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 .
Claim Status
Claims 1, 7, 8, 16, 18, 21, and 28 are amended. Claims 9-11 are cancelled.
The amendments to claims 1, 7, 8, 16, 18, 21, and 28 overcome the previous 112(b) rejections and claim objection.
Claims 1-8 and 12-28 are pending for examination below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 30 September 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on pages 10-11 of the Remarks that, as acknowledged by the Office Action, Fujimoto teaches only a GHSV for the process which would be higher than the claimed WHSV, that the reference to MPEP 2144.05(II) by the Examiner discusses overlapping and similar ranges, which are not taught by Fujimoto or Ge, that MPEP 2144.05(II)(B) requires an articulated rationale for the optimization rationale presented by the Examiner, and that no explanation is given as to why one of ordinary skill in the art would arrive at the claimed range.
In response, the Examiner notes that while MPEP 2144.05 as a whole is titled “Obviousness of Similar and Overlapping Ranges, Amounts, and Proportions”, it is noted that the Examiner specifically cited section (II), which is titled “Routine Optimization”. Thus, the fact that the ranges of Fujimoto and Ge do not overlap the claimed range is moot, as this section of the MPEP was not what was referred to by the Examiner.
As to the requirements of MPEP 2144.05(II)B, the Examiner notes that there is first a section 2144.05(II)A, which is titled Optimization Within Prior Art Conditions or Through Routine Experimentation and first states “Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (Claimed process which was performed at a temperature between 40°C and 80°C and an acid concentration between 25% and 70% was held to be prima facie obvious over a reference process which differed from the claims only in that the reference process was performed at a temperature of 100°C and an acid concentration of 10%.)”. As previously noted, there is not sufficient evidence in the specification that the WHSV is critical or unexpected.
This is followed by the section B, which states “In order to properly support a rejection on the basis that an invention is the result of "routine optimization", the examiner must make findings of relevant facts, and present the underpinning reasoning in sufficient detail. The articulated rationale must include an explanation of why it would have been routine optimization to arrive at the claimed invention and why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to formulate the claimed range.” Section 2144.05(III) also discusses result-effective variables, and notes that “(‘A recognition in the prior art that a property is affected by the variable is sufficient to find the variable result-effective.’)". As explained by the Examiner in the rejection, Ge explicitly teaches that the conversion is affected by the space velocity (paragraph [0104]). Thus, the art recognizes that the variable of space velocity is result-effective.
As noted in section 2144.05(II)A, it is generally not inventive to find optimum or workable ranges of general conditions by routine experimentation. As required by section 2144.05(II)B, the Examiner explained that the WHSV is a well-known variable, which has the predictable effect as recited by Ge of adjusting the conversion of CO in the process. This is considered a rational of sufficient detail and explains why the adjustment is routine and would have had a reasonable expectation of success, which is that the variable is explicitly taught as having the effect of changing the conversion and thus one of ordinary skill in the art would expect that it has the effect of changing the conversion without undue experimentation and with a reasonable expectation of success. Thus, the Examiner has met the requirements of a prima facie case of obviousness, and the optimization rejection remains proper.
Applicant argues on page 11 of the Remarks that Ge teaches an optimal conversion which requires a higher WHSV, and that adjusting the WHSV to the claimed lower range would make less of the desired LPG product and thus not provide a reasonable expectation of success.
In response, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. First, the reaction of Ge is not identical to the claimed reaction. Thus, there is no evidence that applying the general teaching of Ge of a higher WHSV to get the desired LPG yield is applicable to all processes. The Examiner has only relied on Ge for the teaching of Ge that the space velocity is a result-effective variable that affects the conversion. The fact that Ge applies the space velocity in a certain way in the process of Ge is moot to the claimed process, which is the process as described by Fujimoto. Second, there is no requirement in the MPEP that the art provide the same motivation as Applicant. Ge explicitly teaches that the space velocity affects the conversion. Thus, the space velocity is a result-effective variable, and can be optimized. The fact that Ge obtains results which do not match Applicant’s results does not affect the conclusion that changing the space velocity changes the conversion, and thus the optimization remains proper.
