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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/22/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The amendment does not obviate the rejections of record.
Applicant argues on pages 6-7 of the Remarks that the invention of Krenzke is concerned about the redox reaction being isothermal and that “Krenzke is silent on the flow of oxidizer or reductant gases as a measure to control and ensure a difference between α and β within a given range, least of all within a range of 0.01 and 0.05, and also because Krenzke is silent on a process that sets out from δred of 0.1 - 0.2 to arrive at a δox between 0.1 - 0.2.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees that the isothermal process of Krenzke is mutually exclusive from the control of the α (δox) and β (δred) values.
Krenzke states at the bottom of column 1, top of column 2 on page 4090 that “The reduction nonstoichiometry is δred=0.2 at 1223K and reaches δred=0.25 above 1273K,” the middle of column 2 that “…the limit on the non-stoichiometry swing is virtually equivalent to δred,” and further in column 2 that “Thus, chemical equilibrium thermodynamics point to isothermal operation of the cycle for large δox at temperatures from 1223 to 1273K, where the lower temperature limit allows for high-quality syngas production during the ceria reduction step and the upper limit avoids phase transition in ceria. Moreover, this temperature range is well-matched to operating temperatures possible with commercial central receiver solar facilities.” Krenzke therefore establishes that: performing the redox reaction at 1223K such that β =0.2 is desirable; that deviating from that temperature directly affects the β value; that a large α is also desired; and that the upper limit of α is virtually equivalent to β.
It is the Office’s position that the explicit teaching in Krenzke of controlling the reaction temperatures is the same as maintaining the β-α in the range of 0.01 to 0.05 as claimed. Column 1 on page 4091 discloses that the control/maintenance is done with process gas flow.
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, 2, 4, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Krenzke ("Thermodynamic Analysis of Syngas Production via the Solar Thermochemical Cerium Oxide Redox Cycle with Methane-Driven Reduction").
Krenzke discloses a process comprising: generating hydrogen and carbon dioxide (syngas) from methane by contacting ceria with the methane to reduce the ceria and then regenerating the ceria with steam and carbon dioxide (Section 1 Introduction). Krenzke discloses a process temperature range of at least 473 to 1673 K (Figure 3). Krenzke discloses that δred is at least 0 to 0.25 (see Figure 4) and the lower limit of δOX is 0.001 with an upper limit virtually equivalent to δred (pg 4090, col 2, para 1). δred – δOX corresponds to β-α of the claims and thus encompasses the claimed ranges. It is the Office’s position that the explicit teaching in Krenzke of controlling the reaction temperatures is the same as maintaining the β-α in the range of 0.01 to 0.05 as claimed. Column 1 on page 4091 discloses that the control/maintenance is done with process gas flow.
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 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krenzke as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Scheffe (“Synthesis, Characterization, and Thermochemical Redox Performance of Hf4+, Zr4+, and Sc3+ Doped Ceria for Splitting CO2”).
Krenzke fails to disclose the use of ceria and Zr. Scheffe—in an invention for generating hydrogen and carbon dioxide (syngas) from methane through oxidation and reduction—discloses Ce0.85Zr0.15O2 (Table 1) with the methane to reduce the ceria and then regenerating the ceria with steam and carbon dioxide for its ability to produce renewable fuels and precursors at elevated temperatures (Introduction). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to utilize the Ceria-Zirconium compounds of Scheffe in the process of Krenzke for its value in producing syngas at elevated temperatures.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krenzke as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Steinfeld (US 2016/0114312 A1).
Krenzke fails to disclose an open-cell foam structure. Steinfeld—in an invention for thermochemical cycles based on redox reactions to product syngas (paragraph 2)—discloses utilizing an improved open-cell foam ceria structure to enhance radiation penetration and allows more reactive material to be redoxed (paragraph 42). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to utilize an open-cell structure for the metal oxides of Krenzke, Scheffe, or Ahlborg so as to enhance the efficacy of the reactions as suggested by Steinfeld.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IMRAN AKRAM whose telephone number is (571)270-3241. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8a-4p.
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, Basia Ridley can be reached at 571-272-1453. 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.
/IMRAN AKRAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725