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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 4/16/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
With respect to the rejection of Claims 1, 3, 5-6, 9-10, and 12 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. in view of Mamedov, as understood the traversal relies on amendments. Claim 1 has been amended to recite “a reactor that does not include any form of external energy addition”. Applicant argues “These rejections are believed to have been obviated by the above amendments where it has been made clear during the Examiner interview the reactor of the present invention does not require any external energy and is solely relying on the oxidation of a portion of the feedstock needed for the subsequent endothermic reforming reactions. This is clearly called out in the claims, as now presented, where the oxygen to hydrocarbon material is supplied (e.g., by either reducing the amount of oxidant supplied or by increasing the amount of feedstock supplied) at a ratio where the reactor operates at a range of 2200°F to 2700°F.” [Remarks, Page 2, Paragraph 1]. This is persuasive. The rejections are WITHDRAWN.
With respect to the rejection of Claims 4 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. in view of Mamedov, in further view of Agostini et al., as understood the traversal relies on amendments. The amendments to Claim 1 (see above) introduce limitations not taught by Li et al., Mamedov, or Agostini et al. The rejections have been WITHDRAWN.
With respect to the rejection of Claims 7 and 8 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. in view of Mamedov, in further view of Chakravarti et al., as understood the traversal relies on amendments. The amendments to Claim 1 (see above) introduce limitations not taught by Li et al., Mamedov, or Chakravarti et al. The rejections have been WITHDRAWN.
With respect to the rejection of Claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. in view of Mamedov, in further view of Ravaghi et al., as understood the traversal relies on amendments. The amendments to Claim 1 (see above) introduce limitations not taught by Li et al., Mamedov, or Ravaghi et al. The rejections have been WITHDRAWN.
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 and 3-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NPL “The multiple roles for catalysis in the production of H2” Armor in view of US 20170320730 A1 Mamedov. Claim 1 requires “A method of producing syngas, comprising: feeding a hydrocarbonaceous feedstock material and oxygen to a reactor that does not include any form of external energy addition”. Armor discloses “The thermal oxidation is run at 30-100 atm with pure O2 using a special burner inside a refractory lined vessel at 1300 °C.” [Page 168, Section 3.4]. Armor et al. does not disclose any external energy addition, any energy needed to pre-heat the reactants could be supplied by combusting a portion of the hydrocarbon feed and/or recovering waste heat from the product stream. Examiner takes official notice that combusting fuel for heat and/or recovering waste heat (e.g. for purposes of E efficiency and/or cost efficiency) would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 further requires “non-catalytic partial oxidation of the hydrocarbonaceous feedstock material in the reactor to produce a product stream comprising H2, CO, and hydrocarbons that leaves the reactor”. Regarding the absence of a catalyst Armor discloses “The other major route to H2 is non-catalytic partial oxidation of fossil fuels, often referred to as POX (or gasification).” [Page 168, Section 3.4]. Regarding the product stream Armor discloses “The general reaction is described by Eq. (12): CxHy + x/2O2 -> xCO + y/2H2 (12)” [Page 169, Section 3.4]. Therefore it is understood that the product stream contains at least H2 and CO, however Armor does not explicitly disclose unreacted hydrocarbons. However, as evidenced by the instant invention specification (see Figure 3 and 5) a few percent of the methane remains unconverted in a non-catalytic autothermal reactor at the temperature utilized by Armor. Thus, such presence of unreacted hydrocarbons is reasonably considered to be implicit and/or inherent to Armor’s POX/gasification reaction. MPEP 2112 & 2144.01. Indeed, it has been held that where claimed and prior art products are produced by identical or substantially similar methods, a prima facie case of anticipation or obviousness has been established. MPEP 2112.01, citing In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255 (CCPA 1977). In other words, if the prior art teaches or at least suggests the claims' positive method steps, it matters not whether the prior art also teaches or suggests the features of the intended result of performing said steps- it would not be reasonable to expect different results when performing identical or at least substantially similar steps. Accord, MPEP 2145 II, citing, e.g., In re Baxter Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d 388, 392 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (stating that “Mere recognition of latent properties in the prior art does not render nonobvious an otherwise known invention”). See also In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (stating the “general rule that merely discovering and claiming a new benefit of an old process cannot render the [old] process again patentable”) (emphasis in original).