Applicant argues on pages 12-13 that Ge teaches optimizing conversion rather than maximizing it, there is no teaching in the art to pursue higher conversion, and that it is known in the art that reactor optimization requires a relationship between conversion and selectivity (equated to yield by Applicant), thus there is no motivation to change the WHSV to the claimed range.
In response, the Applicant is again assuming that the result of Ge are applicable in their entirety to the process of Fujimoto. There is no evidence that changing the WHSV to the lower claimed range would negatively affect the yield in the process of Fujimoto, as the processes of Fujimoto and Ge are not identical. Again, the MPEP does not require that the prior art have the same motivation as Applicant, only that there is a motivation. Ge explicitly teaches that changing the WHSV affects the conversion. This is sufficient motivation in and of itself to make the space velocity result-effective. One of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success of the change of space velocity on the conversion, because such a result is explicitly taught in Ge. Further, the Examiner did not intend to state that the conversion should be maximized, merely intending to state that Ge teaches that lower space velocity is higher conversion. One of ordinary skill in the art is aware that reactor yield is actually the product of conversion and selectivity, not equivalent to selectivity alone, as shown by page 65 of the NPL Applicant has helpfully provided in the Response. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art is aware that changing the space velocity changes the conversion, and that changing the conversion can change the yield, and thus would understand how to optimize the variables to produce desired conversion and selectivity to produce a desired yield, as needed.
Applicant also argues on page 13 of the Remarks that Fujimoto teaches the higher GHSV requires the feed to be introduced in a batched manner, leading to process inefficiencies in paragraphs [0206]-[0207]).
In response, the Examiner agrees that paragraph [0206] teaches that Fujimoto prefers a higher GHWV of 500-5000 h-1 and [0207] teaches that the reaction is fed in a batch manner and that the reaction temperature can be controlled in batches. However, the Examiner does not see that Fujimoto states that processing inefficiencies are produced by the batch processing, or that the GHSV is why the batch is done, or that the batch manner is required at all. None of these are stated by Fujimoto. Thus, Fujimoto does not provide any additional reasons to use higher GHSV and this argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues on pages 14-16 of the Remarks that the Examiner has not interpreted paragraph [0220] of Fujimoto correctly and has not included correct motivation, because there is no reason why one of ordinary skill in the art would keep the hydrogen with the CO2 when separating the low boiling components as taught by Fujimoto.
In response, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Paragraph [0220] of Fujimoto states “from the carbon dioxide-containing gas separated from the lower alkane-containing gas, components other than carbon dioxide, such as the above-mentioned low boiling components, can be separated as needed.” One of ordinary skill in the art, reading this sentence, would interpret it to mean any of the components other than carbon dioxide, such as the low boiling components including hydrogen and carbon monoxide of paragraph [0218], can be separated as needed. Paragraph [0220] already recites separation of the alkanes listed as low boiling components. Thus, paragraph [0220] is interpreted to mean that hydrogen, carbon monoxide, or both hydrogen and carbon monoxide can be separated from the carbon dioxide gas as needed. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to keep the hydrogen and only separate the carbon monoxide, as claimed, because it is obvious to try a selection from a finite list of options (3 options) and with a reasonable expectation of success (the fact that Fujimoto teaches the options for separation means that success with any option is reasonably expected) (see MPEP 2143(I)(E) Obvious to try). Thus, the rejection is maintained.
Applicant also argues on page 16 of the Remarks that the instant specification teaches that important LPG selectivity and yield can be attained as a result of adding CO2 and H2 in combination, and Fujimoto does not discuss this importance.
In response, the Examiner respectfully notes that the specification recitation of importance is not equal to evidence of criticality or unexpected results. As explained in the Final Office Action of 20 June 2024, the Example 6 is not commensurate in scope with the claim 16. In Table 2 of the instant specification, comparing the Baseline feed to the Feed C having added hydrogen and carbon dioxide does show an increased yield in LPG hydrocarbons. However, this is only one example with one specific addition of one specific molar ratio of hydrogen to carbon dioxide to the baseline feed. There is no evidence that adding any hydrogen and carbon dioxide containing stream to any baseline stream would necessarily produce the same increase in LPG yield. Further, Fujimoto does not have to provide the same reasoning to render obvious the claims. Fujimoto teaches recycling a stream comprising carbon dioxide and hydrogen (paragraph [0149]). Thus, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985). Thus, the fact that Fujimoto does not discuss the importance of the recycle does not preclude Fujimoto from teaching the process which results in the recycle claimed.
