 1395 (CCPA 1971). Here, in view of the amount of modifications alleged by the Action, without any actual teaching in the prior art, there would be no reasonable expectation that such modifications are "routine" contrary to the Action's positions. Rather, the Action used the claims as a roadmap in combination with alleged routine experimentation to arrive at the claimed invention.
Examiner finds this argument unpersuasive.
As an initial matter, Examiner notes that Applicant has not identified any particular portion(s) of the 103 rejections as relying on impermissible hindsight. Rather, Applicant seems to argue that any and all of the proposed modifications to Greene are the result of impermissible hindsight. In the absence of a statement identifying specific aspect(s) of the rejection which allegedly rely on impermissible hindsight, Applciant’s argument amounts to an unpersuasive mere allegation.
Nevertheless, Applciant’s argument of impermissible hindsight seems to be made against the portions of the rejection concerning the tunable parameters.
It must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
The 103 rejections provide thorough technical reasoning showing that the tunable parameters argued by Applicant would be recognized as result-effective variables by those of ordinary skill (see 103 rejections below for details). Said technical reasoning was within the level or ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and would not require information available only from Applicant’s disclosure. By said technical reasoning, a person having ordinary skill in the art would conclude that the tunable parameters argued by Applicant are result effective variables. Therefore, Examiner maintains that the 103 rejections over Greene do not rely on any improper hindsight.
As for Applciant’s arguments to the amount of modifications proposed by the Office Action, one cannot show that a rejection relies on improper hindsight simply by alleging that a large number of modifications is necessary to arrive at the claimed invention.
Applicant makes the following argument(s) on page 10 of the Remarks:
Greene teaches away from the claimed reforming step because Greene teaches that "the coal mass shall not completely fill this space, some vacant space being left above the coal for the escape of gas and vapors." Page 3 of Greene. Thus, Greene requires that vacant space be maintained above the bed so that the evolved gas and vapors can escape quickly, without further reaction. In contrast, the claimed invention requires that the pyrolysis gases travel through the bed of biomass so that the bed acts as both a filter and a contact catalyst for the pyrolysis gases to enable the reforming reaction. Accordingly, one of skill in the art would have no motivation to modify Greene to pyrolyze biomass into sustained contact with the bed because Greene teaches the importance of the vacant space.
Examiner respectfully disagrees with the assertions made by Applicant in this argument(s).
The claims do not recite any language requiring that the pyrolysis gases travel through the bed of biomass so that the bed acts as both a filter and a contact catalyst for the pyrolysis gases to enable the reforming reaction, nor do they require that a reforming reaction occur. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Regardless, Greene does teach that a vacant space should be left above the coal for the escape of gases and vapors (page 2 Line 129-Page 3 Line 6). However, Green also teaches that “the shape of the coal mass may be described as a spiral ribbon, conforming to the helix of the screw, and several inches thick and nearly as deep as the space between the threads. The ribbon thus has a free upper surface from which the gas and vapors are continuously withdrawn upwardly. By reason of such upward withdrawal, there is no condensation of vapors in or upon the cooler material lower down,” (Page 3 Lines 7-16). Thus, it is understood that the method of Greene allows for sustained contact between the bed of material and pyrolysis gas, i.e. at least at the “free upper surface” of the bed of material as gas moves through the vacant space between the bottom of the screw threads/fins 22 and top of the coal mass on said screw thread.
Furthermore, it is understood that Greene’s method operates such that the bed of material acts as a filter which prepurifies the pyrolysis gas to some extent. In particular, it is understood that at least a portion of small particulates, which would have otherwise become entrained in the pyrolysis gases, will be trapped by the bed of feed material as said pyrolysis gases flow up the reactor in contact with the bed of feed material therein. Such trapping of small particulates occurs at least when pyrolysis gases initially evolve and then emerge from the bed of material into the vacant space above said bed.
Applicant has argued that Strezov and Stafford do not cure the alleged deficiencies of Greene (page 10 of Remarks). Examiner finds this argument unpersuasive.
