Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 5-8, 11, 27, 29-30, and 36-38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In claims 1, 8, 11, and their dependent claims, “preferably” renders the claims indefinite since it is unclear whether the limitations following “preferably” are part of the claim. The examiner recommends that “preferably” be deleted from the claims.
Similarly, in claim 27 and its dependent claims, “especially” renders the claims indefinite since it is unclear whether the limitations following “especially” are part of the claim. The examiner recommends that “especially” be deleted from the claims.
For the purposes of examination, the limitations following “preferably” and “especially” have been disregarded.
In claim 38, it is unclear what is meant by “the function of at least one of the plant components is integrated in another of the plant components”, in particular, it is unclear whether this limitation simply means that two plant components are combined in the same housing, or whether it requires the plant to contain a different set of components than those recited in claim 20, where one of the components performs multiple functions, in which case the claim would not further limit claim 20. For the purposes of examination, multiple components in the same housing and/or disclosed as part of the same unit are considered to meet the claim limitation.
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, 8, 11, 20, 27, 29-30, and 38-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by EAT Anlagenbau UG (DE 202021001452 U1, “DE ‘452”)
An English-language machine translation of DE ‘452, which is attached, has been used in setting forth this rejection, and the paragraph numbers referred to herein are those of the translation unless otherwise noted.
In paragraph 1 DE ‘452 discloses a system where fluid fuels can be produced from fiber, thread, or wire reinforced polymers. In paragraph 8 DE ‘452 discloses that the composite materials are first separated into the reinforcement and the carbon-containing matrix material, corresponding to the first step of claim 1 and the first plant component of claim 20, and then the matrix material can be converted into a fluid fuel. In paragraphs 16, 20 and 25 DE ‘452 discloses that the conversion of the matrix material to a fluid fuel comprises gasification in a gasification device to produce synthesis gas, corresponding to the second step of claim 1 and the second plant component of claim 20, and in paragraph 22 discloses that the synthesis gas can be further converted into fuels such as hydrogen, methanol, and ammonia, corresponding to the third step of claim 1 and the third plant component of claim 20.
In paragraphs 10 and 12 DE ‘452 discloses that the reinforcement materials and carbon-containing matrix materials are separated by a two-step process comprising a step of crushing in a crushing device, corresponding to the coarse comminution step of claim 1 and apparatus of claim 20, and a second step of grinding the crushed elements of the composite material against each other, corresponding to the fine comminution step of claim 1 where the fine comminution is conducted by means of a grinder, and the fine comminution apparatus of claim 20. In paragraph 15 DE ‘452 discloses that the system also comprises a sieve device to separate the reinforcement materials from the matrix material, corresponding to the separation apparatus of claim 20. Claims 1 and 20 are therefore anticipated by DE ‘452.
The gasification device used in the method and system of DE ‘452 meets the limitations of the gasification apparatus of claim 27, noting that the limitations following “preferably” are disregarded, and the use of the gasification device in the method of DE ‘452 meets the limitations of claim 8, noting that DE ‘452 discloses a gasification temperature and the specific temperatures following “preferably” in claim 8 have been disregarded.
In paragraph 26 DE ‘452 discloses that steam reforming or water-gas shift can be used to produce a mixture of hydrogen and carbon dioxide from the synthesis gas, meeting the limitations of claim 11.
In paragraph 26 DE ‘452 discloses that steam reforming or water-gas shift can be used to produce a mixture of hydrogen and carbon dioxide from the synthesis gas, indicating that the plant can comprise a steam reforming apparatus in accordance with claim 29, and in paragraphs 22 and 30 DE ‘452 also discloses that the plant can contain a component for converting the synthesis gas to methanol, also meeting the limitations of claim 29. In paragraph 27 DE ‘452 discloses that the plant can have an apparatus for separating the carbon dioxide from the hydrogen, as recited in claim 30.
In paragraph 11 DE ‘452 discloses that the two devices used to separate the reinforcement materials from the carbon-containing matrix can be combined in a plant component, in which case the plant component meets the limitations of claim 38 where the function of a plant component is integrated in another of the plant components. In paragraph 31 DE ‘452 discloses that the components of the system can be installed separately from each other, even in different locations, as recited in claim 39.
In light of the above, claims 1, 11, 20, 29-30, and 39 are anticipated by DE ‘452.
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 5 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE ‘452 in view of EAT Anlagenbau UG (DE 202020004665 U1, “DE ‘665”).
The discussion of DE ‘452 in paragraph 6 above is incorporated here by reference. DE ‘452 discloses a method meeting the limitations of claim 1 and a plant meeting the limitations of claim 20, but does not specifically disclose the separation method and device utilizing a cooling device for removal of heat of friction. In paragraph 11, DE ‘452 specifically points to DE ‘665 as teaching a suitable plant component for separating the composite material.
An English-language machine translation of DE ‘665, which is attached, has been used in setting forth this rejection, and the paragraph numbers referred to herein are those of the machine translation.