Applicant argues on pages 16-17 of the Remarks that because Fujimoto does not teach a similar process, as argued above, the argument for the ratio that the similar process results in a similar result is incorrect.
In response, as explained above, the Examiner respectfully disagrees that Fujimoto is not similar. Thus, maintaining the similar process rejection, it remains obvious that the similar process of Fujimoto produces the similar result of the ratio of H2:CO claimed, absent any evidence to the contrary.
Applicant argues on page 17 that pages 17 and 18 in the previous Remarks provide evidence that the H2:CO ratio would decrease if the process of Fujimoto is followed, and thus it remains Applicant’s position that Fujimoto does not suggest recycling to provide a higher H2:CO molar ratio, as claimed, also directing attention to the Examples in Fujimoto
In response, the argument that the addition of carbon dioxide from the recycle suppresses the by-production of carbon dioxide and thus would drive the reversible reaction to CO is not evidence that the process of Fujimoto would not produce the claimed result. This again is arguing based on the Examples of Fujimoto, which do not teach the claimed recycle feed comprising only H2 and CO2. Fujimoto is not limited to the Examples, and Fujimoto clearly implicitly teaches the claimed recycle feed having only CO2 and H2 (separating lower boiling components as needed paragraph [0220]). Thus, following the process of Fujimoto which is equivalent to the claimed process when recycling a stream comprising H2 and CO2, as claimed, one of ordinary skill in the art continues to expect the higher H2:CO molar ratio, absent actual evidence to the contrary, which is not provided in the previous Remarks or in Fujimoto.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5-12, 16-18, 21, 23, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujimoto et al. (CN1867652, machine translation provided) as evidenced by Ge et al. (US 2014/0151265).
With regard to claims 1 and 2, Fujimoto teaches a method for producing liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) (paragraph [0002]), the process comprising the following steps:
a) reacting a carbonaceous raw material comprising carbon dioxide and methane (paragraph [0094]) in a reforming reactor with a catalyst to produce synthesis gas comprising hydrogen and carbon monoxide (paragraph [0096]). Fujimoto teaches that the catalyst is a reforming catalyst and thus the catalyst has at least some activity for catalyzing reforming as claimed. Fujimoto further teaches that the feed to the reforming reactor comprises appropriate amounts of methane and carbon dioxide (paragraph [0102]). Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to optimize the carbon dioxide and methane in the feed by routine experimentation with a reasonable expectation of success, and can arrive at the claimed amounts of predominantly containing CO2 and CH4 or containing at least about 75 mol% CO2 and CH4 as claimed in instant claims 1 and 2.
b) passing the synthesis gas obtained in the reforming step (paragraph [0147]) and recycling at least a portion of the carbon dioxide and hydrogen containing gas (H2/CO2- enriched fraction from the LPG step) (paragraph [0149]) to a lower alkane production step to produce an effluent comprising LPG and low boiling components (paragraph [0147]) including carbon dioxide and hydrogen (paragraph [0150]). The temperature of the reaction is 310°C to 400°C (paragraph [0203]) and the pressure is 1 to 7 MPa (paragraph [0144]), which overlap the ranges of about 316 to about 399°C and about 1.38 to about 5.2 MPa, rendering the ranges prima facie obvious. The feed comprises 5 to 35 mol% carbon dioxide (paragraph [0196]) which is identical to the range of about 5 to about 35 mol% of instant claim 1. The feed also includes a H2 to CO molar ratio of 1.5 to 3.5 (paragraph [0199]), which overlaps the range of at least 2 of instant claim 1, rendering the range prima facie obvious. The feed further includes 3.3 to 30 mol% CO (paragraph [0195]). With a ratio of 1.5 to 3.5 H-2 to CO, the total amount of CO and H2 together is 4.95 to 95 mol%, which overlaps the range of greater than 50 mol% of instant claim 1, rendering the range prima facie obvious. Fujimoto additionally teaches that the catalyst for the LPG synthesis stage comprises a methanol synthesis component comprising copper and zine (paragraph [0165]) and a zeolite component for dehydration (paragraph [0051]) where the components are physically mixed together (i) separate particles) (paragraph [0183]).