It is not entirely clear what alleged deficiencies Applicant is referring to here. Whatever the case, Strezov and Stafford cure the deficiencies particular deficiencies of Greene for which the rejections rely upon them to cure (see rejections below for details).
Applicant has argued that there is nothing in either Strezov or Stafford “to teach or suggest that the parameters would be effective to crack a biomass, let alone allow for the reforming step to occur in the same reactor when being in contact with the bed as claimed,” (page 10 of Remarks).
Applicant argues that certain “parameters” are not taught in the secondary references without clearly identifying the parameters to which they are referring. Thus, said argument amounts to an unpersuasive general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
With respect to the alleged reforming step, Examiner reiterates that the claims do not recite a reforming step. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
With respect to the cracking, Examiner reiterates that cracking of biomass is understood to refer merely to pyrolysis of the biomass. As discussed in the rejections below, a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that pyrolysis processes can be easily adapted to pyrolyze a variety of carbonaceous materials. Indeed, Greene provides indication that their method can be applied to the pyrolysis of other carbonaceous materials besides coal (Page 3 Lines 84-87). It is understood that biomass is a type of carbonaceous material. Thus, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in tunning the operating parameters of Greene to achieve “initial cracking”, i.e. pyrolysis, of biomass.
As discussed below, the claimed parameters are understood to be result effective variables, and would be the obvious result of routine optimization as described in the 103 rejections below. "[When] the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation," (see MPEP 2144.05 II A). Considering this, the notion that the prior art does not disclose that certain parameters would be effective to crack (pyrolyze) a biomass is irrelevant, as a person having ordinary skill in the art would seek to tune said parameters to find workable and/or optimal ranges.
Applicant has argued that the remaining secondary references, i.e. those other than Strezov or Stafford, fail to cure the alleged deficiencies of Greene, Strezov, and Stafford. This argument is moot, as said remaining secondary references are not relied upon to cure the alleged deficiencies.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are: the “conveying unit” in claim 1, the “heating unit” in claim 1, the “discharge unit” in claim 1, and the “dedusting unit” in claim 2.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
The following are new rejections necessitated by amendment and made over the prior art previously relied upon. Said rejections are “new” only in the sense that the rejection of independent claim 1, and thus the rejections of all its dependents, now incorporate the rejection previously applied to claim 13 (now canceled).
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 (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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6, 9-11, and 14-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Greene et al. (US 1,723,932), hereafter referred to as Greene, in view of Strezov et al. (US 8,888,962), hereafter referred to as Strezov, and Stafford (US 1,380,262).
With regard to claim 1: Green teaches a pyrolysis (carbonization) process for the production of pyrolysis gas and pyrolysis coke (Figures 1 and 2, page 1 left column), the method comprising:
a) coal in piece form (Figures 1 and 2, page 1 Left Column, page 2 Right column).
b) providing a pyrolysis apparatus (Figures 1 and 2, Page 1 Line 40-Page 2 line 85), the apparatus comprising:
i) a reactor space (retort) 14 in an essentially vertical arrangement, where the reactor space is essentially cylindrical and/or essentially conical (Figures 1 and 2, Page 1 Line 40-Page 2 line 85; note page 2 Lines 5-25 in particular);
ii) a conveying unit (rotor) 20 for transporting the coal in piece form from the bottom upward through the reactor space (Figures 1 and 2, Page 1 Line 40-Page 2 line 85);
iii) a heating unit (furnace) 17 for the reactor space (Figures 1 and 2, Page 1 Line 40-Page 2 line 85);
iv) a feed (combustion chambers) 18 for a heating medium into the heating unit from the top and a drain for the heating medium, such that the heating medium is conducted counter currently relative to the coal (Figures 1 and 2, Page 1 Line 40-Page 2 line 85);
v) an outlet (conduit) 30 for the pyrolysis gases in the upper region of the reactor space (Figures 1 and 2, Page 1 Line 40-Page 2 line 85); and
vi) a discharge unit (dust box) 29 for pyrolysis coke and separated dust particles (Figures 1 and 2, Page 1 Line 40-Page 2 line 85).
