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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species ii (converting the halogen-containing species into the at least one acid and/or the at least one secondary compound) in the reply filed on May 29th, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Objections
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 3 of claim 4, “therein” should be edited to read, “wherein”.
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.
Claim 5 is 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 5 recites the limitation "the reaction process of step (c)" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1, upon which claims 4 and 5 depend, recites “a reaction process” in step (d), but not in step (c). For assessing the scope and meaning of the claim for prior art purposes, any reaction process will be interpreted to read on “the reaction process”, as individual claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification. See MPEP § 2111.
Claim 18 recites the limitation “the halogenated volatile organic compound” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For assessing the scope and meaning of the claim for prior art purposes, any halogenated volatile organic compound will be interpreted to read on “the volatile organic compound”.
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 1-7, 9-10, 12-13, 15-20, 24, 27-31, and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Prasad (U.S. 2013/0209338 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Prasad teaches a method to produce a processed gas (Prasad, Fig. 1, [0029]-[0048]), comprising:
providing a gas derived from and/or including biogas (Prasad, Fig. 1, [0029], biogas stream 1; [0037], biogas streams 11, 13), the gas comprising methane, oxygen, and at least one halogen-containing species (Prasad, [0029], methane, oxygen, chlorine compounds);
heating the gas to produce a heated gas (Prasad, Fig. 1, [0035], “Typically heat exchanger 210 is a large heat exchanger that is able to preheat the gas as much as possible so that the biogas stream 11 is efficiently heated and clean outlet biogas stream 21 is efficiently cooled.”; [0037], “Following the DeOX stage, the biogas stream 13 has reduced water, oxygen and contaminant content, and is heated at an appropriate temperature preferably between 300°C and 400°C suitable for further sulfide cleaning in hydrodesulfurization catalyst bed 240 (HDS).”);
controlling conditions during the heating by controlling a temperature of the gas (Prasad, [0037], between 300°C and 400°C) and adding a reactant to the gas (Prasad, [0037], hydrogen and platinum catalyst - instant claim 18 indicates that a catalyst is a reactant);
subjecting the heated gas to a reaction process to produce a processed gas comprising at least one acid (Prasad, [0038], hydrogen chloride) and at least one secondary compound (Prasad, [0038], hydrogen sulfide) by converting the halogen-containing species into the at least one acid (Prasad, [0038], “The benefits and novelty of this stage with the hydrodesulfurization catalyst bed 240 is that any sulfur and chlorine species present in the biogas can be hydrogenated to hydrogen sulfide and hydrogen chloride so that they can be easily removed and so that very low levels of these impurities are seen at the outlet of the biogas cleaning system regardless of what kinds of sulfur or chlorine species may be present in the inlet biogas to the system.”); and
contacting the processed gas with a material to separate at least a portion of the acid (Prasad, [0039], ActiSorb CL2 from Sud Chemie).
Regarding claim 2, Prasad teaches the method of claim 1, as discussed above, comprising after step (d), transferring heat from the processed gas to the gas provided in step (a) during the heating of step (b) (Prasad, Fig. 1, [0035], “Typically heat exchanger 210 is a large heat exchanger that is able to preheat the gas as much as possible so that the biogas stream 11 is efficiently heated and clean outlet biogas stream 21 is efficiently cooled.”).
Regarding claim 3, Prasad teaches the method of claim 1, as discussed above, wherein heating the gas in step (b) comprises passing the gas at an initial temperature through a heater to heat the gas to a first temperature (Prasad, Fig. 1, [0035], “Typically heat exchanger 210 is a large heat exchanger that is able to preheat the gas as much as possible so that the biogas stream 11 is efficiently heated and clean outlet biogas stream 21 is efficiently cooled.” A first temperature is the temperature at which the gas is preheated as much as possible.).
