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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the movable piston of claim 3, low-pressure multi-fuel infrastructure of claims 7 and 9 ,the engine of claims 9-10, the tractor of claim 10, a self-sufficient RNG/RH2 microgrid of claim 11, the tractor-trailer of claim 16, the natural gas vehicle of claim 17, and a single-column, single-cycle, single-high pressure high-capacity, long-residence time system of claim 19 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to because Figures 20-21 appear to be in color, but the figures are in gray-scale. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 19 recites the limitation "a single-column, single-cycle, single high-pressure high-capacity, long-residence-time system" in lines 1-2 of the claim. The limitation does not appear in the specification submitted 27 December 2024. It is unclear what structure is associated with the limitation. Figure 4 described in paragraphs [0073-0074] appear to be the closest in description, but it is unclear if the one-tank configuration is the single-column, single-cycle, single high-pressure high-capacity, long-residence-time system. The Office recommends either cancelling the claim or amending the claim to have support from the specification. For purposes of examination, the limitation will be considered as a tank.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Line 1, “comprising of” should be amended to –comprising the steps of--.
Line 10, “the biogas processing facility” should be amended to –a biogas processing facility—.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Line 2, “NG engine” should be amended to – natural gas (NG) engine--.
Lines 2 and 3, “RNG” should be amended to –renewable natural gas (RNG)--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Line 2, “RNG” should be amended to –renewable natural gas (RNG)--.
Lines 2 and 3, “RH2” should be amended to –renewable hydrogen gas (RH2)--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Line 1, “tractor” should be amended to –tractor- trailer--. Appropriate correction is required.
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 6, 16, 17, and 19 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.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "enabling a vehicle operator to choose, on demand, between running a NG engine on inexpensive low-grade RNG, or running the engine on high/pipeline-grade RNG and return unused fuel as CO2-rich commodity” in line 1 of the claim. The limitation is unclear in view of the limitations of claim 1 for when the step occurs. It is also not clear on where the engine is located or what structure is associated with the engine. The Office recommends amending the claims to add additional limitations to clarify the step. For purposes of examination, the limitation will be considered as the engine is part of the vehicle and can connect with the biogas processing facility.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the destination vessel is a stationary methane storage tank at a biogas processing facility" in line 2 of the claim. The limitation is unclear if the destination vessel is a methane storage tank as recited in claim 16 or a carbon dioxide storage tank as recited in claim 1. Paragraphs [0030-0031] of the specification submitted 27 December 2024 state that in some aspects the destination vessel is a methane storage tank and in others it is a carbon dioxide storage tank. The Office recommends amending the claim to recite what the destination vessel is in view of the specification for the preferred embodiment. For purposes of examination, the limitation will be considered as the destination vessel is a stationary methane storage tank.
Claim 17 recites the limitation " the destination vessel is the fuel injection system of the vehicle" in line 2. The limitation is unclear if the destination vessel is the fuel injection system of the vehicle as recited in claim 17 or a carbon dioxide storage tank as recited in claim 1. Paragraphs [0031-0032] of the specification submitted 27 December 2024 state that in some aspects the destination vessel is the fuel injection system and in others it is a carbon dioxide storage tank. The Office recommends amending the claim to recite what the destination vessel is in view of the specification for the preferred embodiment. For purposes of examination, the limitation will be considered as the destination vessel is the fuel injection system of the vehicle.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "a single-column, single-cycle, single high-pressure high-capacity, long-residence-time system" in lines 1-2 of the claim. There appears both in the specification submitted 27 December 2024 and in the claims no structure associated with the single-column, single-cycle, single high-pressure high-capacity, long-residence-time system. Additionally, it is unclear if Figure 4 is supposed to represent the single-column, single-cycle, single high-pressure high-capacity, long-residence-time system as a one-tank configuration. The Office recommends either cancelling the claim or amending the claim to have support from the specification. For purposes of examination, the limitation will be considered as a tank.
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, 5, 14, 16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seki (JP 2008069833 A) in view of Foody (US 20200017787 A1) in further view Tanaka (US 20190126187 A1).
