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
With respect to the objection of Claim 1, Claim 1 has been amended to replace the phrase “non-catalytically” with “non-catalytic”. The objection is WITHDRAWN.
With respect to the rejection of claims 1-12 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), as failing to comply with the written description requirement, as understood the traversal relies on arguments. Applicant argues “Here it is not possible to prove a negative. It is instead submitted that if this had been a catalytic partial oxidation process it would've been claimed as such. Moreover, the Applicants specification would have called out the catalyst type, the possible compositions, and the variations thereon. Here, it is a catalyst free partial oxidation of the hydrocarbonaceous feedstock and, hence, the recitation "non-catalytic" it is simply clarifying that there is no catalyst.” [Remarks, Page, 5, Paragraph 1]. This is persuasive. Although the specification is not silent towards a catalyst, the mention of a catalyst is in relation to downstream reactions performed on the syngas, and not mentioned as part of the process of partial oxidation. The rejection is WITHDRAWN.
With respect to the rejection of Claims 1-12 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as being indefinite, as understood the traversal relies on amendments. Claim 1 has been amended to recite both an upper and lower bound on the temperature of the reaction. The rejection has been WITHDRAWN.
With respect to the rejection of Claims 1, 3, 6, and 9-10 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Li et al., as understood the traversal relies on amendments. Claim 1 has been amended to require “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.”, which was previously presented as Claim 2. Li et al. does not disclose recycling of the product stream. The rejections are WITHDRAWN.
With respect to the rejection of Claims 5 and 12 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al., as understood traversal relies on amendments. Claim 1 (upon which Claims 5 and 12 depend) has been amended to require the limitations of Claim 2 which was not rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 103 over Li et al. taken alone. The rejections have been WITHDRAWN.
With respect to the rejection of Claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. in view of Mamedov, Claim 2 has been canceled and therefore the rejection is mooted. However, as the limitations of Claim 2 now appear within Claim 1, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. in view of Mamedov is applied to the newly amended Claim 1. Applicant argues “However, Li et al. does not disclose or suggest operating the partial oxidation process in a reactor (i.e., commercial conditions), let alone one at decreased temperature where the H2:CO ratio is increased while realizing the potential benefits of lower oxygen consumption, lower partial oxidation reactor maintenance costs, reduced water gas shift reactor size or complete elimination of the reactor. Thus, the operational method is not disclosed in Li et al.” [Remarks, Page 6, Paragraph 6]. This is unpersuasive. As to a reactor, the terms of Claim 1 are given the broadest reasonable interpretation as one with ordinary skill in the art would understand them (MPEP 2111.03). A “reactor” does not explicitly or implicitly require a full scale commercial reactor; the broadest reasonable interpretation of a reactor is a vessel suitable for containing a reaction within. Further, Li et al. explicitly discloses a reactor (“The undiluted, non-catalytic partial oxidation of methane in a flow tube reactor –An experimental study using indirect induction heating” [Title]). Second, Applicant argues that Li et al. does not teach the method of the instant invention, however the arguments do not actually point to any process steps that are performed in the instant application but not within Li et al. Rather, Applicant points to specific results of performing the method (“lower oxygen consumption, lower partial oxidation reactor maintenance costs, reduced water gas shift reactor size or complete elimination of the reactor”) that are not explicitly disclosed by Li et al. This is unpersuasive because a prior art method need only to contain the method steps claimed, any new features of the method discovered by an Applicant of an old process does not render that known process patentable. See MPEP 2112.I, which states "[T]he discovery of a previously unappreciated property of a prior art composition, or of a scientific explanation for the prior art’s functioning, does not render the old composition patentably new to the discoverer." In other words, a known prior art method of making syngas at a particular temperature does not become patentable upon the discovery that at a different temperature the resulting syngas has different properties (such as a lower H2:CO ratio) to the discoverer. The benefits of doing so would have already been obtained by the method even if the inventor was unaware of these benefits at the time.