c) feeding the coal in piece form from the bottom upward through the reactor space 14, such that there is a bed within the reactor space (Figures 1 and 2, Page 2 Line 85-Page 3 Line 100).
d) heating the coal in piece form at a heating rate (Figures 1 and 2, Page 2 Line 85-Page 3 Line 100).
e) pyrolyzing the coal in piece from at a temperature of 400-450 °C for some period of time (Figures 1 and 2, Page 2 Line 85-Page 3 Line 100, Especially page 3 Lines 69-90).
f) removing pyrolysis gases from the reactor 14 space via line 30 (Figures 1 and 2, page 2 Lines 50-61, page 2 Line 129-page 3 line 16).
h) removing the pyrolysis coke obtained (Figures 1 and 2, page 2 Lines 50-100).
i) removing pyrolysis gases from the reactor 14 space via line 30 (Figures 1 and 2, page 2 Lines 50-61, page 2 Line 129-page 3 line 16).
In Greene, the pyrolysis gases are necessarily prepurified to some extent by contact with the bed of feed material, in that as the produced pyrolysis gases flow up the reactor in contact with the bed of feed material therein, at least a portion of small particulates which would have otherwise become entrained in said pyrolysis gases will be trapped by the bed of feed material.
Greene is silent to the feed material being a biomass (Greene teaches coal).
However, a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that pyrolysis processes can be easily adapted to pyrolyze a variety of carbonaceous materials. Indeed, Greene provides indication that their method can be applied to the pyrolysis of other carbonaceous materials besides coal (Page 3 Lines 84-87). It is understood that biomass is a type of carbonaceous material.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method of Greene by adapting said method to pyrolyze biomass rather than coal, in order to obtain a predictably functional method which yields biomass pyrolysis products.
Greene is silent to the feed material having a water content below 30 wt%.
However, it is notoriously well understood that water content a result effective variable in pyrolysis processes. More specifically, a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that, in the context of pyrolysis, a higher water content in the feed is disadvantageous, as water will take energy to evaporate, thereby requiring the kiln provide additional heat energy to achieve the desired pyrolysis. "[When] the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation," (see MPEP 2144.05 II A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Greene by configuring the biomass feed material to comprise less than 30 wt% water, in order to reduce the amount of heat energy the reactor is required to supply to achieve pyrolysis.
Greene is silent to the feed material having a median particle diameter between 2.0 mm and 60 mm, determined to ASTM E112.
However, Greene teaches that the feed material is desirably supplied in the form of particles under 1 inch in size (page 1 Lines 46-48). This teaching by Greene serves as clear indication that particle size, and thus diameter, is a result effective in Greene. Indeed, a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the feed material would need to be supplied at a size appropriate to be conveyed through the interior of the reactor by the conveying unit 20. "[When] the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation," (see MPEP 2144.05 II A).
Furthermore, Greene’s teaching implicitly suggests feed particles with a median diameter less than 1 inch (25.4 mm). The suggested particle diameter range overlaps the claimed particle diameter range. “In the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists,” (MPEP 2144.05 I).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Greene by configuring the biomass feed material to be in the form of particles having a median diameter between 2 mm and 60 mm, in order to obtain a process wherein the feed material is supplied at a size appropriate to be conveyed through the interior of the reactor by the conveying unit 20.
Modified Greene silent to pyrolyzing the biomass at a temperature of 400-750 °C.
However, it is notoriously well understood that pyrolysis temperature is a result effective variable in pyrolysis processes. Indeed, Green confirms this by their teaching of heating at a specific temperature (page 3 Lines 69-90). To elaborate, a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that, in the context of pyrolysis, including biomass pyrolysis, if the temperature of the reactor is too low, the desired pyrolysis will not be attained. On the other hand, if temperature is too high, energy will be wasted and the pyrolysis reaction may proceed to a greater extent than desired. "[When] the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation," (see MPEP 2144.05 II A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Greene by pyrolyzing the biomass feed at temperature in the range of 400-750 °C, in order to obtain a desired biomass pyrolysis without wasting energy.
Modified Greene does not explicitly teach maintaining the feed material at the pyrolysis temperature for 5-60 minutes.
