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 .
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.
Claims 2 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 2 is ambiguous as to whether “said catalytic hydrogenation” refers back to only “catalytic hydrogenation of carbon oxides” in claim 1, or instead refers back to the “catalytic hydrogenation” of the “supercritical water reactor” generally.
In claim 7, meaning of the clause “aggregated to said aqueous effluents with organic content supplied to the supercritical water reactor” is unclear.
In claim 10, the absence of a “,” between “- a supercritical water oxidation reactor” and “- a supercritical water gasification reactor” makes the claim indefinite as to whether “a supercritical water gasification reactor” is the last item in a series of optional, alternative types of what the “supercritical water reactor” comprises.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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 non-obviousness.
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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harper PGPUBS Document US 2017/0341942 (Harper) in view of Pujado et al patent (Pujado) and Vogel et al patent 8,475,549 (Vogel).
Referenced paragraph numbers of the Descriptions of the applied PGPUBS Documents are identified with “[ ]” symbols.
For independent claim 1, Harper discloses a method for treating aqueous effluents with organic content, comprising:
- providing a flow of aqueous effluents with organic content (regarding water treatment or aqueous effluents, including providing a flow of such aqueous effluents , see [0147, 0225, 0227, 0238, 0239, 0312], the water having organic contamination or content including environmtally harmful organic compounds or VOC [0120, 0132]),
- pressurizing said flow of aqueous effluents with organic content to a pressure value equal to or greater than a pressure value at a critical point of water, and heating said flow of aqueous effluents with organic content to a temperature value equal to or greater than the temperature value at the critical point of the water, (regarding purifying water, under supercritical conditions including contact with supercritical water at high pressures and temperature, inherently requiring such step being conducted in a reactor, see [0163, 0209-0210]);
- processing the pressurized and heated flow of aqueous effluents by means of such supercritical water reactor [0163, 0209-0210], and
- subjecting the aqueous effluents to catalytic hydrogenation, including catalytic hydrogenation of carbon oxides (regarding catalytic hydrogenation, including hydrogenation to produce methanol and methane from carbon dioxide, see [0205, 0700-0750]).
Claim 1 differs by positively reciting the step of catalytic hydrogenation to be conducted on aqueous effluents which have been processed by means of the supercritical water reactor. Harper lacks a clear teaching of such order of method steps.
Pujado teaches to remove phenols and other organic compounds from aqueous streams by supercritical oxidation, such as hydrocarbonaceous carbons, thus comprising oxygen components with carbon and oxygen-containing components (column 1, lines 10-29, and column 3, line 14-37), which are then treated by catalytic hydrogenation (column 3, line 45-column 4, line 52, column 4, lines 28-52 specifically referring to a catalytic hydrogenation reaction zone).
Vogel et al patent 8,475,549 teaches supercritical water reactor for effluents having organic matter followed by catalytic gasification to produce methane, including catalytic hydrogenation gasification to produce methane fuel from carbon dioxide recovered from the supercritical water reactor (see column 1, lines 16-25 regarding treatment of effluent having organic content being used for generating methane and see column 4, lines 37-65 regarding the catalytic hydrogenation to produce methane-rich product gas following supercritical oxidation which produces methane fuel from carbon dioxide and monoxide (also see column 1, lines 1-14).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of treating aqueous effluents contaminated with organic content, to have modified the Harper method, by conducting the catalytic hydrogenation on aqueous effluents which have been processed by means of the supercritical water reactor, as cumulatively taught by Pujado and Vogel et al (Vogel), in order to remove trace amounts of toxic hydrocarbonaceous compounds from the water, while avoiding release of such compounds into the atmosphere (Pujado, Abstract and column 1, lines 10-24) and so as to more efficiently produce a more substantial yield of methane, suitable for production of alternative fuel products (Vogel at column 4, lines 37-65).
For claim 2, Harper further discloses wherein said catalytic hydrogenation comprises a catalytic methanation [0204, 0205 and 1298]; also see Vogel at Step 8 (column 4, lines 63-65).
For claim 3, Harper further discloses the method further comprising depressurizing effluents processed by means of the supercritical water reactor prior to said subjecting the aqueous effluents processed by means of the supercritical water reactor to catalytic hydrogenation [0121 re “Depressurization of an Expanded Liquid Organic Solution process].