c) separating the LPG and the low boiling components form the effluent (paragraph [0212]) where the low boiling components comprise the carbon dioxide and hydrogen (paragraph [0218]). One of ordinary skill in the art would expect that the low boiling component stream is enriched in the carbon dioxide and hydrogen compared to the stream comprising LPG and the original effluent stream because the low boiling component stream is expected to have a higher concentration of carbon dioxide and hydrogen than the original effluent stream or the LPG stream because the separation is intended to remove the LPG from the low boiling components in the original effluent.
d) recycling at least a portion of the carbon dioxide and hydrogen containing gas to the lower alkane production step as a raw material to the process (combining with the synthesis gas intermediate) (paragraph [0149]).
Fujimoto teaches the GHSV of the LPG synthesis stage is preferably 500 h-1 or more (paragraph [0107]), but is silent with regard to the WHSV in the LPG stage. However, it is well known in the art that the space velocity affects the conversion of the CO in the reaction (see Ge paragraph [0104]), and thus the space velocity is a result-effective variable which can be optimized. One of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success of adjusting the WHSV, because this is a well-known parameter that is changed without undue experimentation. Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have determined the optimum value of WHSV of about 0.1 to about 1.5 h-1 as claimed, through routine experimentation in the absence of a showing of criticality. See MPEP 2144.05(II).
With regard to claim 3, Fujimoto further teaches that the feed to the reforming reactor comprises appropriate amounts of water and oxygen and is silent with regard to the presence of carbon monoxide in the feed (paragraph [0102]). Thus, there is 0 wt% carbon monoxide in the feed and one of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to optimize the amount of water and oxygen in the feed by routine experimentation with a reasonable expectation of success, and can arrive at the claimed amounts of an independent amount of less than about 10 mol% or a combined amount of less than about 10 mol%, as claimed.
With regard to claim 5, Fujimoto teaches separating water from the effluent (paragraph [0217]) and further teaches that water is fed to the reforming reaction to produce synthesis gas (paragraph [0102]). Fujimoto does not specifically teach that the water separated from the LPG effluent can be recycled to the reforming reaction as the water. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the water separated from the LPG synthesis step as the water to the feed, because Fujimoto teaches that the process includes adding water to the feed and recovering water from the product (paragraphs [0123], [0178]), and one of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious that recycling the water would save cost for the process.
With regard to claim 6, Fujimoto teaches that the combined amount of propane and butane in the LPG is 95 mol% or more (paragraph [0214]) which is within the range of at least about 80 mol% of instant claim 6.
With regard to claim 7, Fujimoto further teaches that a part of the gas comprising carbon dioxide and hydrogen can be passed to the synthesis gas production step (reforming step) (paragraph [0149]).
With regard to claim 8, Fujimoto teaches that the lower alkane conversion step comprises a methanol synthesis step (paragraph [0152]).
With regard to claims 9 and 11, Fujimoto teaches that the catalyst for the lower alkane conversion step comprises a methanol synthesis component and a zeolite component for dehydration (paragraph [0051]) where the components are mixed together (paragraph [0183]).
With regard to claim 10, Fujimoto teaches that the methanol synthesis catalyst comprises copper and zine (paragraph [0165])
With regard to claim 12, Fujimoto teaches the method above, where the process comprises producing a synthesis gas and then converting the synthesis gas to LPG over a catalyst comprising the methanol synthesis and dehydration catalyst mixture having the claimed components (paragraph [0165]). Thus, as Fujimoto teaches a similar process with a similar feed and similar catalyst producing a similar product, one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably find it obvious that the process of Fujimoto would proceed similarly to the claimed process, namely such that at least about 70% of the carbon content of the feed to the synthesis gas production forms the propane or butane in the LPG product, absent any evidence to the contrary.