Regarding claim 4, Prasad teaches the method of claim 3, as discussed above, further comprising
heating the gas from the first temperature to a second temperature in a second heater (Prasad, [0036], “From the heat exchanger 210, biogas stream 11 enters into a de-oxidizer catalyst bed 230. The system 111 is able to control the temperatures that the hot components in the hot side operate at under a relatively large band of inlet oxygen concentrations. Because the oxygen is combusted with hydrogen in the de-oxidizer catalyst bed there can be a relatively large exothermic temperature rise with the reaction.”; [0028], “Similarly for reactor beds as commonly used in gas cleaning may have independent heaters and thermal control systems—these are not shown explicitly but assumed included in the definition of ‘bed’.”). Because the temperature rises during oxygen removal, the second temperature is greater than the first temperature.
Regarding claim 5, Prasad teaches the method of claim 4, as discussed above, wherein the gas at the second temperature is supplied to the reaction process of step (c) (Prasad, Fig. 1, [0037], “Following the DeOX stage, the biogas stream 13 has reduced water, oxygen and contaminant content, and is heated at an appropriate temperature preferably between 300°C and 400°C suitable for further sulfide cleaning in hydrodesulfurization catalyst bed 240 (HDS).”). The gas at the second temperature is that which is transferred from DeOX stage 230 to HDS stage 240 (Prasad, Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 6, Prasad teaches the method of claim 3, as discussed above, wherein the first heater comprises a heat exchanger that indirectly contacts the gas at the initial temperature with the processed gas (Prasad, Fig. 1, [0035], “Typically heat exchanger 210 is a large heat exchanger that is able to preheat the gas as much as possible so that the biogas stream 11 is efficiently heated and clean outlet biogas stream 21 is efficiently cooled.”; [0045], hot loop heat exchange).
Regarding claim 7, Prasad teaches the method of claim 4, as discussed above, wherein the second heater comprises an electric heater configured to increase the temperature from the first temperature to the second temperature (Prasad, [0028], “Similarly for reactor beds as commonly used in gas cleaning may have independent heaters and thermal control systems—these are not shown explicitly but assumed included in the definition of ‘bed’.”; Paragraph [0057] elaborates that heaters integrated in the beds are electrical heaters).
Regarding claim 9, Prasad teaches the method of claim 6, as discussed above, wherein the processed gas transfers heat to the gas at the initial temperature through indirect heat exchange to gas at the first temperature (Prasad, Fig. 1, [0035], “Typically heat exchanger 210 is a large heat exchanger that is able to preheat the gas as much as possible so that the biogas stream 11 is efficiently heated and clean outlet biogas stream 21 is efficiently cooled.”; [0045], hot loop heat exchange).
Regarding claim 10, Prasad teaches the method of claim 1, as discussed above, further comprising after step (d), supplying the processed gas to an adsorption process (Prasad, Fig. 1, [0039], adsorption bed 250).
Regarding claim 12, Prasad teaches the method of claim 1, as discussed above, wherein:
the acid adsorbs onto a surface of at least a portion of the material, to separate the acid from the processed gas (Prasad, Fig. 1, [0039], adsorption bed 250, “In this bed 250, the hydrogen chloride that is present in the biogas is adsorbed into the bed. An example of suitable material is ActiSorb CL2 from Sud Chemie for a hydrogen chloride removal bed.”).
Regarding claim 13, Prasad teaches the method of claim 12, as discussed above, wherein:
said material comprises an adsorbent (Prasad, [0039], adsorption bed 250 is a bed of adsorbent (e.g., ActiSorb CL2 from Sud Chemie).
Regarding claim 15, Prasad teaches the method according to claim 13, as discussed above, comprising subjecting at least a portion of the processed gas to a post-processing step to produce post-processed gas, said post-processing step including a hydrogen sulfide removal process (Prasad, Fig. 1, [0041], “At this stage of biogas stream 16, the sulfides have previously been substantially converted to hydrogen sulfide and now the hydrogen sulfide is removed in a sulfur adsorbent bed 270.”).
Regarding claim 16, Prasad teaches the method according to claim 1, as discussed above, wherein, in step (d), the reaction process occurs in the presence of a catalyst (Prasad, Fig. 1, [0038], hydrodesulfurization catalyst bed 240).
Regarding claim 17, Prasad teaches the method according to claim 1, as discussed above, comprising
producing a product from at least a portion of said processed gas, the product comprising a chemical (Prasad, [0021], clean biogas fuel is a chemical).