Claim 1 further requires “wherein the non-catalytic partial oxidation is carried out at a ratio of oxygen to hydrocarbonaceous material which is lower than the ratio of oxygen to hydrocarbonaceous material at which non-catalytic partial oxidation of the feedstock material, would minimize the amount of unreacted hydrocarbons in the product stream produced by partially oxidizing the feedstock material, resulting in a reduced temperature which is higher than 2200°F, but lower than 2700°F, thereby providing H2 and CO in the product stream wherein the H2:CO ratio is higher than the value the ratio would exhibit upon partial oxidation at said reaction conditions including at a temperature higher than said reaction temperature”. Armor does not disclose the temperature at which maximum conversion occurs however they do disclose a temperature of 1,300 °C (2,372 °F). It is understood from the instant application specification that a temperature of 2,400 °F achieves these conditions (see Specification Page 10, Lines 24-27). Therefore it is understood that the method of Armor performed at 2,372 °F would have necessarily achieved a H2:CO ratio higher than the value the ratio would exhibit upon partial oxidation at said reaction conditions including at a temperature higher than said reaction temperature regardless of whether they were aware of this benefit or not. MPEP 2112.01, citing In re Best. In other words, if the prior art teaches or at least suggests the claims' positive method steps, it matters not whether the prior art also teaches or suggests the features of the intended result of performing said steps- it would not be reasonable to expect different results when performing identical or at least substantially similar steps. Accord, MPEP 2145 II, citing, e.g., In re Baxter Travenol Labs. See also In re Woodruff.
Claim 1 further requires “recovering from the reactor a product stream comprising hydrogen and CO formed in the reactor and unreacted hydrocarbons, wherein said unreacted hydrocarbon in said product stream, or products obtained by reaction of said unreacted hydrocarbon recovered from the product stream is recycled to the reactor in which the partial oxidation is performed.”. Armor does not disclose recovering unreacted hydrocarbons from the reactor.
Mamedov is similarly directed to the partial oxidation of methane and discloses “Unreacted methane and/or carbon dioxide can also be recovered from the separation unit and optionally recycled” [0042]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have used the separation unit of Mamedov to recover the CH4 that left the reactor unreacted in the method of Armor, so as to achieve a desirable cost saving from requiring less fresh CH4.
Claim 3 requires “the hydrocarbonaceous feedstock material comprises natural gas.” Armor does not explicitly disclose natural gas, however they disclose “One key advantage of this approach is that it accepts all kinds of hydrocarbon feeds.” [Page 169, Section 3.4]. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected natural gas as the hydrocarbon feed for at least the reason that it is disclosed as effective. MPEP 2144.07.
Claim 4 requires “the hydrocarbonaceous feedstock material comprises biomass.”. Armor does not explicitly disclose biomass, however they disclose “One key advantage of this approach is that it accepts all kinds of hydrocarbon feeds.” [Page 169, Section 3.4]. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected biomass as the hydrocarbon feed for at least the reason that it is disclosed as effective. MPEP 2144.07.
Claim 5 requires “the hydrocarbonaceous feedstock material is derived from fossil fuel.”. Armor does not explicitly disclose fossil fuels, however they disclose “One key advantage of this approach is that it accepts all kinds of hydrocarbon feeds.” [Page 169, Section 3.4]. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected fossil fuels as the hydrocarbon feed for at least the reason that it is disclosed as effective. MPEP 2144.07.
Claim 6 requires “the partial oxidation is carried out with a gaseous stream comprising at least 50 vol.% oxygen.”. Armor discloses pure oxygen “The thermal oxidation is run at 30-100 atm with pure O2 using a special burner inside a refractory lined vessel at 1300 °C.” [Page 168, Section 3.4], which is understood to be 100 vol.% O2.