Applicant further argues “None of these process changes and benefits are achieved in Li et al.” [Remarks, Page 8, Paragraph 2], referring to benefits of the instant invention described on Page 7. One such benefit is a higher H2:CO ratio that is achieved by using a lower temperature than would otherwise yield maximum conversion of CH4. This was explicitly shown in the previous Office Action dated 8/21/2025 (“Using Figure 4 as a reference the H2:CO ratio at 1575 K is about 3.18 (3500 ppm/1100 ppm = 3.18) and the H2:CO ratio at 1773 K is about 2.5 (10000 ppm/4000 ppm = 2.5). In other words Li et al. discloses a 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.” [Page 5, Paragraph 2]). Applicant does not appear to be arguing that 2.5 is larger than 3.18 or that 1773 K is a lower T than 1575 K. Therefore it is unclear what the Applicant means when they say “None of these process changes and benefits are achieved in Li et al.”. This is unpersuasive.
With respect to the rejection of Claim 4 under U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. in view of Agostini et al., as understood the traversal relies on arguments. Applicant argues “However, none of D'Agostini et al., Chakravarti et al. and Ravaghi-Ardebili et al. taken alone or in combination address the deficiency in Li et al., let alone cure said deficiency.”. This is unpersuasive as Li et al. (in combination with Mamedov) has not been found deficient (see above). The rejection has been updated to include the teachings of Mamedov but is otherwise MAINTAINED.
With respect to the rejection of Claims 7 and 8 under U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. in view of Chakravarti et al., as understood the traversal relies on arguments. Applicant argues “However, none of D'Agostini et al., Chakravarti et al. and Ravaghi-Ardebili et al. taken alone or in combination address the deficiency in Li et al., let alone cure said deficiency.”. This is unpersuasive as Li et al. (in combination with Mamedov) has not been found deficient (see above). The rejection has been updated to include the teachings of Mamedov but is otherwise MAINTAINED.
With respect to the rejection of Claim 11 under U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. in view of Ravaghi et al., as understood the traversal relies on arguments. Applicant argues “However, none of D'Agostini et al., Chakravarti et al. and Ravaghi-Ardebili et al. taken alone or in combination address the deficiency in Li et al., let alone cure said deficiency.”. This is unpersuasive as Li et al. (in combination with Mamedov) has not been found deficient (see above). The rejection has been updated to include the teachings of Mamedov but is otherwise MAINTAINED.
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, 3, 5-6, 9-10, and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NPL "The undiluted, non-catalytic partial oxidation of methane in a flow tube reactor –An experimental study using indirect induction heating" Li et al. in view of US 20170320730 A1 Mamedov. Claim 1 requires “A method of producing syngas, comprising: feeding hydrocarbonaceous feedstock material and oxygen to a reactor; 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”. Li et al. discloses feeding a hydrocarbon (CH4) and oxygen to a reactor “A gas flow control and mixing panel was supplied with CH4 (Linde, 99.95%), O2 (Linde, 99.9%)” [Page 410, section 2.1.1] and from the results displayed in Figure 4 (reproduced below) it can be seen that H2, CO, and hydrocarbons are present in the product stream that leaves the reactor to be analyzed.
PNG
media_image1.png
495
816
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 1 further requires “the non-catalytic partial oxidation is carried out at reaction conditions including a reaction temperature which is lower than the temperature at which non-catalytic partial oxidation of the feedstock material, at the same reaction conditions other than the temperature, would minimize the amount of unreacted hydrocarbons in the product stream produced by partially oxidizing the feedstock material, and is higher than 2200 °F, but lower than 2700 °F”. Li et al. discloses multiple reaction T values in Fig. 4 (above), specifically 1773 K (2732 °F) is identified as the T at which unreacted hydrocarbons (CH4) is minimized. A reaction with the same conditions other than temperature was run at about 1575 K (2375 °F) which is lower than 2700 °F (and 2732 °F) and higher than 2200 °F.
Claim 1 further requires “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”. Using Figure 4 as a reference the H2:CO ratio at 1575 K is about 3.18 (3500 ppm/1100 ppm = 3.18) and the H2:CO ratio at 1773 K is about 2.5 (10000 ppm/4000 ppm = 2.5). In other words Li et al. discloses a 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.
Claim 1 further requires “recovering from the reactor a product stream comprising hydrogen and CO formed in the reactor and unreacted hydrocarbons.”. From Figure 4 it can be seen that H2, CO, and hydrocarbons are recovered after the reaction.
Claim 1 further requires “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.”. Li et al. does not disclose recycling unreacted hydrocarbon but does recognize it as an issue “For all the conditions tested the CH4 slip was considerably higher than for commercial processes such as the Shell Gasification Process (SGP), which is reported to have a CH4 slip of <0.5%” [Page 415, Column 2, Paragraph 2].
