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 .
Priority
The current application claims priority to provisional application 63/340,528. However, the currently claimed subject matter is not adequately supported in the provisional application. In particular:
The provisional application does not disclose the fuel heating the air during the contacting in the main reaction chamber, as in step (d) of claims 1, 9, and their dependent claims, as well as element (e) of claim 14 and its dependent claims, noting that element (e) of claim 14 as well as claim 17 also recite a temperature range not disclosed in the provisional application. Paragraph 4 of the provisional application discloses preheating air with the descending oxidized particles in a quenching zone but does not disclose heating the air during the contacting/oxidizing step. Paragraph 4 of the provisional application discloses the use of resistive heating elements to heat the contents of the reaction zone.
The provisional application does not disclose the percentage of the air extracted as heated gas, as recited in claims 2 and 10.
The provisional application does not disclose feeding and extracting the air and fuel particles at room temperatures, as recited in claims 3 and 11.
The provisional application does not disclose storing the fuel in pelletized form or flowing the extracted heated gas to a manufacturing furnace or kiln, as recited in claims 4, 6, and 12-13.
The provisional application does not disclose the manufacturing furnace or kiln recited in claim 18.
The provisional application does not disclose the porous filter recited in claim 19.
The provisional application does not disclose storing the Mg-Mn-O fuel as pellets, as recited in claim 20.
The provisional application does not disclose a compressor, as recited in element (c) of claim 21 and its dependent claims.
The provisional application (including the drawing) does not disclose an oxidation zone having a widest lateral cross-sectional area at least six times greater than each of the quenching and recuperation zones, as recited in claim 22.
The provisional application does not disclose the hot gas temperature range recited in claim 23.
The provisional application does not disclose a feeding conveyor and removal conveyor as recited in claim 24.
The claims have therefore been accorded a filing date of 5/11/23.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 1 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Babiniec (U.S. PG Pub. No. 2020/0048106).
In Figure 19 Babiniec discloses an oxidation reactor (Re-Oxidation Reactor (ROx) 20), which receives particles from a hot reduced particle storage vessel 18 located above the reactor while cold air is fed to the bottom of the reactor. In paragraphs 99-100 Babiniec discloses that the hot reduced particle storage vessel contains thermochemically reduced solar fuel particles (metal oxide particles) obtained from a solar receiver reduction reactor 16. In paragraph 102 Babiniec discloses that the oxidation reactor receives particles from the hot reduced particle storage vessel via gravity feed, meeting the limitations of step (a) of claim 1. Flowing the cold air into the oxidation reactor, as described in Figure 19 and paragraph 113 of Babiniec meets the limitations of step (b) of claim 1. The air will therefore come into contact with the solar fuel particles in the oxidation reactor, as recited in step (c) of claim 19, and in paragraphs 113 and 118 Babiniec further indicates that the air is heated by the hot solar fuel particles while the particles are oxidized, as recited in step (d) of claim 1. In Figure 19 and paragraph 112 Babiniec indicates that the heated air is extracted from the reactor, as recited in step (e) of claim 1, and flowed directly external to the reactor and reaction chamber in a direction offset from the primary air flow direction through the reactor. Babiniec therefore meets the limitations of the method of claim 1.
In paragraph 107 Babiniec discloses that a heat exchanger can be omitted from the system, in which case the heat exchange between the fuel and the air meets the limitations of claim 7.
In light of the above, claims 1 and 7 are anticipated by Babiniec.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-24 are allowed. Claims 9, 14, 21, and their dependent claims recite an oxidation reactor comprising a narrower upper tube in a recuperation zone, a wider main reaction cavity in an oxidation zone, and a narrower lower tube in a quenching zone. The prior art, as exemplified by Babiniec, does not disclose or render obvious this specific reactor, particularly in combination with chemically reduced solar fuel particles, noting that claims 14 and 21 recite a reactor comprising chemically reduced solar fuel particles. One of ordinary skill in the art would not be motivated to modify Babiniec to use an oxidation reactor with the specific characteristics recited in claims 9-24.
Claims 2-6 and 8 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. Babiniec, discussed in the above rejection, does not disclose or render obvious extracting the amount of heated gas recited in claim 2, discloses feeding and storing a heated fuel rather than the room temperature fuel of claims 3-4, does not disclose a reactor having the details recited in claims 5 and 8, and discloses feeding the extracted heated gas to a turbine rather than a manufacturing furnace of kiln as recited in claims 4 and 6. One of ordinary skill in the art would not have motivation to modify Babiniec to arrive at a method meeting the limitations of claims 2-6 and 8.
The International Search Report lists Klausner (WO 2022/035672 A1) as an X reference. However, Figure 1 of Klausner discloses a reactor and method where oxidized solar fuel particles are fed to a reactor comprising a reduction zone, rather than feeding reduced solar fuel particles to a reactor comprising an oxidation zone. While Klausner does disclose in paragraphs 57-59 and Figure 8 an apparatus further comprising an oxidation reactor 260, this reactor lacks other features of the claimed reactor, as it uses steam rather than air from a compressor, the steam exits from the upper portion of the reactor, and the oxidation zone does not have a main reaction chamber wider than the tubes in the recuperation zone and the oxidation zone.
Zhang (CN 110332837 A), an English-language machine translation of which is attached, discloses a thermochemical energy storage system where a high-valent metal oxide is reduced in a calcining reactor and the resulting low-valent metal oxide (reduced solar fuel) is fed to an oxidation reactor where it is oxidized in air. However, Zhang discloses feeding heated air to the oxidation reactor rather than heating the air with the fuel and does not disclose extracting the gas from the oxidation reactor in the manner recited in the claims. Zhang also does not disclose or render obvious the specifics of the reactor recited in claims 9-24.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES C GOLOBOY whose telephone number is (571)272-2476. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, usually about 10:00-6:30.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, PREM SINGH can be reached at 571-272-6381. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of 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.
/JAMES C GOLOBOY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771
Prosecution Insights