However, it is notoriously well understood that reaction time is a result effective variable in pyrolysis processes. To elaborate, a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that, in the context of pyrolysis, including biomass pyrolysis, if the reaction time is too low, the desired degree of pyrolysis will not be attained. On the other hand, if reaction time is too long, time and energy will be wasted and the pyrolysis reaction may proceed to a greater extent than desired. "[When] the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation," (see MPEP 2144.05 II A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Greene by maintaining the biomass feed at the pyrolysis temperature for 5-60 minutes, in order to obtain a desired biomass pyrolysis without wasting time and/or energy.
Modified Greene does not explicitly teach heating the biomass feed at a rate of 0.3 to 5 K/s.
However, it is notoriously well understood that heating rate is a result effective variable in pyrolysis processes. To elaborate, heating rate in pyrolysis is understood to affect the nature of the pyrolysis reaction. Specifically, slow pyrolysis is characterized by relatively slower heating rates than fast/flash pyrolysis, said heating rates typically being less than 10 °C/s (10 K/s), as evidenced by Strezov (Column 2 Lines 3-8). It is understood that slow pyrolysis favors the production of char (coke) products (Strezov: Column 1 Lines 35-68). "[When] the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation," (see MPEP 2144.05 II A).
It is noted that the claimed range of 0.3-5 K/s falls well within range of heating rates (less than 10 °C/s) disclosed in the prior art.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Greene in view of Strezov by heating the biomass feed at a rate of 0.3to 5 K/s, in order to obtain a slow pyrolysis which favors the production of char (coke) products.
Modified Greene does not explicitly teach that the pyrolysis is carried out essentially in the absence of oxygen.
However, it is notoriously well known to carry out pyrolysis reactions substantially in the absence of oxygen. For example, Stafford teaches pyrolyzing biomass (wood) essentially in the absence of oxygen/air (page 1 Lines 1-30, page 3 Lines 50-60). A person having ordinary skill in the art would understood that pyrolysis should be carried out in an environment wherein oxygen absent, or at least scarce, as the presence of oxygen at pyrolysis temperatures will cause combustion of carbonaceous feed (e.g. biomass) and/or any pyrolysis products formed.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Greene in view of Stafford by carrying out the pyrolysis essentially in the absence of air, in order to avoid combustion of the feed material and/or the pyrolysis products.
With regard to claims 2 and 3: In modified Greene:
the pyrolysis apparatus further comprises a dedusting unit, i.e. some “preferred means” (not shown) for diverting dust from vapor outlet 30 (Greene: Figure 1, Page 2 Lines 50-61); and
step h) further comprises feeding the pyrolysis gases to said dedusting unit (Greene: Figure 1, Page 2 Lines 50-61).
With regard to claims 2, 4, and 9: In modified Greene:
the pyrolysis apparatus further comprises a dedusting unit, i.e. some “preferred means” (not shown) for diverting dust from vapor outlet 30 (Greene: Figure 1, Page 2 Lines 50-61); and
the process further comprises g) separating off and removing dust particles in said dedusting unit (Greene: Figure 1, Page 2 Lines 50-61);
and step h) further comprises removing the pyrolysis coke together with separated dust particles (Greene: Figure 1, Page 2 Lines 50-100).
With regard to claim 6: As discussed in the rejection of claim 1 above, step e) in modified Greene consists of pyrolyzing the biomass in piece form essentially in the absence of oxygen at a temperature of 400 to 750°C, for 5 to 60 minutes.
Modified Greene silent to pyrolyzing the biomass at a temperature of 400-750 °C.
However, it is notoriously well understood that pyrolysis temperature is a result effective variable in pyrolysis processes. Indeed, Green confirms this by their teaching of heating at a specific temperature (page 3 Lines 69-90). To elaborate, a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that, in the context of pyrolysis, including biomass pyrolysis, if the temperature of the reactor is too low, the desired pyrolysis will not be attained. On the other hand, if temperature is too high, energy will be wasted and the pyrolysis reaction may proceed to a greater extent than desired. "[When] the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation," (see MPEP 2144.05 II A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Greene by pyrolyzing the biomass feed at temperature in the range of 450-650 °C, in order to obtain a desired biomass pyrolysis without wasting energy.