With regard to claims 16, 23, and 24, Fujimoto teaches a method for producing liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) (paragraph [0002]), the process comprising the following steps:
a) reacting a carbonaceous raw material comprising carbon dioxide and methane (paragraph [0094]) in a reforming reactor with a catalyst to produce synthesis gas comprising hydrogen and carbon monoxide (paragraph [0096]). Fujimoto teaches that the catalyst is a reforming catalyst and thus the catalyst has at least some activity for catalyzing reforming as claimed. Fujimoto further teaches that the feed to the reforming reactor comprises appropriate amounts of methane and carbon dioxide (paragraph [0102]). Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to optimize the carbon dioxide and methane in the feed by routine experimentation with a reasonable expectation of success, and can arrive at the claimed amounts of containing at least about 30 mol% CO2, CH4 and H2 as claimed in instant claim 16.
b) passing the synthesis gas obtained in the reforming step (paragraph [0147]) and recycling at least a portion of the carbon dioxide and hydrogen containing gas (H2/CO2 enriched gas) (paragraph [0149]) to a lower alkane production step to produce an effluent comprising LPG and low boiling components (paragraph [0147]) including carbon dioxide and hydrogen (paragraph [0150]).
c) separating the LPG and the low boiling components form the effluent (paragraph [0212]) where the low boiling components comprise the carbon dioxide and hydrogen (paragraph [0218]). One of ordinary skill in the art would expect that the low boiling component stream is enriched in the carbon dioxide and hydrogen compared to the stream comprising LPG and the original effluent stream because the low boiling component stream is expected to have a higher concentration of carbon dioxide and hydrogen than the original effluent stream or the LPG stream because the separation is intended to remove the LPG from the low boiling components in the original effluent.
d) recycling at least a portion of the carbon dioxide and hydrogen containing gas to the lower alkane production step as a raw material to the process (combining with the synthesis gas intermediate) (paragraph [0149]).
Fujimoto does not explicitly teach that the addition of the recycle feed increases the H2:CO ratio of the LPG feed. However, Fujimoto explicitly teaches recycling a gas which can comprise H2 and CO2 (paragraph [0149]). While the effluent returned to the reactor comprising the carbon dioxide and hydrogen can comprise additional components, the additional components can be separated as needed (paragraph [0220]). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect the recycle to increase the hydrogen to carbon monoxide ratio to about 1 to about 7 or about 4 to about 6.5, as claimed in instant claims 16, 23, and 24, absent any evidence to the contrary.
With regard to claim 17, Fujimoto teaches separating water from the effluent (paragraph [0217]). As the water is separated from the LPG product and the effluent, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the separated water is enriched in water relative to the LPG product and effluent, as claimed.
With regard to claim 18, Fujimoto further teaches that a part of the gas comprising carbon dioxide and hydrogen can be passed to the synthesis gas production step (reforming step) (paragraph [0149]).
With regard to claim 21, Fujimoto teaches a method for producing liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) comprising propane and butane (paragraph [0002]), the process comprising the following steps:
a) passing a synthesis gas comprising hydrogen and carbon monoxide (paragraph [0096]) to a lower alkane production step to convert the hydrogen and carbon monoxide to an effluent comprising LPG including propane and butane and low boiling components (paragraph [0147]) including carbon dioxide and hydrogen (paragraph [0150]). Fujimoto teaches that the catalyst for the lower alkane production step comprises a methanol synthesis component and a zeolite component for dehydration (paragraph [0051]) where the components are mixed together (paragraph [0183]). The temperature of the reaction is 310°C to 400°C (paragraph [0203]) and the pressure is 1 to 7 MPa (paragraph [0144]), which overlap the ranges of about 316 to about 399°C and about 1.38 to about 5.2 MPa of instant claim 21, rendering the ranges prima facie obvious. The feed comprises 5 to 35 mol% carbon dioxide (paragraph [0196]) which is identical to the range of about 5 to about 35 mol% of instant claim 21. The feed also includes a H2 to CO molar ratio of 1.5 to 3.5 (paragraph [0199]), which overlaps the range of at least 2 of instant claim 21, rendering the range prima facie obvious. The feed further includes 3.3 to 30 mol% CO (paragraph [0195]). With a ratio of 1.5 to 3.5 H-2 to CO, the total amount of CO and H2 together is 4.95 to 95 mol%, which overlaps the range of greater than 50 mol% of instant claim 21, rendering the range prima facie obvious. Fujimoto additionally teaches that the catalyst for the LPG synthesis stage comprises a methanol synthesis component comprising copper and zine (paragraph [0165]) and a zeolite component for dehydration (paragraph [0051]) where the components are physically mixed together (i) separate particles) (paragraph [0183]).