Regarding Claim 1:
Seki discloses a method of pressurizing a mobile, vehicular tank (2, Figure 4, the adsorption container is the mobile, vehicular tank), comprising of:
utilizing a porous adsorbent with biogas to a desired pressure (Paragraph [0026], the tank contains a porous absorbent with biogas to a desired pressure);
discharging gas at an exit pressure when the tank is near empty and a higher pressure when the tank is near full into a destination vessel (Paragraph [0053], the exit pressure is lower when the tank is nearly empty and higher when the tank is full for dispensing gas into the destination vessel (31 and 32));
releasing gas with a concentration of methane (CH4) greater than the first introduced biogas into the destination vessel by rapid depressurization of the tank (Paragraph [0053], the pressure in the tank decreases as the biogas (first introduced biogas) decreases in which the concentration of the methane can be of high concentration that is released with the biogas);
when the pressure in the tank has dropped, extracting the gas that has a carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration (Paragraph [0053] and [0055], the carbon dioxide is extracted after the methane is desorbed), wherein extraction is accomplished by applying a vacuum at the exit port (Paragraph [0042]); and
a biogas consumption site (30, Figure 4).
Seki does not disclose:
utilizing a porous adsorbent with biogas to 50-70 bar;
an exit pressure between 5 bar when the tank is near empty and 60 bar when the tank is near full into a destination vessel; and
when the pressure in the tank has dropped to about 25 bar, extracting the gas that has a carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration of at least 60%, and
the destination vessel is a carbon dioxide storage tank at the biogas processing facility.
Foody teaches a method and system for upgrading biogas, comprising:
the biogas processing facility (50d, Figure 3D, the upgrading facility is the biogas processing facility) which separates the methane from the carbon dioxide (Paragraph [0113]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Seki to include the biogas processing facility which separates the methane from the carbon dioxide as taught by Foody with the motivation to provide renewable natural gas to a distribution system.
Seki and Foody do not teach:
utilizing a porous adsorbent with biogas to 50-70 bar;
an exit pressure between 5 bar when the tank is near empty and 60 bar when the tank is near full into a destination vessel; and
when the pressure in the tank has dropped to about 25 bar, extracting the gas that has a carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration of at least 60%, and
the destination vessel is a carbon dioxide storage tank at the biogas processing facility.
Tanaka teaches a pressure swing adsorption type of gas production device, comprising:
the destination vessel (T, Figure 1) is a carbon dioxide storage tank (Paragraph [0085], the tank holds carbon dioxide) at the biogas processing facility (Figure 1, the system is the biogas processing facility); and
the gas that has a carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration of at least 60% (Paragraph [0050], the carbon dioxide is 40-60% of the biogas concentration).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Seki and Foody to include the destination vessel is a carbon dioxide storage tank at the biogas processing facility and the gas that has a carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration of at least 60% as taught by Tanaka with the motivation to reach methane purification targets by the removal of the carbon dioxide.
Seki, Foody, and Tanaka discloses the claimed invention except for a porous adsorbent with biogas to 50-70 bar, an exit pressure between 5 bar when the tank is near empty and 60 bar when the tank is near full into a destination vessel, and a carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration of at least 60%. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the pressure of the porous adsorbent with biogas to 50-70 bar, an exit pressure between 5 bar when the tank is near empty and 60 bar when the tank is near full into a destination vessel, and a carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration of at least 60%, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claim 1 contains the contingent limitation using the term “when” where the extraction of the gas with a carbon dioxide concentration of at least 60% is not performed until the pressure has dropped about 25 bar in the tank. As seen in MPEP 2111.04, the broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met.
Regarding Claim 5:
Seki discloses:
the porous adsorbent with biogas (Paragraph [0026]).
Seki, Foody and Tanaka discloses the claimed invention except for controlling separation of the CH4 and the CO2 by choosing an adsorbent with lower binding energy for the CH4 and the CO2. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have an adsorbent with lower binding energy for the CH4 and the CO2, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding Claim 14:
Seki discloses:
the gas is released with a concentration of methane (CH4) greater than the first introduced biogas into the destination vessel by rapid depressurization of the tank (Paragraph [0053], the pressure in the tank decreases as the biogas (first introduced biogas) decreases in which the concentration of the methane can be of high concentration that is released with the biogas).