With regard to claim 9: In modified Greene, the coke is discharged under gravity (Greene: Figure 1, Page 2 Lines 50-100).
With regard to claim 10: In modified Greene, the separated dust particles are removed together with the pyrolysis coke (Greene: Figure 1, Page 2 Lines 50-100).
With regard to claim 11: In modified Greene, the feeding of the biomass in piece from the bottom upward through the reactor is effected with a conveying screw, i.e. with rotor 20 (Greene: Figure 1, Page 2).
With regard to claim 14: The bed of feed material in the upper region of the reactor space necessarily has a lower bulk density than in a lower region of the reactor space because the feed material in the upper region will be further pyrolyzed than the feed material in the lower region (Greene: Figure 1, page 2) and thus, will have had a greater mass driven off as pyrolysis gases relative to the feed material in the lower regions.
With regard to claim 15: Modified Green does not explicitly teach that a dwell time of the feed material within the reactor is 5-60 minutes.
However, it is understood that dwell time is a result effective variable in pyrolysis in much the same way reaction time is. To elaborate, a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that, in the context of pyrolysis, the reaction time is at least roughly equivalent to the dwell time of the feed material within the pyrolysis reactor. Thus, a person having ordinary skill in the art would understand that, if dwell time is too short, the desired degree of pyrolysis will not be attained. On the other hand, if dwell time is too long, time and energy will be wasted and the pyrolysis reaction may proceed to a greater extent than desired. "[When] the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation," (see MPEP 2144.05 II A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Greene by maintaining the biomass feed in the pyrolysis reactor space for a dwell time of 5-60 minutes, in order to obtain a desired biomass pyrolysis without wasting time and/or energy.
It is understood that, in a method using a reactor like that of Greene, the bed height in the reactor space plays an intrinsic roll on the dwell time of the feed material within the reactor space, as the bed height corresponds to the amount of distance the feed material must travel to reach the outlet of the reactor space. In other words, if a reactor like that of Greene is to be operated with a particular dwell time, the height of said reactor, and the material bed within it must allow for said dwell time to be attained. Thus, the method of modified Greene, modified so as to achieve the dwell time 5-60 minutes, can be fairly characterized as including a bed height in the reactor space that is chosen to achieve the dwell time of 5-60 minutes.
With regard to claim 16: Continuous mixing of the feed material is effected by means of the conveying unit for transport of the feed material in piece form from the bottom upward through the reactor (page 3 Lines 25-54).
With regard to claim 17: The conveying unit is configured such that the bed of feed material is partly mixed from the top downward (page 3 Lines 28-40).
Claim(s) 5 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Greene in view of Strezov and Stafford as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Garcia-Perez et al. (US 2010/0223839), hereafter referred to as Garcia-Perez
With regard to claim 5: Modified Green does not explicitly teach a step of j) providing pyrolysis oil by partial condensation of the pyrolysis gases removed.
However, it is notoriously well-known in the pyrolysis art to condense a portion of produced pyrolysis gases by partial condensation after said gases have been removed from the reactor. For example, Garcia-Perez teaches a pyrolysis process wherein a portion of pyrolysis gases produced by reactor 106 are condensed in by partial condensation in condenser (first condenser) 108 to provide a pyrolysis oil (bio-oil) 9 (Figure 1, paragraphs [0018] and [0029]). Garcia-Perez teaches that this pyrolysis oil (bio-oil) can be converted into fuels (abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Greene in view of Garcia-Perez by adding a step of j) providing pyrolysis oil by partial condensation of the pyrolysis gases removed, in order to obtain a process which yields an oil product which can be used as, or otherwise converted into, fuel.
With regard to claim 7: Modified Green does not explicitly teach steps of partially condensing the pyrolysis gases to obtain a biphasic mixture of pyrolysis oil and water and separating said biphasic mixture.