Regarding claim 18, Prasad teaches the method according to claim 1, as discussed above, wherein the reactant includes a catalyst (Prasad, [0037], platinum catalyst).
Regarding claim 19, Prasad teaches the method according to claim 1, as discussed above, wherein the reactant includes a source of hydrogen, wherein the source of hydrogen is supplied as a gas (Prasad, [0048], “c) then adding hydrogen gas in the biogas stream”).
Regarding claim 20, Prasad teaches the method according to claim 19, as discussed above. While not explicitly disclosed, Prasad’s source of hydrogen is necessarily produced in a hydrogen production process. For Prasad’s source of hydrogen (Prasad, [0037], [0048], hydrogen gas) to exist, it would have had to have been produced in a hydrogen production process, despite Prasad’s silence to this tautological fact.
Regarding claim 24, Prasad teaches the method according to claim 1, as discussed above, wherein the secondary compound includes a sulfur compound (Prasad, [0038], hydrogen sulfide).
Regarding claim 27, Prasad teaches the method according to claim 1, as discussed above, wherein:
contacting the processed gas with the material reduces corrosion of downstream equipment (Prasad, claim 14, “the clean biogas output by the system downstream has sufficiently low levels of contaminants such that the biogas can be reliably and repeatably burned as fuel in a generator selected one from the group of internal combustion engine, turbine, fuel cell system and boiler, with reduced corrosion or damage to the generator.”).
Regarding claim 28, Prasad teaches the method according to claim 27, as discussed above, wherein:
said downstream equipment comprises a downstream gas processing system (Prasad, claim 14, a generator which burns fuel is a gas processing system).
Regarding claims 29-30, Prasad teaches the method according to claim 1, as discussed above, wherein:
the processed gas comprises a halogen concentration of parts per billion levels (Prasad, [0022]).
Regarding claim 31, Prasad teaches the method according to claim 1, as discussed above, wherein:
the processed gas comprises an oxygen concentration in parts per billion levels (Prasad, [0022]).
Regarding claim 33, Prasad teaches the method according to claim 1, as discussed above, wherein the processed gas comprises:
a reduced halogen concentration (Prasad, [0022]); and
a reduced oxygen concentration (Prasad, [0022]).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Prasad (U.S. 2013/0209338 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further evidenced by C&CS (“Chlorine removal”, 2026).
Regarding claim 14, Prasad teaches the method according to claim 1, as discussed above. C&CS states that the adsorbent for chlorine removal employed by Prasad (Prasad, [0039], ActiSorb CL2 from Sud Chemie) works by chemisorption of HCl (C&CS, Page 1, Paragraph 2). Therefore, in Prasad’s method, said acid (Prasad, [0039], hydrogen chloride, which is hydrochloric acid (HCl)) forms a compound on a surface of at least a portion of said material, despite Prasad’s silence to this feature, to separate said acid from said gas mixture and produce said processed gas.
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Prasad (U.S. 2013/0209338 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, further evidenced by C&CS (“Chlorine removal”, 2026), and further evidenced by Blachman (WO 00/44466 A2, 2000).
Regarding claim 26, Prasad teaches the method according to claim 1, as discussed above. C&CS states that the adsorbent for chlorine removal employed by Prasad (Prasad, [0039], ActiSorb CL2 from Sud Chemie) works by chemisorption of HCl and is a sodium-doped, aluminum-based adsorbent (C&CS, Page 1, Paragraph 2). Blachman teaches that alumina impregnated with sodium improves hydrogen chloride adsorption capacity by an acid-base neutralization: 2HCl + Na2O -> 2NaCl + H2O (Blachman, Page 2, lines 17-29), where NaCl is a salt. Therefore, in Prasad’s method, said acid (Prasad, [0039], hydrogen chloride, which is hydrochloric acid (HCl)) forms a salt (NaCl) on a surface of at least a portion of said material, despite Prasad’s silence to this feature, to separate said acid from said gas mixture and produce said processed 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 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Prasad (U.S. 2013/0209338 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Celsigas (“Gas flares for biogas”, 2022).