Seki and Foody do not teach:
wherein the gas is released with a concentration of methane at least 10% greater than the first introduced biogas into the destination vessel by rapid depressurization of the tank.
Tanaka teaches:
a concentration of methane of at least 40% (Paragraph [0050], the methane is 40-60% of the biogas concentration)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Seki and Foody to a concentration of methane of at least 40% as taught by Tanaka with the motivation to produce a product gas with refined methane.
Seki, Foody, and Tanaka discloses the claimed invention except for the gas is released with a concentration of methane at least 10% greater than the first introduced biogas. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the concentration of methane be at least 10%, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding Claim 16:
Seki discloses:
wherein the tank (2, Figure 4) is for tractor-trailer transportation of biogas (Paragraph [0028], the tank truck is the tractor-trailer) and the destination vessel (31 and 32, Figure 4) is a stationary methane storage tank (31, Figure 4) at a biogas processing facility (30, Figure 4).
Seki and Tanaka do not expressly teach:
tractor-trailer transportation of biogas; and
a biogas processing facility.
Foody teaches:
tractor-trailer transportation of biogas (Paragraph [0067]); and
a biogas processing facility (50d, Figure 3D).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Seki and Takana to tractor-trailer transportation of biogas and a biogas processing facility as taught by Foody with the motivation to transport the biogas between locations with vehicles that are already available on the market.
Regarding Claim 18:
Seki discloses:
the gas is released with a concentration of methane (CH4) greater than the first introduced biogas into the destination vessel by rapid depressurization of the tank (Paragraph [0053], the pressure in the tank decreases as the biogas (first introduced biogas) decreases in which the concentration of the methane can be of high concentration that is released with the biogas).
Seki and Foody do not teach:
wherein extracting the gas occurs when the gas has a carbon dioxide concentration of at least 80%.
Tanaka teaches:
the gas has a carbon dioxide concentration of at least 40% (Paragraphs [0050] and [0085], the carbon dioxide is 40-60% of the biogas concentration that is then extracted)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Seki and Foody to a concentration of carbon dioxide is at least 40% as taught by Tanaka with the motivation to produce a product gas with refined methane.
Seki, Foody, and Tanaka discloses the claimed invention except for a carbon dioxide concentration of at least 80%. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the concentration of carbon dioxide be at least 80%, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claim 18 contains the contingent limitation using the term “when” where the extraction of gas is not performed until the gas has a carbon dioxide concentration of at least 80%. As seen in MPEP 2111.04, the broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met.
Regarding Claim 19:
See claim 1 for the method.
Seki discloses:
A single-column, single-cycle, single high-pressure high-capacity, long-residence-time system (2, Figure 4, the adsorption container is the single-column, single-cycle, single high-pressure high-capacity, long-residence-time system) in which input and output enter and leave through a single port and gas line (Paragraphs [0026] and [0054], the gas enters and exits through a single port and gas line for the adsorption container).
Regarding Claim 20:
Seki discloses:
wherein the system is capable of pressurization and depressurization (Paragraphs [0026] and [0054], the system is pressurized with the injection of biogas and the depressurization occurs when the biogas is dispensed from the adsorption container).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seki in view of Foody in further view Tanaka and Zhou (US 20240009613 A1).
Regarding Claim 2:
Seki discloses:
discharging of the gas containing CH4 and the CO2 (Paragraph [0053]).
Seki, Foody, and Tanaka do not teach:
comprising controlling separation of the CH4 and the CO2 by pressure and/or temperature-swing desorption.
Zhou teaches sorbent, comprising:
comprising controlling separation of the CO2 by pressure and/or temperature-swing desorption (Paragraph [0043], the carbon dioxide is separated from the carbon dioxide containing gas through pressure-swing desorption).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Seki, Tanaka, and Foody to include comprising controlling separation of the CO2 by pressure and/or temperature-swing desorption as taught by Zhou with the motivation to regenerate the sorbent for future use with other gases.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seki in view of Foody in further view Tanaka and McManus (US 5961697 A).
Regarding Claim 4:
Seki discloses:
controlling separation of the CH4 and the CO2 by choosing an adsorbent with a large porosity selected from the group consisting of BR-0311 and activated carbon (Paragraph [0030], the adsorbent is activated carbon).
