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 Interpretation
The term “carbon hydride” as found in claim 2 is interpreted to be the alkane gases made in the Fischer-Tropsch process. This is not defined as such in the specification.
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 2, 4 and 11 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 2 and 11 are indefinite as the wording is confusing. For the purpose of this office action it is assumed that the recycled Ft off-gas may not have any alkanes with 5 or more carbon grouped with it. The wording should make clearer that the alkanes are the intended product of the invention and are to be removed and further processed.
Claims 4 states “wherein only the hydrogen in the FT offgas is supplied as the hydrogen”. This does not designate where (which step) the hydrogen is supposed to go. Additionally, synthesis gas from a biomass creates hydrogen. This is therefore the supplied hydrogen. Depending on the wording of this claim in the response further 112 may be applied as the specification has hydrogen being generated by the making of synthesis gas.
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 nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2024/096929 A1 (hereafter Marker et al).
Marker teaches a process for production of a fuel (abstract, p 17).
The process uses biomass material to make a synthesis gas. See p 6, 13-14, 19.
This synthesis gas is converted using a Fischer-Tropsch process. The FT gas goes to fractional distillation to separate hydrogen stream and small alkane stream that is recycled to the synthesis stage. See p 20. This is the FT offgas of the claims. The alkanes are the power producing gas of the claims. As this is provided to the synthesis stage there must be a series of devices to transport this stream to its intended location. No other hydrogen source is listed as necessary to be added to the synthesis step.
The Fischer-Tropsch oil undergoes further hydroprocessing, see p 17.
Regarding the ratio of the water to the biomass as found in claim 7 and 15, a ratio of water vapor/biomass of less than 1 is not specifically stated.
It is the position of the examiner that the ratio of water/biomass being less than 1 is a result effective variable and as such can be optimized without undue experimentation. Discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within the skill in the art and would have been obvious.In re Boesch and Slaney (205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FRANK C CAMPANELL whose telephone number is (571)270-3165. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00-5:00.
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.
/FRANCIS C CAMPANELL/Examiner, Art Unit 1771
/PREM C SINGH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1771
Prosecution Insights