However, it is notoriously well-known in the pyrolysis art to: i) condense a portion of produced pyrolysis gases by partial condensation to obtain a biphasic mixture of pyrolysis oil and water, and ii) separate said biphasic mixture. For example, Garcia-Perez teaches a pyrolysis process wherein: i) a portion of pyrolysis gases produced by reactor 106 are condensed in by partial condensation in condenser (first condenser) 108 to provide a pyrolysis oil (bio-oil) 9, wherein said pyrolysis oil 9 is in the form of a biphasic mixture which is subsequently separated into a phenolic fraction and an aqueous fraction (Figures 1 and 2, paragraphs [0018], [0029], [0034]). Garcia-Perez teaches that this pyrolysis oil (bio-oil), and the phenolic fraction obtained therefrom, can be converted into fuels (abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Greene in view of Garcia-Perez by adding steps of partially condensing the pyrolysis gases to obtain a biphasic mixture of pyrolysis oil and water and separating said biphasic mixture, in order to obtain a process which yields an oil product which can be used as, or otherwise converted into, fuel.
Claim(s) 5, 7, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Greene in view of Strezov and Stafford as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Michelman (US 1,820,921).
With regard to claim 5: Modified Green does not explicitly teach a step of j) providing pyrolysis oil by partial condensation of the pyrolysis gases removed.
However, it is notoriously well-known in the pyrolysis art to condense a portion of produced pyrolysis gases by partial condensation after said gases have been removed from the reactor. For example, Michelman teaches a pyrolysis process wherein a portion of pyrolysis gases produced by a reactor (retort) 1 are condensed in by partial condensation in condenser 3 to provide a biphasic mixture of pyrolysis oil and water, which is subsequently separated in collecting tank 6 (Figure 1, page 1 line 45-page 2 Line 3, Page 2 Lines 50-120).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Greene in view of Michelman by adding a step of j) providing pyrolysis oil by partial condensation of the pyrolysis gases removed, in order to obtain a process which recovers pyrolysis oil from the pyrolysis gases.
With regard to claim 7: Modified Green does not explicitly teach steps of partially condensing the pyrolysis gases to obtain a biphasic mixture of pyrolysis oil and water and separating said biphasic mixture.
However, it is notoriously well-known in the pyrolysis art to: i) condense a portion of produced pyrolysis gases by partial condensation to obtain a biphasic mixture of pyrolysis oil and water, and ii) separate said biphasic mixture. For example, Michelman teaches a pyrolysis process wherein a portion of pyrolysis gases produced by a reactor (retort) 1 are condensed in by partial condensation in condenser 3 to provide a biphasic mixture of pyrolysis oil and water, which is subsequently separated in collecting tank 6 (Figure 1, page 1 line 45-page 2 Line 3, Page 2 Lines 50-120).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Greene in view of Michelman by adding steps of partially condensing the pyrolysis gases to obtain a biphasic mixture of pyrolysis oil and water and separating said biphasic mixture, in order to obtain a process which recovers pyrolysis oil from the pyrolysis gases.
With regard to claim 19: Modified Greene is silent to the water being additionally introduced.
However, it is notoriously well-known to introduce water into a pyrolysis process as a medium for condensing pyrolysis vapors and/or cleaning pyrolysis gases via direct contact with said water. For example, Michelman teaches a pyrolysis process comprising: i) condensing a portion of pyrolysis gases produced by a reactor (retort) 1 in condenser 3, wherein condensation in the condenser 3 may be effected by introducing water as a spray into the interior of said condenser (Figure 1, page 1 line 45-page 2 Line 3, Page 2 Lines 50-120); and ii) condensing and/or cleaning further portions of the pyrolysis gases in scrubbing tower 4 by directed contact with a spray of water introduced into the interior of said scrubbing tower 4 (Figure 1, page 1 line 45-page 2 Line 3, Page 2 Lines 50-120).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Greene in view of Michelman by introducing water in a condenser and/or a scrubber to condense and/or clean one or more portions of the pyrolysis gases, in order to obtain a process which recovers condensed products from the pyrolysis gases and/or produces a cleaned (scrubbed) pyrolysis gas product.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Greene in view of Strezov and Stafford as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Collette (US 7,807,048).