Seki, Foody, and Tanaka do not teach:
controlling separation of the CH4 and the CO2 by choosing an adsorbent with a large porosity selected from the group consisting of BR-0311 and activated carbon.
McManus teaches a bulk storage and dispensing system for fluids, comprising:
controlling separation by choosing an adsorbent with a large porosity selected from the group consisting of BR-0311 and activated carbon (Column 5, Lines 63-67 to Column 6, Lines 1-9, activated carbon is used as the adsorbent for the separation).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Seki, Tanaka, and Foody to include comprising controlling separation by choosing an adsorbent with a large porosity selected from the group consisting of BR-0311 and activated carbon as taught by McManus with the motivation to move the fluid out of the vessel for dispensing.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seki in view of Foody in further view Tanaka and Li (US 20150308623 A1).
Regarding Claim 12:
Seki discloses:
controlling separation of the CH4 and the CO2 by choosing an adsorbent with a large porosity selected from the group consisting of BR-0311 and activated carbon (Paragraph [0030], the adsorbent is activated carbon).
Seki, Foody, and Tanaka do not teach:
wherein the porous adsorbent has a gravimetric methane storage capacity of at least 0.13 kg methane/kg adsorbent.
Li teaches a method for loading and storing gas into sorbents, comprising:
wherein the porous adsorbent has a gravimetric methane storage capacity of at least 0.5 g methane/g adsorbent (Paragraph [0035]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Seki, Tanaka, and Foody to include the porous adsorbent has a gravimetric methane storage capacity of at least 0.5 g methane/g adsorbent as taught by Li with the motivation to absorb a higher level of methane in the sorbent.
Seki, Foody, Tanaka, and Li discloses the claimed invention except for the porous adsorbent has a gravimetric methane storage capacity of at least 0.13 kg methane/kg adsorbent. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have the adsorbent have a gravimetric methane storage capacity of at least 0.13 kg methane/kg adsorbent, since applicant has not disclosed that the gravimetric methane storage capacity of at least 0.13 kg methane/kg adsorbent solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with the adsorbent have a gravimetric methane storage capacity of at least 0.13 kg methane/kg adsorbent.
Claims 13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seki in view of Foody in further view Tanaka and Romanos (US 20130190542 A1).
Regarding Claim 13:
Seki discloses:
controlling separation of the CH4 and the CO2 by choosing an adsorbent with a large porosity selected from the group consisting of BR-0311 and activated carbon (Paragraph [0030], the adsorbent is activated carbon).
Seki, Foody, and Tanaka do not teach:
wherein the porous adsorbent has a volumetric storage capacity of at least 0.08 kg methane/liter tank at a temperature of about 20°C.
Romanos teaches activated carbon materials, comprising:
wherein the porous adsorbent has a volumetric storage capacity of at least 0.08 kg methane/liter tank at a temperature of about 30°C (Figure 30 and Paragraph [0212], the volumetric storage capacity is 80g/L at a temperature of about 30°C).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Seki, Tanaka, and Foody to include the porous adsorbent has a volumetric storage capacity of at least 0.08 kg methane/liter tank at a temperature of about 30°C as taught by Romanos with the motivation to have more density of the gas held within the tank.
Seki, Foody, Tanaka, and Romanos discloses the claimed invention except for the porous adsorbent has a volumetric storage capacity of at least 0.08 kg methane/liter tank at a temperature of about 20°C. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have the adsorbent have a volumetric storage capacity of at least 0.08 kg methane/liter tank at a temperature of about 20°C, since applicant has not disclosed that the volumetric storage capacity of at least 0.08 kg methane/liter tank at a temperature of about 20°C solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with the volumetric storage capacity of at least 0.08 kg methane/liter tank at a temperature of about 20°C.
Regarding Claim 15:
Seki discloses:
the gas is released with a concentration of methane (CH4) greater than the first introduced biogas into the destination vessel by rapid depressurization of the tank (Paragraph [0053], the pressure in the tank decreases as the biogas (first introduced biogas) decreases in which the concentration of the methane can be of high concentration that is released with the biogas).
Seki, Romanos, and Foody do not teach:
wherein the gas is released with a concentration of methane at least 20% greater than the first introduced biogas into the destination vessel by rapid depressurization of the tank.