In paragraphs 1 and 6 DE ‘665 discloses a device for separating composite materials into fibers and matrix material similar to that of DE ‘452. In paragraph 42 DE ‘665 discloses that the device can be equipped with cooling devices for dissipating frictional heat, meeting the limitations of claim 24, and where carrying out the method of DE ‘452 will include the removal of heat of friction, as recited in claim 5.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the cooling devices of DE ‘665 in the method and apparatus of DE ‘452, in order to remove head generated by the method and apparatus, and since DE ‘452 specifically points to DE ‘665 as teaching a suitable device for separating the composite material feedstock.
Claims 6, 21-22, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE ‘452 in view of Sims (U.S. Pat. No. 5,251,827).
The discussion of DE ‘452 in paragraph 6 above is incorporated here by reference. DE ‘452 discloses a method meeting the limitations of claim 1 and a plant meeting the limitations of claim 20, but does not specifically disclose the classifiers of claims 6 and 26, or comminuting the composite materials to the sizes recited in claims 21-22.
Sims, in Figure 1 and column 1 lines 43-51, discloses a two-step process for separating fibers from composite materials, similar to that of DE ‘452, where the materials undergo coarse comminution in a shredder and fine comminution in a pulverizer. From column 3 line 58 through column 4 line 2 Sims discloses that the output of the pulverizer is passed through a mesh screen, meeting the limitations of the screen separation apparatus of claims 6 and 25, and that the free fiber is removed by an airlift, meeting the limitations of the air classifier of claims 6 and 25.
In column 2 lines 52-55 Sims discloses that the shredder reduces the feed material to strips having a length and width of 80 mm (8 cm), within the range recited in claim 21. In column 3 lines 58-61 Sims discloses that the output of the pulverizer is passed through a screen with a 2.03 mm screen opening, indicating that at least one of the dimensions of the material passed through the screen is 2.03 mm or less, overlapping the range recited in claim 22, while the free fiber does not pass through the screen and is extracted by an airlift. See MPEP 2144.05(I): “In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976);”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the screen and air classifier of Sims as the separation apparatus of DE ‘452, since Sims teaches that it is suitable for separating the output of the pulverizer into particles of different sizes and for removing the free fibers from the product. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to configure the separation apparatus in the system of DE ‘452 to produce composite materials of DE ‘452 to the sizes taught by Sims, since Sims teaches that those are suitable sizes for a composite material to be reduced to in a similar separation process.
Claims 36-37 and 42-43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE ‘452 in view of de la Fuente (de la Fuente, J.F., Moreno, S.H., Stankiewicz, A.I., Stefanidis, G.D., “Reduction of CO2 with hydrogen in a non-equilibrium microwave plasma reactor”, Int. J., Hydrog. Energy, 2016, 41, 21067-21077)
The discussion of DE ‘452 in paragraph 6 above is incorporated here by reference. DE ‘452 discloses a plant meeting the limitations of claim 30, but does not specifically disclose the claimed carbon dioxide splitting apparatus.
de la Fuente, in the second and third paragraphs of the left column of page 21068, discloses the reduction of CO2 with H2 in a reverse water-gas shift reaction, producing synthesis gas, which can further be converted to methanol. In the “Reactor Configuration” section of page 21068, de la Fuente discloses that microwave energy is supplied to the reactor at a frequency of 2450 MHz (2.45 GHz), indicating that the carbon dioxide is split in an oscillating electromagnetic field, meeting the limitations of claims 36 and 42, and where the frequency of the electromagnetic field falls within the range recited in claim 43. The production of the synthesis gas, which is a fuel precursor, in the reactor, meets the limitations of the fuel precursor synthesis apparatus, as recited in claim 37, and the downstream reactor for production of methanol disclosed in the fourth paragraph of the right column of page 21071 also meets the limitations of a fuel synthesis apparatus as recited in claim 37. The inclusion of the reactor system of de la Fuente in the system of DE ‘452 therefore meets the limitations of claims 36-37 and 42-43.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the reactor system of de la Fuente in the system of DE ‘452, in order to convert the carbon dioxide of DE ‘452 to a useful fluid fuel product, and because de la Fuente teaches in the “Conclusions” section of pages 21075-21076 that the reactor system and method of de la Fuente leads to high CO2 conversion and selectivity.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 7 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The prior art, as exemplified by the references discussed in the above rejections, does not disclose or provide a motivation for one of ordinary skill in the art to process the composite material to have a fiber content of 5% to 15% after the separation, and does not provide any indication that the fiber content of the matrix material is a result-effective variable for the gasification or further processing steps. Paragraph 15 of DE ‘452 and paragraph 37 of DE ‘665, which discuss separating the fibers from the comminuted matrix material, do not make any mention of retaining a fiber content in the matrix material.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Setier (WO 2017/103527 A1), an English-language translation of which is attached, discloses a method for manufacturing a synthesis gas by gasification of tires or pieces of tires, where the reaction can be carried out in a fixed bed reactor, and the temperature and pressure can overlap the ranges recited in claims 8 and 27 if the claims were amended to remove the indefinite “preferably” and “especially” language.
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