Regarding claim 8, Prasad teaches the method of claim 4, as discussed above, but does not explicitly teach that the processed gas has a temperature greater than the second temperature. The claim does not require that “a temperature” occurs at a specific point in time or place in the claimed process. In view of this, Prasad teaches flaring the biogas following decontamination as an option (Prasad, [0044]). Celsigas teaches that modern biogas flares burn at > 850°C (Celsigas, Page 7, lines 3-4), which is higher than the maximum temperature of 400°C advised by Prasad for hydrodesulfurization (Prasad, [0037]) and is consequently higher than the second temperature (Prasad, [0036], “The outlet temperature of the de-oxidizer catalytic bed in biogas stream 13 would be monitored (TE thermal sensor-not numbered) to make sure that it remains within the hydrodesulfurization operating temperature window”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have incorporated a modern biogas flare as taught by Celsigas and thereby achieve a temperature of the processed gas of > 850°C, which fulfills the claim limitation of being higher than the second temperature, as Celsigas teaches that this achieves a colorless flame with good burnout behavior (Celsigas, Page 7, lines 3-4).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Prasad (U.S. 2013/0209338 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Xi (CN 203382732 U, 2014) (the translation provided with the attached original document is referenced below).
Regarding claim 11, Prasad teaches the method of claim 1, as discussed above, but does not teach, further comprising after step (d), supplying the processed gas to a temperature swing adsorption process. However, Prasad teaches generally that the output gas stream 22 may need to be dried, and that “it is possible to further cool the gas with the addition of another refrigerant loop heat exchanger (not shown) on biogas stream 22 so that the biogas can be cooled further and the water can be removed” (Prasad, Figs. 1 and 4, [0054]). Additionally, Xi teaches that temperature swing adsorption is an effective means for drying biogas to a high degree (Xi, [0029]), which can be followed by removal of carbon dioxide to produce high-quality natural gas (Xi, [0030]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Prasad’s method by further incorporating temperature swing adsorption to the processed gas as taught by Xi. The selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960), Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945), and MPEP § 2144.07. In the instant case, Prasad’s output stream 22 is substantially similar to Xi’s “biogas from which H2S is removed” (Xi, [0029]), and using this stream as an input into Xi’s natural gas production process would yield the predictable effect of producing high-quality natural gas from Prasad’s purified biogas. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to realize Xi’s drying and CO2 removal process to produce a high-quality natural gas “which can be used as a raw material for industries with high quality requirements for natural gas” (Xi, [008]).
Claim Rejections - Improper Markush Grouping
Claim 17 is rejected on the basis that it contains an improper Markush grouping of alternatives. See In re Harnisch, 631 F.2d 716, 721-22 (CCPA 1980) and Ex parte Hozumi, 3 USPQ2d 1059, 1060 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1984). A Markush grouping is proper if the alternatives defined by the Markush group (i.e., alternatives from which a selection is to be made in the context of a combination or process, or alternative chemical compounds as a whole) share a “single structural similarity” and a common use. A Markush grouping meets these requirements in two situations. First, a Markush grouping is proper if the alternatives are all members of the same recognized physical or chemical class or the same art-recognized class, and are disclosed in the specification or known in the art to be functionally equivalent and have a common use. Second, where a Markush grouping describes alternative chemical compounds, whether by words or chemical formulas, and the alternatives do not belong to a recognized class as set forth above, the members of the Markush grouping may be considered to share a “single structural similarity” and common use where the alternatives share both a substantial structural feature and a common use that flows from the substantial structural feature. See MPEP § 2117.
The Markush grouping of claim 17 is improper because the alternatives defined by the Markush grouping do not share both a single structural similarity and a common use for the following reasons: “power” and the other recited species do not share both a single structural similarity and a common use.
