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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 04/13/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 04/13/2026 has been entered into the prosecution of the application.
Claim 45 is canceled.
Currently, claim(s) 42-44 and 46 is/are pending.
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(s) 42-43 and 46 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Olaf Kuhl of US 2017/0057818 A1 (hereinafter referred to as Kuhl) in view of Gallon, Helen J., and Christopher Whitehead. Dry reforming of methane using non-thermal plasma-catalysis. Diss. University of Manchester, 2011 (hereinafter, Gallon) and Daniel R. Cohen of US 2010/0022669 A1 (hereinafter, Cohen).
As to claim 42, Kuhl teaches to a system (Kuhl, Fig. 1, teaches to an apparatus 1) for chemical production having a reduce carbon footprint, comprising:
a first electrically driven plasma reformer unit configured to receive a first reactant stream (Kuhl, paragraph [0030], Fig. 1, teaches to a first electrically driven plasma reformer unit, as Kuhl teaches to a Kvaerner reactor serving as a hydrocarbon converter 9) comprising methane and water (Kuhl, paragraph [0009], teaches a reactor configured to receive a first reactant stream comprising methane and water, as Kuhl teaches that water is usually mixed with a portion of the hydrocarbons, wherein Kuhl, paragraph [0030], teaches that the hydrocarbon comprise methane), and to use a first portion of electrical energy to reform the first reactant stream into a first product stream comprising a hydrogen-rich syngas having a H2:CO ratio greater than 2.5 (Kuhl, paragraph [0008], teaches to using a first portion of electrical energy to reform the first reactant stream into a first product stream comprising a hydrogen-rich syngas having a H2:CO ratio greater than 2.5, as Kuhl teaches to the method, wherein the ratio of CO to H2 in the hydrogen-rich syngas is 1/3, or having a H2:C ratio of 3);
a second electrically driven plasma reformer unit configured to receive a second reactant stream (Kuhl, paragraph [0014], Fig. 1, teaches to a second electrically driven plasma reformer unit, as Kuhl teaches to a hydrocarbon converter 25) comprising methane (Kuhl, paragraph [0062], teaches to comprising methane, as Kuhl teaches that methane can be fed to hydrocarbon inlets 11, 27), and to use a second portion of electrical energy to reform the second reactant stream into a second product stream comprising a hydrogen-lean syngas having a H2:CO ratio between 0 and 1.5 (Kuhl, paragraph [0008], teaches to using a second portion of electrical energy to reform the second reactant stream into a second product stream comprising a hydrogen-lean syngas having a H2:CO ratio between 0 and 1.5, as Kuhl teaches to the method, wherein the ratio of CO to H2 in the hydrogen-rich syngas is greater than 1:1, or having a H2:C ratio greater than 1:1; the hydrogen-rich syngas of Kuhl reads into the hydrogen-lean syngas of the claimed invention);
a conditioning unit (Kuhl, paragraph [0033], Fig. 1, teaches to a conditioning unit, as Kuhl teaches to a mixer 20) fluidly connected to both the first and second reformer units (Kuhl, Fig. 1, teaches that a conditioning unit is fluidly connected to both the first and second reformer units, as Kuhl teaches that the reformed products are mixed at the mixer 20) and configured to:
mix the first and second product streams to form a conditioned intermediate gas having a target H2:CO ratio suitable for producing synthetic hydrocarbon products (the term “suitable for producing synthetic hydrocarbon products” is interpreted to be at least inclusive of a hydrogen to carbon monoxide ratio of about 2, per paragraph [0047] of US 2022/0212158 A1 (pre-grant publication of the instant application); Kuhl, paragraph [0008], teaches to mixing the first and second product streams to form a conditioned intermediate gas having a target H2:CO ratio suitable for producing synthetic hydrocarbon products, as Kuhl teaches to a mixer 20 and the ratio of syngas having a value of approximately 2.1; Kuhl, paragraph [0053], teaches to a Fischer-Tropsch converter, wherein the one of ordinary skill in the art would have desired a hydrogen-rich composition of synthesis gas),
and provide the conditioned intermediate gas to a downstream processing unit (Kuhl, paragraph [0033], Fig. 1, teaches to providing the conditioned intermediate gas to a downstream processing unit, as Kuhl, teaches to directing the H2-rich synthesis gas from the mixer 20 to a synthesis gas inlet 22 of the first CO-converter 7);
wherein the downstream processing unit is configured to convert the conditioned intermediate gas into a synthetic hydrocarbon product (Kuhl, paragraph [0053], Fig. 1, teaches to wherein the downstream processing unit is configured to convert the conditioned intermediate gas into a synthetic hydrocarbon product, as Kuhl teaches to a hydrocarbon outlet 23 for expelling synthetic functionalized and/or non-functionalized hydrocarbons from the first CO-converter 7);
Kuhl does not explicitly teach a second electrically driven plasma reformer unit configured to receive a second reactant stream comprising methane and carbon dioxide.
