Detailed Action
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This communication is in response to the amendment and reply filed 10/29/2025.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6, 9, and 11-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marker (US 20100251615).
With respect to claims 1, 11 and 16, Marker is directed to a process for producing liquid hydrocarbon products from a solid feedstock comprising biomass. [0014]; [0018] The solid feedstock and hydrogen are fed to and hydropyrolysed in a first stage hydropyrolysis reactor with one or more deoxygenation catalyst. [0018] The product includes char and catalyst fines as well as “a gas containing a large proportion of methane, very small quantities of higher hydrocarbons including unsaturated hydrocarbons, but no tar-like material, in addition to H2, CO, CO2, and H2O (steam), and also H2S. [0010] The process gas stream is fed to a solid separation system, such as hot gas filtration or multiple filters, to remove char and catalyst as dust cake. [0027]-[0028] The dust filter cake is disposed on an outer surface of the plurality of filter elements and comprises the char and catalyst fines. [0028]
With respect to the product, while a different product concentration would be expected, the same range of compounds, including C1-4 light hydrocarbons, is expected where the same feed is reacted in the same hydropyrolysis reaction step.
With respect to claims 2, 12, 13 and 17, Backpulsing may be employed in removing char from filters using hydrogen. [0025]
With respect to claim 3, Marker recognizes the temperature of the filter may be controlled during cleaning to provide optimal conditions. [0028] While Marker mentions optionally cooling the filter for certain adsorbent accumulation, before the filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the blowback temperature conditions including the temperature of the blow back gas, including heating or cooling as needed to achieve optimal conditions. Additionally, the blowback is achieved with gas, therefore it would have been obvious to maintain the gas above the gas condensation temperature to maintain gaseous state.
With respect to claims 6 and 14, Marker does not expressly state the collecting the cake in one or more vessels, however, the gases with cake and catalyst particles cannot be vented to the atmosphere. Before the filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to collect the regeneration stream to prevent environmental contamination.
With respect to claims 9 and 15, Marker is silent regarding the solids concentration in the vapor phase, but does teach using multiple filters in series. It would have been obvious to achieve complete removal of the solids to prevent downstream catalyst deactivation or product contamination.
Claim(s) 4-5, 7-8, and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marker (US 20100251615) as applied to claims above, further in view of Takase (US 20080127824).
With respect to claims 4 and 20, Marker is silent regarding the blowback temperature, including wherein the temperature is between approximately 250 °C and approximately 400 °C.
Takase (US 20080127824) is directed to a method of regenerating filter and the apparatus in a gasification system. Abstract. Takase teaches operating the filter at a temperature of 400-450 C, but the gas for regeneration may be maintained at a lower temperature of 80-400C. [0011]
Therefore, before the filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to operate the blowback of Marker at a gas temperature in the range of 80-400C as taught in Takase because both are directed to filter regeneration in pyrolysis product filters and while Marker teaches optimizing the temperature it is silent on what that would be.
With respect to claim 5, Takase discloses interrupting a flow of the process gas stream into the hot gas filtration unit before injecting the blow back gas. See Figure 3, process gas valves closed and ash gas valves open.
With respect to claims 7 and 18, Takase teaches heating the filter to a above 400C which would be above the condensation temperature of the process gas.
With respect to claims 8 and 19, Marker is silent regarding the gas temperature. Takase teaches an elevated temperature in the range of 80-400C, but is silent regarding the temperature relative to the process gas stream. However, this temperature range would encompass or overlap the claimed range.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marker (US 20100251615) as applied to the claims above, further in view of Urade (US 20170121609).
With respect to claim 10, Marker teaches sending the filtered effluent to a hydroconversion reactor with hydroconversion catalyst for conversion of the product gas. The hydroconversion product is cooled and introduced to a water-gas-shift reaction to convert CO to methane.
Marker is silent regarding wherein the product is substantially fully deoxygenated hydrocarbon product, H2O, CO, CO2, and C1 - C3 gases, or teach condensing the hydrocarbon product to generate a deoxygenated hydrocarbon liquid comprising a substantially fully deoxygenated C4+ hydrocarbon liquid.
Urade (US 20170121609), is directed to an upgrading processing comprising hydropyrolysis, filtering, and hydroconversion. Abstract Urade teaches the same hydroconversion step, conditions at [0036], and discloses the reactor produce a vapor phase product comprising substantially fully deoxygenated hydrocarbon product, H.sub.2O, CO, CO.sub.2, and C.sub.1-C.sub.3 gases. Abstract. “[T]he vapour phase product of step c) is preferably condensed to provide a liquid phase product comprising substantially fully deoxygenated C4+ hydrocarbon liquid and aqueous material. The remaining vapour phase comprises mainly H.sub.2, CO, CO.sub.2 and light hydrocarbon gases (typically C.sub.1 to C.sub.3, but this stream may also contain some C.sub.4 and C.sub.5 hydrocarbons) and is separated.” [0046]
Urade shows that the effluent of Maker contains substantially deoxygenated product stream with the claimed components. With respect to condensing the product, before the filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to condense liquid hydrocarbons from the vapor in the process of Marker as taught in Urade to achieve the needed stream to obtain a cooled stream for feeding the water gas shift reaction while also recovering heavier product.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Brandi Doyle whose telephone number is (571)270-1141. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:00 AM - 3:00 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 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.
/BRANDI M DOYLE/Examiner, Art Unit 1771
Prosecution Insights