c) separating the LPG and the low boiling components form the effluent (paragraph [0212]) where the low boiling components comprise the carbon dioxide and hydrogen (paragraph [0218]). One of ordinary skill in the art would expect that the low boiling component stream is enriched in the carbon dioxide and hydrogen compared to the stream comprising LPG and the original effluent stream because the low boiling component stream is expected to have a higher concentration of carbon dioxide and hydrogen than the original effluent stream or the LPG stream because the separation is intended to remove the LPG from the low boiling components in the original effluent.
d) recycling at least a portion of the carbon dioxide and hydrogen containing gas to the lower alkane production step as a raw material to the process (combining with the synthesis gas intermediate) (paragraph [0149]).
Fujimoto teaches the GHSV of the LPG synthesis stage is preferably 500 h-1 or more (paragraph [0107]), but is silent with regard to the WHSV in the LPG stage. However, it is well known in the art that the space velocity affects the conversion of the CO in the reaction (see Ge paragraph [0104]), and thus the space velocity is a result-effective variable which can be optimized. One of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success of adjusting the WHSV, because this is a well-known parameter that is changed without undue experimentation. Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have determined the optimum value of WHSV of about 0.1 to about 1.5 h-1 as claimed, through routine experimentation in the absence of a showing of criticality. See MPEP 2144.05(II).
With regard to claim 25, Fujimoto does not specifically teach how much of the total carbon content of the LPG is derived from CO2 present in the gaseous feed. However, Fujimoto teaches a similar process of conversion of gaseous feed to syngas and syngas to LPG, with a similar feed comprising carbon dioxide, a similar catalyst and at similar temperature and pressure conditions. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect the result of at least 20% of a total carbon content of the LPG being derived from CO2 in the feed, as claimed, absent any evidence to the contrary.
Claims 4, 13-15, 19, 20, 25, 26, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujimoto et al. (CN1867652, machine translation) as applied to claims 1, 2, 16, 17, and 18 above, and further in view of Labrecque et al. (US 2006/0124445).
With regard to claims 4, 19, 25, and 26, Fujimoto teaches the method above, where Fujimoto teaches that the syngas reaction comprises reacting a carbonaceous material with carbon dioxide to produce synthesis gas (paragraph [0093]).
Fujimoto does not specifically teach that biogas can be used for the reaction.
Labrecque teaches a process for reforming natural gases such as biogas for example into a synthesis gas (paragraph [0001]). Thus, Labrecque teaches that biogas is a known gas source as a fresh feed for making synthesis gas.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use biogas as the feed in the syngas reaction of Fujimoto, because Fujimoto teaches a known reaction of carbon material with carbon dioxide to produce syngas, and Labrecque teaches that biogas is a known material for forming synthesis gas (paragraph [0001]).
With regard to claim 13, Fujimoto teaches the method above, where Fujimoto teaches that the methane for the reforming reaction is from a carbon containing raw material, which can be any substance which can reactor with carbon dioxide to produce the synthesis gas (paragraph [0094]).
Fujimoto does not specifically teach that the source of synthesis gas can be renewable.
Labrecque teaches a process for reforming natural gases such as biogas for example into a synthesis gas (paragraph [0001]). Thus, Labrecque teaches that biogas (renewable carbon) is a known gas source for making synthesis gas.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use biogas as the carbon-containing raw material of Fujimoto, because Fujimoto teaches any known raw material for forming synthesis gas, and Labrecque teaches that biogas is a known material for forming synthesis gas (paragraph [0001]).