To overcome this rejection, Applicant may set forth each alternative (or grouping of patentably indistinct alternatives) within an improper Markush grouping in a series of independent or dependent claims and/or present convincing arguments that the group members recited in the alternative within a single claim in fact share a single structural similarity as well as a common use.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 10-20, 24-26, and 33 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 8-9, 12, 15-19, and 26 of U.S. Patent No. 12,496,550 (“’550”). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the following: Regarding instant claim 1, ‘550 claims a method to produce a processed gas (‘550, claim 1, “A method to produce a halogen-depleted gas”), comprising:
providing a gas derived from and/or including biogas (‘550, claim 1, (a)), oxygen (‘550, claim 12), and at least one halogen-containing species (‘550, claim 1, (a));
heating the gas to produce a heated gas (‘550, claim 1, (c));
controlling conditions during the heating by adding a reactant to the gas (‘550, claim 1, (b), mixed with hydrogen; claim does not require adding a reactant during heating);
subjecting the heated gas to a reaction process to produce a processed gas comprising at least one acid (‘550, claim 1, (c)) and/or at least one secondary compound (‘550, claim 14) by converting the halogen-containing species into the at least one acid (‘550, claim 1, (c)); and
contacting the processed gas with a material (‘550, claim 5) to separate at least a portion of the acid (‘550, claim 1, (d)) and/or the at least one secondary compound (‘550, claim 15).
While ‘550 does not explicitly claim that the biogas comprises methane, the disclosure teaches that biogas comprises methane (‘550, Column 1, “Methane is an important constituent of biogas which may be processed to produce a variety of valuable products.”). Therefore, the biogas of the claimed process in ‘550 comprises methane, despite the claim’s silence to this fact.
Regarding instant claim 10, ‘550 claims the method of claim 1, as discussed above, further comprising after step (d), supplying the processed gas to an adsorption process (‘550, claim 19).
Regarding instant claim 11, ‘550 claims the method of claim 1, as discussed above, further comprising after step (d), supplying the processed gas to a temperature swing adsorption process (‘550, claim 19).
Regarding instant claim 12, ‘550 claims the method of claim 1, as discussed above, wherein: the acid and/or secondary compound dissociates, reacts, combines, adsorbs, absorbs, deposits, fuses, attracts, adheres, clings, binds, unites, joins, assimilates, polymerizes, and/or catalyzes, with, onto, into, in response to, within, with the assistance of, and/or on a surface of at least a portion of the material, to separate the acid and/or the secondary compound from the processed gas (‘550, claim 16).
Regarding instant claim 13, ‘550 claims the method according to claim 12, as discussed above, wherein: said material comprises one or more materials selected from the group consisting of activated alumina, activated carbon, alumina, caustic, carbon, carbon nanotubes, a metal, a plurality of metals, catalyst, ceramic material, chitosan, chitin, clay, a dry scrubbing agent, an engineered reactant, iron sponge, an ion-exchange resin, media, molecular sieve, a polymeric adsorbent, absorbent, promoted alumina, a reactant, a scavenger, silica gel, a base, a neutralizing agent, a pH buffer, and a zeolite (‘550, claim 17).
Regarding instant claim 14, ‘550 claims the method according to claim 1, as discussed above, wherein: said acid and/or secondary compound forms a salt, a compound, and/or a sulfur compound with, onto, into, in response to, within, with the assistance of, and/or on a surface of at least a portion of said material, to separate said acid from said gas mixture and produce said processed gas (‘550, claim 26).
Regarding instant claim 15, ‘550 claims the method according to claim 13, comprising subjecting at least a portion of the processed gas to a post-processing step to produce post- processed gas, said post-processing step including one or more processes selected from the group consisting of a water removal process, pre-pressurization with at least one blower, a hydrogen sulfide removal process, a siloxane removal process, chilling, pressurization, a volatile organic compound removal process, a carbon dioxide removal process, a catalytic oxygen reduction process, an oxygen removal process, a pressure-swing adsorption process, a nitrogen removal process, a temperature swing adsorption process, a membrane separation process, a membrane carbon dioxide removal process, a metal removal process, a mercury removal process, a cryogenic gas separation process, a water-wash gas separation process, a pressure-swing adsorption process, a temperature swing adsorption water removal process, a cryogenic distillation process, a distillation process, a hydrogen production process, a partial oxidation process, an autothermal reforming process, a chemical production process, an ethanol production process, an alcohol production process, a liquid fuel production process, a Fischer Tropsch synthesis process, a steam methane reforming process, a catalytic process, an ammonia production process, processing in a fuel cell, and a bioreactor including microorganisms (‘550, claim 19).