With regard to claim 1: Modified Greene does not explicitly teach that the dust particles are separated off by cyclone and/or hot gas filter.
However, in Greene, the dust particles are separated off by “any preferred means” (Greene: page 2 lines 59-61). Use of hot gas filters and/or cyclones to separate dust particles from pyrolysis gas is notoriously well-known in the art. For example, Collette teaches a pyrolysis system which separates dust from a pyrolysis gas stream (exhaust gas) 35 using a cyclone 36 and/or a hot gas filter (baghouse) 27 (abstract, Figure 2B, Column 5 Line 45-Column 6 Line 15). Given the widespread usage of cyclones and hot gas filters for removing dust from pyrolysis gas, a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize filters and cyclones as suitable means for separating dust particles in Green.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Greene in view of Collette by selecting a cyclone and/or a hot gas filter for use as the “preferred means” for separating dust particles in Greene, in order to obtain a system that is predictably capable of separating off dust particles from the pyrolysis gases, as is desired by Greene.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Greene in view of Strezov and Stafford as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Greene et al. (GB 211,667), hereafter referred to as Greene II.
With regard to claim 12: Modified Greene does not explicitly teach that the pitch of the screw decreases from the top to the top downward.
However, Greene II teaches a pyrolysis reactor which, like the reactor of primary reference Greene, has a screw conveyor 3 which transports material from the bottom of the reactor to the top, wherein the pitch of said screw conveyor decreases from the top downwards, i.e. the pitch becomes gradually coarser from the bottom upwards (Figure 1, Page 2 line 105-Page 3 Line 85, especially page 3 Lines 4-15). The disclosure of Greene II indicates or at least suggests that a pitch which increases from the bottom up (i.e. decreases from the top down) will at advantageously afford increasing space to the feed material conveyed by the screw (page 2 Line 120-page 3 Line 15). Indeed, an increase in screw pitch is understood to afford additional space in the channels between threads.
Notably, Green II is to the same inventors as the primary reference Greene.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Greene in view of Green II by configuring the pitch of the screw conveyor to increase from the bottom upwards (and thus decrease from the top downwards), in order to afford the feed material increasing space as it travels upwards through the retort.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Greene in view of Strezov and Stafford as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Reed et al. (US 4,255,129), hereafter referred to as Reed.
With regard to claim 18: Modified Greene does not explicitly teach that hydrogen is obtained from the pyrolysis gases. However, it is understood that pyrolysis gases obtained from a pyrolysis processes will necessarily contain hydrogen in some amount. Thus, the method of modified Greene necessarily comprises obtaining hydrogen from the pyrolysis gas, i.e. by obtaining a pyrolysis gas comprising hydrogen.
In the alternative, it is at least well-understood that pyrolysis processes can be leveraged to produce pyrolysis gas comprising some amount of hydrogen. For example, Reed teaches a pyrolysis process similar to that of the claimed invention (abstract, Figures 1-3), wherein the generated pyrolysis gases contain hydrogen, in addition to other components (Column 5 Lines 55-68). A person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that hydrogen is a useful substance, both as a clean burning fuel, and as a reactant in various chemical processes.
In the event that hydrogen is not necessarily obtained from the pyrolysis gases in Greene, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Greene in view of Reed by configuring Greene to yield a pyrolysis gas containing hydrogen, in order to obtain a process which advantageously produces hydrogen gas.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN "LUKE" PILCHER whose telephone number is (571)272-2691. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm.
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, In Suk Bullock can be reached at 5712725954. 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.
/JONATHAN LUKE PILCHER/Examiner, Art Unit 1772
1 Should Applicant wish to argue that the “cracking of the biomass to release the pyrolysis gases” refers to something other than simply pyrolyzing the biomass, then Applicant should consider the following:
If “cracking” biomass does not equate to pyrolyzing biomass, then it is unclear what Applicant means by “cracking”; and
The claims do not contain any limitations describing “cracking” of biomass.
Prosecution Insights