In an analogous art, Gallon teaches to a second electrically driven plasma reformer unit configured to receive a second reactant stream comprising methane and carbon dioxide (Gallon, pg. 49, teaches to focusing on the use of a plasma technology for dry reforming methane (DRM); DRM requires methane and carbon dioxide as reactants; Gallon, pg. 95, Figure 3.2, teaches to a electrically driven plasma reformer reactor configured to receive a second reactant stream comprising methane and carbon dioxide).
Both Kuhl and Gallon relate to reforming processes (Gallon, pg. 45). Kuhl does not explicitly teach using carbon dioxide as a reactant. Kuhl does teach steam reforming using methane and steam for producing a syngas comprising carbon monoxide and hydrogen gas. Gallon teaches to using dry reforming using methane and carbon dioxide for producing a syngas comprising carbon monoxide and hydrogen gas. Gallon, pg. 45, teaches that using dry reforming is beneficial as it involves the destruction of two greenhouse gases.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Kuhl with the carbon dioxide of Gallon for using dry reforming for production of syngas, thereby improving the system having a reduced carbon footprint.
Kuhl in view of Gallon does not explicitly teach wherein at least a portion of the electrical energy used by the plasma reformer units is obtained from a renewable, non-greenhouse gas-emitting source.
In an analogous art, Cohen teaches to wherein at least a portion of the electrical energy used by the plasma reformer units is obtained from a renewable, non-greenhouse gas-emitting source (Cohen, paragraph [0010], Fig. 1, teaches to using a renewable source of electricity for producing syngas, wherein Cohen, paragraphs [0044]-[0045], teaches to using electrolyzers for electrolysis of water).
Both Kuhl in view of Gallon and Cohen relate to an electricity-driven reformer, and in particular, plasma driven reformers (Cohen, paragraph [0049]) for producing syngas. Kuhl in view of Gallon does not explicitly teach using a renewable, non-greenhouse gas-emitting source for driving the plasma reformer units. Kuhl in view of Gallon does teach using plasma reformer units for producing syngas. Cohen, Fig. 1, teaches to using a renewable source of electricity for producing syngas and for reducing CO2 emission (Cohen, paragraph [0044]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Kuhl in view of Gallon with the renewable source of electricity of Cohen for producing syngas and for reducing CO2 emission, thereby improving the system having a reduced carbon footprint.
Kuhl in view of Gallon and Cohen teaches to further comprising a recycling line configured to route a portion of the first product stream comprising the hydrogen-rich syngas into the second plasma reformer unit to reduce solid carbon formation within the second plasma reformer unit (Kuhl, paragraph [0058], Fig. 1, teaches to the optional return pipe 48 for returning a portion for feeding back into one or both of the hydrocarbon inlets 11, 27 of the hydrocarbon converters 9, 25; the term “to reduce solid carbon formation” is interpreted as an intended use, but the optional return pipe 48 of Kuhl would have been nonetheless capable of performing the intended use).