Regarding instant claim 16, ‘550 claims the method according to claim 1, as discussed above, wherein, in step (d), the reaction process occurs in the presence of a catalyst (‘550, claim 1, (c)).
Regarding instant claim 17, ‘550 claims the method according to claim 1, as discussed above, comprising producing a product from at least a portion of said processed gas, the product comprising one or more products selected from the group consisting of a chemical, dimethyl ether, ethanol, Fischer-Tropsch product, hydrogen, methanol, mixed alcohols, an alcohol, 1-butanol, 2-butanol, jet fuel, gasoline, a liquid fuel, a hydrocarbon, a lipid, an emulsion, diesel, acid, a sulfur compound, a salt, carbon, carbon monoxide, water, and power (‘550, claims 18, 19).
Regarding instant claim 18, ‘550 claims the method according to claim 1, as discussed above, wherein the reactant includes a volatile organic compound, a sulfur-containing compound, the halogenated volatile organic compound, oxygen, an oxygen-containing gas, an alcohol, water, a hydrocarbon, methane, a catalyst, and/or a scavenger (‘550, claim 12).
Regarding instant claim 19, ‘550 claims the method according to claim 1, as discussed above, wherein the reactant includes a source of hydrogen, wherein the source of hydrogen is supplied as a gas, a vapor, and/or as water (‘550, claim 9).
Regarding instant claim 20, ‘550 claims the method according to claim 19, as discussed above, wherein: the source of hydrogen is produced in one or more processes selected from the group consisting of a partial oxidization process, an autothermal reforming process, a steam reforming process, a hydrogen production process, water gas shift reaction, a Sabatier reaction, methanation, and an electrolysis process (‘550, claim 9).
Regarding instant claim 24, ‘550 claims the method according to claim 1, as discussed above, wherein: the secondary compound includes one or more compounds selected from the group consisting of hydrogen, a hydrocarbon, a hydrocarbon mixture, a halogenated hydrocarbon, said acid, a sulfur compound, a salt, carbon, carbon monoxide, water, an ion, an anion, a cation, a free radical, an unsaturated compound, an unsaturated hydrocarbon, a polymer, green oil, an organic chloride, a metal complex, ionic polymerization termination, coordination polymerization termination, and free radical polymerization termination (‘550, claim 15).
Regarding instant claim 25, ‘550 claims the method according to claim 1, as discussed above, wherein: the secondary compound includes an organic chloride (‘550, claim 15).
Regarding instant claim 26, ‘550 claims the method according to claim 1, as discussed above, wherein: said acid secondary compound forms a salt onto, into, in response to, within, with the assistance of, and/or on a surface of at least a portion of said material, to separate said acid and/or said secondary compound from said gas mixture and produce said processed gas (‘550, claims 8, 26).
Regarding instant claim 33, ‘550 claims the method according to claim 1, as discussed above, wherein the processed gas comprises:
a reduced halogen concentration (‘550, claim 1, (d)); and
a reduced oxygen concentration (‘550, claim 12).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 32 is 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: Prasad (U.S. 2013/0209338 A1), Blachman (WO 00/44466 A2, 2000), Celsigas (“Gas flares for biogas”, 2022), and Xi (CN 203382732 U, 2014) (see the translation provided with the attached original document) are considered to be the closest prior art to the instant claims.
Regarding claim 32, Prasad teaches the method according to claim 1, as discussed above, but is silent to whether contacting the processed gas with the material reduces formation and/or deposition of green oil within downstream equipment. Prasad does teach removing chloride in the form of HCl from the biogas (Prasad, [0037]-[0038]), and Blachman does teach that removing HCl from a gas stream prevents deposition of green oil within downstream equipment, but this is in the context of alumina adsorbents promoting the polymerization of olefins (Blachman, Page 3, lines 9-22). There is no teaching or suggestion in Prasad that green oil would be deposited in the equipment employed, and none of the cited prior art teaches or suggests modifying Prasad’s method such that green oil would be deposited within downstream equipment.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZACHARY J. BAUM whose telephone number is (571)270-0895. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30-5:00.
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, Anthony Zimmer can be reached at 571-270-3590. 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.
/ZACHARY JOHN BAUM/Examiner, Art Unit 1736
Prosecution Insights