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
The rejection of claims 3 and 6 under 35 USC § 112 is withdrawn by the examiner in view of the amendment filed on 7/14/2026.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Stiller et al. (US 2012/0076703 A1) in view of Brandes et al., “Exploratory Research on Novel Coal Liquefaction Concept,” U.S. Department of Energy, May 1997, CN 102344823 A, Kennel et al. (US 8,226,816 B2), and further in view of Ganster et al. (US 4,347,577).
Stiller teaches a coal-processing system including a liquefaction reactor for processing coal in the presence of solvent and hydrogen, heating of the reaction mixture, separation of insoluble material, and production of coal-derived pitch (Abstract; ¶[0055]; ¶¶[0088], [0093]). Stiller further teaches operating coal-liquefaction/hydrogenation processes at temperatures and pressures overlapping the claimed operating ranges (¶¶[0068]–[0069]; Table 1; ¶¶[0107]–[0108]).
Claims 1-4 are apparatus claims. Limitations merely describing material processed or an intended operation of otherwise known apparatus are given patentable weight only to the extent that they require the apparatus to possess a corresponding structural or functional capability. See MPEP §§ 2114 and 2115. However, the presently amended limitation requiring a controller configured to adjust a process parameter based on the reactivity assessed by the autoclave apparatus is treated as a functional capability of the claimed controller and is addressed substantively by the references below.
Stiller does not expressly teach an autoclave apparatus that assesses coal reactivity and forms the recited filter cake from filter-wash material, does not expressly teach providing the hydrogen gas by gasifying coal, biomass, or liquefaction residue, and does not teach a controller configured to adjust catalyst amount, liquefaction temperature, or liquefaction time based on the reactivity assessed by the autoclave apparatus.
Brandes teaches systematic testing of coal in 45-mL microautoclaves to determine reaction conditions producing high coal conversion, including evaluation of reaction temperature and residence time, followed by successful scale-up to a larger stirred autoclave. Brandes further reports evaluating the effects of temperature, residence time, and other feed/reaction variables on coal conversion. Thus, Brandes teaches using autoclave testing to assess the conversion/reactivity behavior of coal and to determine appropriate liquefaction operating conditions. Brandes additionally teaches removing the contents of the microautoclave to a pressure-filter apparatus by washing the reactor with freshly distilled THF, filtering the resulting material, drying the resulting filter cake, and determining coal conversion therefrom. Brandes further analyzes the filter cake for ash and expressly identifies ash and insoluble organic matter as solids to be separated in direct coal liquefaction. Accordingly, Brandes teaches the claimed autoclave-based reactivity assessment and the formation of a filter cake comprising ash and insoluble organic matter from material washed from the autoclave. (See pages, 1-5, “filtration,” “Recovery of Product from Filter Cakes”)
CN 102344823 A teaches autoclave coal liquefaction using coal, solvent, catalyst, and hydrogen under elevated pressure and at about 300–450°C, thereby teaching hydrogen-assisted coal liquefaction under conditions overlapping the claimed temperature range. (See pages 3, lines 1-10, page 3, lines 5-20)
Kennel teaches coal extraction/liquefaction and pitch production and further teaches that undissolved solids remaining after coal extraction may be gasified to produce process gas and hydrogen (Kennel, col. 8, corresponding to the discussion of undissolved solids following extraction). Kennel therefore teaches recovering a coal-processing residue and gasifying such material to produce hydrogen. (See col. 1, lines 15-40).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the coal-liquefaction system of Stiller by providing at least a portion of the hydrogen used in Stiller’s liquefaction process from gasification of coal-derived liquefaction residue as taught by Kennel because Kennel teaches gasification of residual carbonaceous material from coal processing to produce hydrogen, thereby providing a useful hydrogen source while utilizing a residue process stream.
Ganster teaches a controller coupled to feedstock-analysis apparatus and a reactor control system and configured to adjust reactor operating temperature based on characteristics of the feedstock determined by the analysis apparatus (Fig. 1; col. 3, lines 66 through col. 5, lines 40). In particular, feedstock analyzers 28, 30, and 31 provide measured feedstock-characteristic signals to control signal means 24, which determines desired temperature DT, and temperature controller 38 controls valve 14 in response thereto to regulate the temperature of feed supplied to reactor 8 (col. 3, lines 66 through col. 4, line 45). Ganster further teaches calculating the desired operating temperature based on the measured feedstock characteristics (col. 4, lines 46-68; col. 5, lines 1-40). Ganster additionally teaches that the control system may be implemented using a specially programmed general-purpose digital computer or microprocessor in cooperation with the appropriate sensors, analyzers, and control devices (col. 9, lines 10-18).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the autoclave-based coal-reaction assessment and associated filtration procedure of Brandes into the coal-processing system of Stiller to determine how a particular coal responds to liquefaction conditions and to separate ash and insoluble organic matter. Brandes expressly performs its microautoclave study to determine reaction conditions giving high coal conversion.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the process of combined references above
to automate the selection and implementation of an appropriate liquefaction condition using the feedstock-responsive process-control technique of Ganster. Brandes establishes that coal conversion/reactivity is evaluated as a function of operating conditions, including temperature and residence time, whereas Ganster teaches the known technique of supplying measured feedstock-characteristic information to a controller that determines and automatically controls an appropriate reactor-feed temperature. Applying Ganster's known control technique to Brandes' known coal-reactivity/condition relationship would predictably permit the liquefaction temperature to be adjusted in response to the assessed characteristics/reactivity of the coal.