For claim 4, Harper further teaches the method comprising adding hydrogen to the aqueous effluents processed by means of the supercritical water reactor prior to said subjecting the aqueous effluents processed by means of the supercritical water reactor to catalytic hydrogenation [0162 re industrial production of methanol and natural gas containing methanol facilitated by introduction of biohydrogen or water electrolysis].
For claim 5, dependent on claim 4, Harper further teaches the method as further comprising providing an electrolyzer for generating the hydrogen to be added to the flow of aqueous effluents processed by means of the supercritical water reactor [0162 re industrial production of methanol and natural gas containing methanol facilitated by introduction of biohydrogen or water electrolysis, such hydrolysis ].
For claim 6, dependent on claim 5, Harper further teaches the method as further comprising separating a gaseous fraction of said aqueous effluents processed by means of the supercritical water reactor from a liquid fraction of said aqueous effluents processed by means of the supercritical water reactor, the gaseous fraction being subjected to said catalytic hydrogenation, the liquid fraction being treated to separate an aqueous fraction from a solid fraction (see also [0168 and 0170-0172 re electrolysis resulting in carbon dioxide gaseous fractions which is further processed to produce both solid carbon products and industrial hydrocarbon liquid, including, but not limited to fuels, thus requiring steps to separate aqueous and solid fractions]) .
For claim 7, dependent on claim 6, Harper further teaches or suggests wherein said electrolyzer is supplied with the aqueous fraction extracted from the liquid fraction of said aqueous effluents processed by means of the supercritical water reactor, and
wherein the solid fraction of said aqueous effluents processed by means of the supercritical water reactor is aggregated to said aqueous effluents with organic content supplied to the supercritical water reactor
(all cumulatively taught or suggested by [0168 re electrolytic carbon dioxide splitting to produce carbon monoxide and oxygen in “catalyzed aqueous reaction systems”], [0178 re supercritical carbon dioxide pretreatment sometimes including “micro-disaggregating pressure-release carbon dioxide explosion”] and [0209 re gasification reactions in highly pressurized supercritical water, with input of carbon dioxide]) .
For claim 9, dependent on claim 6, Harper further teaches wherein at least one of the supercritical water reactor, the electrolyzer, and a concentrator device configured to separate the aqueous fraction from the solid fraction of said aqueous effluents processed by means of the supercritical water reactor is electrically powered by electrical energy generated by a photovoltaic field (see discussion of generating electricity from solar-powered or photovoltaic sources in [0211-0212 re “artificial photosynthesis and production of energy to provide an efficient power source].
For claim 8, dependent on claim 1, Harper further teaches or suggests the method further comprising providing an electrolyzer for generating hydrogen for the catalytic hydrogenation treatment to which the aqueous effluents processed by means of the supercritical water reactor is subjected (see again production of hydrogen from water electrolysis in [0162]
For claim 10, dependent on claim 1, Harper specifically discloses wherein said supercritical water reactor comprises one of: a supercritical water oxidation reactor, or a supercritical water gasification reactor [0163 re use of extraction processes utilizing supercritical carbon dioxide in mixtures with water].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Of particular interest , Gunasekaran PGPUBS Document US 20160039698 includes discussion of electrolysis (Abstract, [0010-0015], and reference to utilization for olive oil aqueous effluents [0123]; Zhang PGPUBS Document US 2014/0291256 concerns treatment of dye industry wastewater including by oxidation (Abstract), and Winkler PGPUBS Document US 2020/0392053 concerns catalytic methanation to generate methane (Abstract).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Primary Examiner Joseph Drodge at his direct government formal facsimile phone number telephone number of 571-272-1140. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from approximately 8:00 AM to 1:00PM and 2:30 PM to 5:30 PM.
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 encourage to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner are unsuccessful, the examiner' s supervisor, Benjamin Lebron, of Technology Center Unit 1773, can reached at 571-272-0475.
The telephone number, for official, formal communications, for the examining group where this application is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from the Patent Examiner. 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/apply/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.
JWD
09/27/2026
/JOSEPH W DRODGE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1773