Labrecque further teaches that the biogas has a composition of 35 to 70 mol% methane and 35 to 60 mol% carbon dioxide (paragraph [0163]). One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that when this biogas is used to produce the LPG, 100% of the carbon from the biogas is renewable carbon as both sources of carbon in the reaction are present in the biogas. Therefore, the propane and butane in the LPG of the process of Fujimoto in view of Labrecque has a renewable carbon content of 100 mol%, which is within the claimed range of at least about 70%, absent any evidence to the contrary.
With regard to claims 14 and 15, Fujimoto in view Labrecque teaches the claimed method of converting biogas to synthesis gas and the synthesis gas to LPG, where the biogas comprises carbon dioxide (paragraph [0163]), as claimed. Fujimoto in view of Labrecque further teaches a similar catalyst for the conversion of the synthesis gas to the LPG. Thus, as Fujimoto in view of Labrecque teaches a similar process with a similar catalyst and similar feed, one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably find it obvious that the process of Fujimoto in view of Labrecque would proceed similarly to the claimed process, namely such that at least about 20% of the carbon in the LPG product is from the CO2 in the gas feed, absent any evidence to the contrary.
With regard to claim 20, Fujimoto the method above, where the reforming reactor has a catalyst bed and a heating means for supplying heat (paragraph [0232]).
Fujimoto is silent with regard to the type of heating means.
Labrecque teaches a method for reforming natural gases including biogas into synthesis gas. Labrecque further teaches that the reactor has an electrical source which heats the reactor (paragraph [0093]). Labrecque also teaches that heating by electrical energy provides important advantages, including using compact, modular, highly performing reactors with highly efficient energy (paragraph [0021]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use an electrical heating element has the heating means in the process of Fujimoto, because Fujimoto and Labrecque each teach reforming of natural gases to synthesis gas in a reactor, and Labrecque teaches that electrically heating the reactor provides important advantages, including using compact, modular, highly performing reactors with highly efficient energy (paragraph [0021]).
With regard to claim 28, Fujimoto teaches the method above, where Fujimoto teaches that the syngas reaction comprises reacting a carbonaceous material with carbon dioxide to produce synthesis gas (paragraph [0093]).
Fujimoto does not specifically teach that biogas can be used as the feed comprising carbon dioxide and carbonaceous material for the reaction to produce syngas.
Labrecque teaches a process for reforming natural gases such as biogas for example into a synthesis gas (paragraph [0001]). Thus, Labrecque teaches that biogas is a known gas source as a fresh feed for making synthesis gas. Labrecque further teaches that the biogas comprises 35 to 60 mol% carbon dioxide (paragraph [0064]), which overlaps the range of about 15 to about 55 mol% of instant claim 28, rendering the range prima facie obvious.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use biogas as the feed in the syngas reaction of Fujimoto, because Fujimoto teaches a known reaction of carbon material with carbon dioxide to produce syngas, and Labrecque teaches that biogas is a known material for forming synthesis gas (paragraph [0001]).
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujimoto et al. (CN1867652, machine translation) as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Almusaiteer et al. (US 2019/0076828).
With regard to claim 22, Fujimoto teaches the method above, where the methanol synthesis catalyst in the LPG synthesis stage comprises copper and zinc (paragraph [0165]).
Fujimoto is silent with regard to the catalyst further comprising yttrium or a compound of yttrium.
Almusaiteer teaches a method for forming methanol from syngas (paragraph [0002]). Almusaiteer teaches that the catalyst comprises copper, zinc, and yttrium oxide, where the presence of yttrium oxide increases the methanol yield (paragraph [0006]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include a compound of yttrium in the methanol synthesis catalyst of Fujimoto, because Fujimoto and Almusaiteer each teach reacting synthesis gas to produce methanol in the presence of a copper and zinc catalyst, and Almusaiteer teaches that further including yttrium in the catalyst increases the methanol yield (paragraph [0006]).
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 ALYSSA L CEPLUCH whose telephone number is (571)270-5752. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8:30 am-5 pm, EST.
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, In Suk Bullock can be reached at 571-272-5954. 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.
/Alyssa L Cepluch/Examiner, Art Unit 1772
/IN SUK C BULLOCK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1772