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 Li et al. The motivation to do so is a cost saving from a reduction in fresh CH4 required.
Claim 3 requires “the hydrocarbonaceous feedstock material comprises natural gas.”. Li et al. discloses CH4 as a feedstock which is commonly known as natural gas.
Claim 5 requires “the hydrocarbonaceous feedstock material is derived from fossil fuel.”. Li et al. discloses that CH4 comes from Linde, a chemical supply company. It is not clear how Linde sources their CH4, however it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have sourced their CH4 from fossil fuels such as natural gas.
Claim 6 requires “the partial oxidation is carried out with a gaseous stream comprising at least 50 vol.% oxygen.”. Li et al. discloses 99.9% oxygen “O2 (Linde, 99.9%)” [Page 410, Section 2.1.1].
Claim 9 requires “the H2:CO ratio in the product stream is at least 1.75”. Li et al. discloses the H2:CO ratio in the product stream is about 3.18 (see Claim 1).
Claim 10 requires “the H2:CO ratio in the product stream is 1.95 to 2.05.”. Li et al. discloses in Figure 4 a run at about 1480 K (2204 °F) where the ratio of H2:CO is about 2 (400 ppm/200 ppm = 2).
Claim 12 requires “adding steam to the reactor”. Although Li et al. does not add steam to the reactor during the trials that make Figure 4 they disclose a reactor capable of adding steam “H2O could be injected either into a pre-heating zone upstream of the reactor, or directly into the hot combustion products downstream of the hot zone.” [Page 410, section 2.1.1]. The benefits of adding steam (water shift reaction) are well known in the art making adding steam obvious.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. in view of Mamedov, in further view of US 20120023822 Agostini et al. Regarding Claim 4, Li et al. in view of Mamedov disclose all of the limitation of Claim 1. Claim 4 further requires “the hydrocarbonaceous feedstock material comprises biomass.”. Li et al. is silent to biomass.
Agostini et al. is similarly directed to the partial oxidation of hydrocarbons to form syngas and teaches a more flexible partial oxidation method which is able to accommodate a wide variety of solid fuels by use of a portion of the product syngas to perform the initial heating. Agostini et al. discloses “each of the examples relates to a gasifier burning agricultural waste with oxygen to produce syngas” [0059]. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the method of Li et al. for producing syngas from methane with the teachings of Agostini et al. to produce syngas from biomass since both are attempting to solve the same problem, a tight control over product syngas, with the only difference being starting materials. One motivation to use a feedstock other than methane would be for an application such as the production of synthetic gasoline from a syngas having a H2:CO ratio of approximately 0.6. One having ordinary skill in the art of syngas production would understand that using a fuel source with a naturally lower H/C ratio compared to methane would generate a syngas with a lower H2:CO ratio if all other variables remained unchanged.
Claim(s) 7 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. in view of Mamedov, in further view of US 20160176793 Chakravarti et al. Regarding Claim 7, Li et al. disclose 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.”. Li et al. is silent to the velocity of the oxygen.
Chakravarti is similarly directed to a method of generating syngas by partially oxidizing methane 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 Li et al., 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, Li et al. disclose 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.” Li et al. 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 Li et al., 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) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. in view of Mamedov, in further view of NPL “Influence of the Effective Parameters on H2:CO Ratio of Syngas at Low-Temperature Gasification” Ravaghi et al. Regarding Claim 11, Li et al. disclose all of the limitation of Claim 1. Claim 11 further requires “the H2:CO ratio in the product stream is 0.55 to 0.65.”. Li et al. does not disclose low H2:CO ratios because Li et al. teaches the use of methane as a fuel source which is very high in hydrogen content and subsequently leads to a syngas that is high in hydrogen content.
Ravaghi et al. teaches a kinetic model that simulates the reaction of various types of coal and biomass in a gasifier to produce syngas. For biomass (more specifically for cellulose that has had the lignin removed) Ravaghi et al. was able to produce syngas with a H2:CO ratio varying from 0.6-0.7 by varying the temperature of the gasifier. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art that to generate a low hydrogen concentration syngas if a low hydrogen concentration syngas would be required for, for example, the synthesis of gasoline. This would motivate them to seek studies of how fuel type and temperature can both affect the H2:CO ratio in syngas similar to the article published by Ravaghi et al. in order to avoid excessive experimentation on their part.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the/any 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 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