Because claim 1 recites adjustment of “one or more of” catalyst amount, temperature, or liquefying time, teaching adjustment of the claimed temperature is sufficient to meet the alternative limitation.
Accordingly, the combination teaches or suggests a controller coupled to the autoclave apparatus and direct-liquefaction reactor and configured to adjust at least the predetermined temperature based on the reactivity of the coal assessed using the autoclave apparatus.
Regarding claim 2, Stiller teaches pressurized coal-liquefaction/hydrogenation operations encompassing or overlapping the claimed pressure of about 950 psia (¶¶[0068]–[0069]; Table 1; ¶¶[0107]–[0108]). Selection of a value within an expressly disclosed overlapping operating range would have been prima facie obvious absent evidence of criticality or unexpected results.
Regarding claim 3, the claimed pressures of about 850, 750, 650, or 550 psia fall within or overlap the pressure ranges taught by Stiller, including the operating pressures reported in Table 1 and the surrounding disclosure. Selection of one of the claimed pressures therefore would have amounted to selection of a known operating value within an overlapping prior-art range.
Regarding claim 4, Stiller teaches liquefaction/hydrogenation temperatures encompassing or overlapping the claimed temperatures of about 375°C, 370°C, 365°C, 360°C, 350°C, or less (¶¶[0068]–[0069]; Table 1). Brandes independently reports coal-liquefaction testing primarily at 350, 375, and 400°C. Accordingly, the claimed temperatures represent known operating temperatures within or overlapping the prior-art ranges.
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Stiller, Brandes, CN 102344823 A, Kennel, and Ganster as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Matsumoto et al. (US 4,631,181).
Regarding claim 5, Stiller and Kennel teach production of coal-derived pitch.
Matsumoto teaches heating pitch to form mesophase, explains that mesophase constitutes an optically anisotropic liquid-crystal structure, and teaches mesophase pitch particularly suitable for production of carbon fibers. Matsumoto further teaches heat treatment of pitch under conditions causing mesophase formation. (See col. 1, lines 10-30 and 45-60, Examples 5-8)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to thermally treat the coal-derived pitch produced by the combined Stiller/Kennel process according to Matsumoto to form mesophase pitch exhibiting an optically anisotropic liquid-crystal phase because Matsumoto teaches such thermal treatment as a known method of preparing pitch suitable for high-performance carbon materials.
Regarding claim 6, Matsumoto further teaches producing carbon fibers by melt-spinning mesophase pitch, followed by thermal treatment of the spun fibers. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to configure the controller of the combined system to cause the mesophase pitch to be spun into carbon fibers because Matsumoto expressly teaches spinning mesophase pitch for its established use as a carbon-fiber precursor.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that the references previously applied do not teach or suggest a controller coupled to the autoclave apparatus and direct-liquefaction reactor and configured to adjust catalyst amount, temperature, or liquefaction time based on coal reactivity assessed by the autoclave apparatus. The argument has been considered but is not persuasive in view of the rejection as presently modified. The Office agrees that Stiller's process-control disclosure by itself does not teach the newly recited relationship between an autoclave-derived coal-reactivity assessment and adjustment of the liquefaction operating condition. The present rejection therefore does not rely on Stiller alone for this feature. Brandes expressly conducts microautoclave testing to determine the reaction conditions that produce high coal conversion and evaluates conversion as a function of reaction conditions, including temperature and residence time. Brandes therefore supplies the claimed relationship between assessment of the particular coal and determination of suitable reaction conditions. Ganster, in turn, expressly teaches the automation mechanism missing from Brandes: feedstock characteristics are measured by analyzers, supplied as inputs to a process-control system, and used to establish a desired reactor-feed temperature that is automatically implemented by the temperature controller. Thus, the rejection is not based on a finding that Ganster itself evaluates coal reactivity. Rather, Brandes supplies the coal-specific reactivity assessment and its relationship to reaction conditions, while Ganster supplies the known technique for automatically using feedstock-characterization information to determine and control a reactor temperature. One of ordinary skill would have had reason to apply Ganster's known feedstock-responsive automatic-control technique to Brandes' coal-liquefaction optimization because doing so merely automates Brandes' express use of coal-specific experimental results to determine appropriate processing conditions and predictably accommodates differences in coal feed characteristics without requiring manual resetting of the selected operating condition.
Accordingly, Applicant's argument does not overcome the rejection as presently modified.
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 TAM M NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1452. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Frid.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Prem C Singh can be reached at 571-273-6381. 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.
/TAM M NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771
Prosecution Insights