Tanaka teaches:
a concentration of methane of at least 40% (Paragraph [0050], the methane is 40-60% of the biogas concentration)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Seki, Romanos, and Foody to a concentration of methane of at least 40% as taught by Tanaka with the motivation to produce a product gas with refined methane.
Seki, Foody, Romanos, and Tanaka discloses the claimed invention except for the gas is released with a concentration of methane at least 20% greater than the first introduced biogas. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the concentration of methane be at least 20%, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seki in view of Foody in further view Tanaka and Hussain (US 6634321 B2).
Regarding Claim 17:
Seki discloses:
wherein the tank (2, Figure 4) is for biogas (Paragraph [0030]) and the destination vessel (31 and 32, Figure 4) at a biogas processing facility (30, Figure 4).
Seki and Tanaka do not expressly teach:
wherein the tank is for fueling of a natural gas vehicle and the destination vessel is the fuel injection system of the vehicle.
Foody teaches:
the biogas processing facility (50b, Figure 3B) provides natural gas created from biogas (Paragraph [0106]).
Seki, Foody, and Tanaka do not expressly teach:
wherein the tank is for fueling of a natural gas vehicle and the destination vessel is the fuel injection system of the vehicle.
Hussain teaches systems and method for storing hydrogen, comprising:
a natural gas vehicle (400, Figure 9 and Column 4, Lines 7-9, the vehicle can be for compressed natural gas) and the destination vessel is the fuel injection system of the vehicle (Column 8, Lines 50-63, the fuel injection system is the destination vessel that receives the natural gas).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Seki, Foody, and Takana to include a natural gas vehicle and the destination vessel is the fuel injection system of the vehicle as taught by Hussain with the motivation to transport the biogas between locations with vehicles that are already available on the market.
Through the combination of Seki, Takana, Foody, and Hussain, the tank of Seki can be used for natural gas where the destination vessel is the fuel injection system as seen in Hussain which is provided at a station as seen in Foody.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6 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.
Claims 3 and 7-11 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The closest pieces of prior art are Seki (JP 2008069833 A) in view of Foody (US 20200017787 A1) in further view Tanaka (US 20190126187 A1).
Regarding Claim 3:
Claim 3 depends from claim 1 where Seki, Foody and Tanaka teaches the method of pressurizing a mobile, vehicular tank. Claim 3 includes the limitation of “a moveable piston” seen in line 2. The limitation in view of all other limitations of claims 1 and 3 are not taught by the prior art. If any reference were to be found, it would lead to hindsight to have the piston control the separation of the methane and carbon dioxide.
Regarding Claim 6:
Claim 6 depends from claim 1 where Seki, Foody and Tanaka teaches the method of pressurizing a mobile, vehicular tank. Claim 6 includes the limitation of “enabling a vehicle operator to choose, on demand, between running a NG engine on inexpensive low-grade RNG, or running the engine on high/pipeline-grade RNG and return unused fuel as CO2-rich commodity” seen in lines 1-3. The limitation in view of all other limitations of claims 1 and 6 are not taught by the prior art.
Regarding Claim 7:
Claim 7 depends from claim 1 where Seki, Foody and Tanaka teaches the method of pressurizing a mobile, vehicular tank. Claim 7 includes the limitation of “locally producing and using variable-grade RNG and RH2, by virtue of distributed fuel processing or by low-pressure multi-fuel infrastructure” seen in lines 1-3. The limitation in view of all other limitations of claims 1 and 7 are not taught by the prior art.
Claims 8-11 are considered allowable as being dependent on claim 7.
However, a full determination of allowability will be made once all rejections and objections are overcome.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Turnbull (US 8758480 B2) teaches a dynamic and continuous control for pressure swing absorption comprising a vessel containing adsorbent, a gas source, and a vacuum source.
Dolan (US 20150001101 A1) teaches an adsorbed natural gas storage comprising methane, a vessel, adsorption, and a destination vessel.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHANIE A SHRIEVES whose telephone number is (571)272-5373. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday: 9:30AM to 5:30PM.
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, Kenneth Rinehart can be reached at (571) 272-4881. 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.
/STEPHANIE A SHRIEVES/Examiner, Art Unit 3753
/KENNETH RINEHART/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3753
Prosecution Insights