As to claim 43, Kuhl in view of Gallon and Cohen teaches to wherein the conditioning unit additionally compresses the first and second product and removes water, carbon dioxide, or sulfur-containing molecules from the first and second product streams when forming the conditioned intermediate gas (Kuhl, paragraph [0075], teaches to a various types of separating device, including a PSA apparatus (PSA: Pressure Swing Adsorption), wherein the separating device may be integrated over lines 19 and 21; the PSA apparatus of Kuhl is configured to compress and remove undesired substances from further processing).
As to claim 46, Kuhl teaches to the system of claim 42, wherein the downstream processing unit comprises a Fischer-Tropsch reactor which synthesizes the synthetic hydrocarbon product (Kuhl, paragraphs [0033] and [0053]-[0054], teaches to wherein the downstream processing unit comprises a Fischer-Tropsch reactor which synthesizes the synthetic hydrocarbon product, as Kuhl, paragraph [0033], teaches that high H2:CO ratio is preferred for a Fischer-Tropsch process, as Kuhl, paragraph [0053], teaches that the CO-converter is preferably a Fischer-Tropsch converter, and as Kuhl, paragraph [0054], teaches a Fischer-Tropsch converter catalytically converting a synthesis gas into hydrocarbons and water).
Claim(s) 44 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Olaf Kuhl of US 2017/0057818 A1 (hereinafter referred to as Kuhl) in view of Gallon, Helen J., and Christopher Whitehead. Dry reforming of methane using non-thermal plasma-catalysis. Diss. University of Manchester, 2011 (hereinafter, Gallon) and Daniel R. Cohen of US 2010/0022669 A1 (hereinafter, Cohen), as applied to claim 42 above, and in further view of Robert Carl Dalton of US 2017/0369786 A1 (hereinafter, Dalton).
As to claim 44, Kuhl in view of Gallon and Cohen does not explicitly teach wherein the first and second plasma reformer units comprise microwave discharge reactors operating at pressures between 0.95 and 5 atm.
In an analogous art, Dalton teaches to the system of claim 42, wherein the first and second plasma reformer units comprise microwave discharge reactors operating at pressures between 0.95 and 5 atm (Dalton, paragraph [0158], teaches to operating at pressures between 0.95 and 5 atm, as Dalton teaches to operating a conversion at pressure between 1 and 200 atm).
Both Kuhl in view of Gallon and Cohen and Dalton relate to chemical reactions, including Fischer-Tropsch synthesis of syngas (Dalton, paragraph [0033]). Kuhl in view of Gallon and Cohen does not explicitly teach operating at pressures between 0.95 and 5 atm. Kuhl in view of Gallon and Cohen does teach to the first and second plasma reactor units comprising microwave discharge reactors. Dalton teaches to applying electromagnetic energy, microwave in particular, for driving chemical reactions, including reforming and Fischer-Tropsch synthesis of syngas.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Kuhl in view of Gallon and Cohen with the operating pressure of Dalton for optimizing reaction conditions for using the system having a reduced carbon footprint.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pg. 6 of 6, the applicant asserts that claim 42, as amended, is allowable in view of these references because “it is explicit that the recycling of material occurs prior to the mixer.”
The added term “further comprising a recycling line configured to route a portion of the first product stream comprising the hydrogen-rich syngas into the second plasma reformer unit to reduce solid carbon formation within the second plasma reformer unit” does not explicitly require that the recycling of material occurs prior to the mixer because the term “configured to route a portion of the first product stream” does not specify that the routing occurs prior to the mixer. The routing does not inherently require to be performed prior to any mixing.
For this reason, the applicant’s argument is found unpersuasive.
Please refer to the rejection above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Harold A. Wright of US 2018/0002265 A1 (hereinafter, Wright), paragraph [0057], teaches that the CO2 is then recycled as feed to the dry reforming reactor. Recycling CO2, a by-product of the first product stream along with hydrogen gas, together composing hydrogen-rich syngas, to a dry reformer reactor for performing a reaction between methane and carbon dioxide gas is already well-known in the art of syngas reactors.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN LEE whose telephone number is (703)756-1254. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 7:00-16:00.
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, James Lin can be reached at (571) 272-8902. 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.
/JOHN LEE/Examiner, Art Unit 1794
/JAMES LIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1794
Prosecution Insights