Claim(s) 7 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NPL “The multiple roles for catalysis in the production of H2” Armor in view of US 20170320730 A1 Mamedov, in further view of US 20160176793 Chakravarti et al. Regarding Claim 7, Armor in view of Mamedov discloses all of the limitation of Claim 1. Claim 7 further requires “the partial oxidation is carried out by feeding oxygen into the reactor at a velocity of 500 to 4500 feet per second.” Armor is silent to the velocity of the oxygen.
Chakravarti is similarly directed to a method of generating syngas by partially oxidizing hydrocarbons and discloses “Generally the velocity of the hot oxygen stream will be within the range of from 500 to 4500 feet per second” [0050]. It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Armor, which is silent on the velocity of the hot oxygen stream, with a more explicit disclosure such as that found in Chakravarti et al. teaching an appropriate range of velocity of the hot oxygen stream. The motivation to do so would be to avoid excessive experimentation.
Regarding Claim 8, Armor in view of Mamedov discloses all of the limitation of Claim 1. Claim 8 further requires “the partial oxidation is carried out by feeding oxygen into the reactor at a temperature of at least 2000 °F.” Armor is silent to the temperature of the oxygen feed. Chakravarti discloses “The hot oxygen stream obtained in this way is passed from the hot oxygen generator into reaction chamber… having a temperature of at least 2000 ᵒF” [0050]. It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Armor, which is silent on the temperature of the oxygen when added to the reactor, with a more explicit disclosure such as that found in Chakravarti et al. to teach an appropriate temperature of the hot oxygen stream. The motivation to do so would be to avoid excessive experimentation.
Claim(s) 9-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NPL “The multiple roles for catalysis in the production of H2” Armor in view of US 20170320730 A1 Mamedov., in further view of NPL “New catalytic routes for syngas and hydrogen production” Pena et al. Claims 9-11 all similarly require the product syngas to have a particular H2:CO ratio with Claim 9 requiring “the H2:CO ratio in the product stream is at least 1.75”, Claim 10 requiring “the H2:CO ratio in the product stream is 1.95 to 2.05”, and Claim 11 requiring “the H2:CO ratio in the product stream is 0.55 to 0.65”. Armor does not disclose the H2:CO ratio. Pena et al. is similarly related to methods of generating syngas from the non-catalytic partial oxidation of hydrocarbons. Pena et al. discloses “Autothermal reforming (ATR) is a combination of non-catalytic partial oxidation and steam reforming developed by Haldor Topsoe in the late 1950s with the aim of performing reforming in a single reactor … Although the ATR was originally used to maximize H2 production in ammonia plants, it can be applied in the production of CO-rich gases. In all cases, the H2/CO ratio at the outlet of the reactor can be precisely adjusted by varying the H2O/CH4 and/or O2/CH4 molar ratios in the feed.” [Page 17, Section 2.3]. It therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have adjusted at least the O2/CH4 molar ratios in the feed in order to achieve a desired H2:CO ratio. For example if one of ordinary skill in the art wished to produce ethanol from syngas via the FT process they would adjust the air:fuel ratio to generate a syngas having a H2:CO of about 2.0 (meeting Claims 9-10) and if they wished to produce synthetic gasoline they would adjust the air:fuel ratio to generate a syngas having a H2:CO of about 0.60 (meeting Claim 11).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have combined the method of Armor with the method of Pena et al. because they similarly relate to methods of generating syngas from the non-catalytic partial oxidation of hydrocarbons. The motivation to have used the teaching of Pena et al. that control over the feed ratios gives precise control over the H2:CO ratio of the product is that control over this ratio is beneficial to processes which function best at particular H2:CO ratios.
Claim 12 requires “A method according to claim 1 further comprising adding steam to the reactor.” Pena et al. discloses “The preheated feed streams (CH4 + H2O, and H2O + O2) are mixed in a burner placed at the top where the POM reactions take place.” [Page 17, § 2.3].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA MAXWELL SPEER whose telephone number is (703)756-5471. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm 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, Anthony Zimmer can be reached at 571-270-3591. 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.
/JOSHUA MAXWELL SPEER/
Examiner
Art Unit 1736
/DANIEL BERNS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1736
Prosecution Insights