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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, claims 1-8, 11-15, 23-24 in the reply filed on 08/29/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the groups share a special technical feature. This is not found persuasive because the groups share a technical feature that is obviated by the prior art. See rejection below.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "a hydrogen stream" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if the “hydrogen stream” refers back to the recitation of a hydrogen stream in claim 1, lines 3-5 as the hydrogen stream is formed in the first stage in claim 1.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the hydrogen stream" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if the “hydrogen stream” refers back to the recitation of a hydrogen stream in claim 12 or the recitation in claim 1, lines 3-5.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the hydrogen stream" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if the “hydrogen stream” refers back to the recitation of a hydrogen stream in claim 1, lines 3-5 as the hydrogen stream is formed in the first stage in claim 1.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the hydrogen stream" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if the “hydrogen stream” refers back to the recitation of a hydrogen stream in claim 1, lines 3-5 as the hydrogen stream is formed in the first stage in claim 1.
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, 11-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schroer (US 2022/0119328) in view of Halas (US 20180333712) and Stites (US 2009/0093555) and Sakurai (US 2015/0202589).
Schroer teaches a system for recovering syngas from a methane feedstock (abstract, para. 0003) comprising a first stage comprising a steam methane reformer configured to syngas from the methane (para. 0088, 0097-0099) and a second stage adjacent to and downstream from the first stage comprising a dry methane reformer configured to produce a syngas from methane and carbon dioxide stream.
Schroer fails to teach producing carbon dioxide from the first stage.
Stites, however, teaches an apparatus for producing a syngas (abstract) wherein a shift reactor is situated after a steam reformer (para. 0139) for the purpose of providing CO2 from the shift stage to a dry reforming stage (para. 0139).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a shift reactor situated downstream of the steam reformer of Schroer in order to provide CO2 from the shift stage to the dry reforming stage as taught by Stites. The CO2 produced in the shift reactor meets the limitation as a stream of CO2 from the first stage.
Schroer fails to teach a second methane feedstock.
Schroer, however, teaches that methane is a reactant in the dry reforming step (para. 0097).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to provide a second methane feedstock directed to the dry reforming stage in Schroer in order to provide a reactant for the dry reforming step as taught by Schroer. This would have been obvious for the additional reason that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize when additional methane would be necessary to carry out the dry reforming step (i.e. not enough methane flows from the steam reforming step to the dry reforming step) absent a showing of unexpected results.
Schroer fails to teach that the first and second stage comprises a photocatalytic reformer.
Halas, however, teaches a catalyst for steam reforming and dry reforming (abstract, para. 0064) wherein the catalyst is a photocatalytic catalyst for the purpose of reducing the energy demands of heterogenous catalysis (para. 0136).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a photocatalyst in the first and second stage of Schroer in order to reduce the energy demands of heterogenous catalysis as taught by Halas.
Regarding claims 1 and 3; Schroer teaches an apparatus as described above in claim 1, but fails to teach a separation unit configured for separating CO2 from the water shift stream to obtain the CO2 stream and the hydrogen stream.
Sakurai, however, teaches a reforming device (abstract) wherein a CO2 separation device is provided after a water shift stage for the purpose of separating CO2 from the hydrogen stream (para. 0114-0115).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a CO2 separation device is provided after a water shift stage in Schroer in order to separate CO2 from the hydrogen stream as taught by Sakurai.
Additionally, as the first stage producing a CO2 stream and a hydrogen stream in claim 1 require two separate streams, this rejection is applied herein.
Regarding claim 2, Halas teaches that the catalyst is a plasmonic photocatalyst (abstract). Schroer teaches that the reforming reaction produces CO (para. 0089-0091) and Stites teaches a water shift reaction downstream of the stream reforming stage producing H2 and CO2 (para. 0064-0070).
Regarding claims 5-6, Halas teaches a first catalyst (Pt, inter alia) coupled to a plasmonic material (Al) (para. 0061, 0066).
Regarding claims 11-12, Schroer teaches a methanol synthesis stage downstream of the second stage (fig. 4; para. 0096). Additionally, the CO to hydrogen ratio recited in claim 12 is drawn to material being worked upon in the apparatus. Inclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims. MPEP 2115.
Regarding claim 13, Schroer teaches that the first stage is indirectly connected to the third stage such that at least some of the hydrogen stream is obtained via the first stage (fig. 4, para. 0096).
Regarding claim 14, Schroer teaches a shift reactor downstream of the dry reforming stage (fig. 4, para. 0096). Additionally, the CO to hydrogen ratio recited in claim 14 is drawn to material being worked upon in the apparatus. Inclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims. MPEP 2115.
Claim(s) 4, 8, 23-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schroer (US 2022/0119328) in view of Halas (US 20180333712) and Stites (US 2009/0093555) and Isimjan (US 2020/0002826) and Sakurai.
Schroer teaches an apparatus as described above in claim 1, but fails to teach the steam methane reformer/dry reformer comprises a housing, and at least one reactor cell comprising an enclosure and the first plasmonic photocatalyst on a first catalyst support disposed within the enclosure wherein the enclosure is optically transparent and comprises an input for the methane feedstock to enter and an output for the reactor cell and a light source.
Isimjan, however, teaches an apparatus for photocatalytic processes (abstract, para. 0006) comprising a reactor (housing) comprising a reactor chamber (cell) that is transparent to light (para. 0009) and a light source (para. 0050).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a reactor (housing) comprising a reactor chamber (cell) that is transparent to light (para. 0009) and a light source as the steam reactor/dry reactor in Schroer in order to provide a known configuration for a photocatalytic reactor as taught by Isimjan.
Additionally, Schroer teaches an input for feedstock and an outlet for reactor product (fig. 4). Halas teaches a support material for the plasmonic photocatalyst (para. 0073).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schroer (US 2022/0119328) in view of Halas (US 20180333712) and Stites (US 2009/0093555) and Shapiro (US 2016/0260991) and Sakurai.
Schroer teaches an apparatus as described above in claim 1, but fails to teach the first stage comprises an organic Rankine cycle to generate electricity with the system using process waste heat.
Shapiro, however, teaches an apparatus of steam reforming (abstract) wherein an organic Rankine cycle is downstream of a steam reformer for the purpose of using waste heat and forming electricity (para. 0050-0051).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide an organic Rankine cycle downstream of the steam reformer in Schroer in order to use waste heat and form electricity as taught by Shapiro.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schroer (US 2022/0119328) in view of Halas (US 20180333712) and Stites (US 2009/0093555) and Marker (US 2019/0144274) and Sakurai.
Schroer teaches an apparatus as described above in claim 11, but fails to teach a hydrogen separation membrane downstream/adjacent to the dry methane reformer.
Marker, however, teaches an apparatus for reforming methane (abstract) wherein a hydrogen membrane can be used with/alternatively to a wgs reaction after a dry reforming step (para. 0029).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a hydrogen membrane can be used with/alternatively to a wgs reaction after a dry reforming step in Schroer in order to provide a configuration known in the art as taught by Marker.
Additionally, the CO to hydrogen ratio recited in claim 15 is drawn to material being worked upon in the apparatus. Inclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims. MPEP 2115.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL A WARTALOWICZ whose telephone number is (571)272-5957. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9 am - 5 pm.
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, Keith Walker can be reached at 571-272-3458. 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.
/PAUL A WARTALOWICZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1735