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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Species (A) in the reply filed on September 29, 2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there is no serious search burden.
This is not found persuasive because the search burden has been established in the office action mailed July 31, 2025. Furthermore, the prior art that is applicable to one species, would not be applicable to another species. Therefore, the election of species requirement is currently maintained.
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 1-10 and 13-24 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.
Regarding claims 1 and 2, the instant claim requires a “steam to carbon ratio of […]”. There is no specification if the ratio is a competition the molar, weight, or volume of steam to carbon. This causes the claims to be indefinite.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 2 recites the broad recitation "steam to carbon ratio of ≤ 2.8, and preferably ≤ 2.6” , and the claim also recites "more preferably ≤ 2.4" which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 3 recites the broad recitation “ molar composition ≥ 8%” , and the claim also recites “ preferably ≥ 10%” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 4 recites the broad recitation "“ molar composition ≥ 1%” , and the claim also recites “ preferably ≥ 2%” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 5 recites the broad recitation "a molar composition of ≤ 10%", and the claim also recites " preferably ≤ 7%"which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Regarding claims 2-5, the use of “preferably”, renders the claims indefinite because it’s unclear if the recited limitations are required.
Regarding claims 10, the use of “type”, renders the claim indefinite because the addition of “type” behind a definite expression extends the scope of the limitation. It is unclear how similar two catalysts need to be to be considered as the same “type”. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear.
The term “high activity” in claim 16 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high activity” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Due to the lack of The reason for this is due to the claim addressing “high activity” without defining a level of activity that the catalyst needs to be, to be considered “high” in view of a solid-carbon gasification process.
Claim 23 recites the limitation "byproduct of a refinery process" in relation to the composition of a hydrocarbon stream. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-5, 9,14,15,17,19,23, and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kobayashi (JP 2008018414 A).
Regarding claim 1, Kobayashi discloses the use of a catalyst to produce hydrogen from hydrocarbons. Kobayashi teaches a feed stream containing a molar ratio of steam to hydrocarbons to be either 1.5 or 3 (Kobayashi [0130]). Kobayashi teaches a process in which the feedstock is transferred directly into a reactor, allowing for hydrocracking to begin without the feedstock passing through a pre-reformer (Kobayashi [0116]) . The catalysts within the tube nickel-based (Kobayashi [0129]) and do not contain alkali promotion as they are disclosed as being “composed of magnesium, aluminum, nickel, and Si”. The raw material stream (feed stream) is a combination of city gas, propane, and butane. The prior art provides a table which illustrates the relationship between time and methane conversion rate when a propane feed stream is used (Kobayashi[0132, Table 4]). With propane making up 100% of the feed stream, the C2+ composition would be 100%. The feed stream is passed through the tube where conversion takes place (Kobayashi [131]). The prior art further claims that the present invention provides a method for producing hydrogen (Kobayashi [0209]). Kobayashi teaches the process can be conducted in two stages, see (Kobayashi [0037]), the second stage of which is considered to meet the limitation requiring further processing.
Regarding claim 2, Kobayashi discloses that their invention requires a feed gas with a molar ratio of steam to hydrocarbons of 1.5. (Kobayashi [0130]). This disclosure fulfills the limitations set in the instant claim requiring the process to have a feed stream with a steam to carbon ratio less than or equal to 2.4.
Regarding claim 3, Kobayashi discloses use of propane as the raw material gas in a feed stream (Kobayashi [132]). The limitation requiring the stream to have a molar C2+ composition would encompass C3 as well. By only using propane as the feed stream the content of C2+ would be at 100%. As a result, this disclosure fulfills the limitations set in the instant claim requiring a C2+ molar composition of 10 or more.
Regarding claim 4, Kobayashi discloses use of propane as the raw material gas in a feed stream (Kobayashi [132]). Since propane is representative of C3+ , the use of only propane in the feed stream would indicate a C3+ molar composition of 100%. Therefore, this disclosure fulfills the limitations set in the instant claim requiring the C3+ molar composition to be greater or equal than 2.
Regarding claim 5, Kobayashi disclose a process made up of water vapor and city gas (Kobayashi [0012]). With city gas containing methane, propane, ethane, butane and various other hydrocarbon with carbon numbers C2-C4 (Kobayashi [0009]), there is no indication of pure hydrogen in the feed stream meaning the H2 molar composition would be 0%. This disclosure fulfills the limitations set in the instant claim requiring the H2 composition of hydrogen to be equal or less than 7%.
Regarding claim 9, Kobayashi discloses that the one of the nickel-based catalysts would contain 10.89% of nickel (Kobayashi [0144]). This disclosure fulfills the limitations set in the instant claim requiring the nickel content of the nickel catalyst to be between 10 to 20%.
Regarding claim 10, Kobayashi discloses a single nickel-based catalyst in a tube through which raw material steam and gas is conveyed (Kobayashi [130]). This disclosure fulfils the limitations of the instant claim requiring the one or more reformer tubes to contain a single type of nickel catalyst.
Regarding claims 14 and 15 , Kobayashi discloses that “city gas 13A contains approximately 88.5% methane, 4.6% ethane, 5.4% propane, and 1.5% butane, and in addition to the main component methane, it also contains 11.5% hydrocarbons with carbon numbers C2 to C4“ (Kobayashi [0009]). With a lack of addition of CO2 in the feed stream, the disclosure would fulfill the limitations set in the instant claim requiring that none of the hydrocarbon streams are mixed with CO2-rich streams internal and external.
Regarding claim 16, Kobayashi discloses a nickel-based catalyst in a tube through which material steam and gas is conveyed (Kobayashi [130]). This disclosure fulfills the limitations set in the instant claim requiring a nickel-based catalyst with high activity for solid-carbon gasification is utilized in the one or more reformer tubes’ carbon formation zone.
Regarding claim 17, Kobayashi does not disclose adjustments of gas flow. However, the prior art discusses the gas heavy space velocity (Kobayashi [0098]) of the of gas which is proportional to the flow rate of the system. This means that the flow rate is adjusted by temperature as opposed to C2+ content. Therefore, this disclosure fulfills the limitations set in the instant claim requiring the steam stream to not be adjusted based on the variation of C2+.
Regarding claim 19, Kobayashi discloses the reaction formula for the steam reforming process (Kobayashi [0006]). Within the reaction formula carbon monoxide is shown to shift from the second step into hydrogen gas shown in the final step, which is taking place in the second stage reactor (Kobayashi [0116]). This disclosure fulfills the limitations set in the instant claim requiring the synthesis case from the reformer tube to be introduces to a second reactor where CO is shifted into H2.
Regarding claims 23-24, the claims require the hydrocarbon feed is derived from certain sources. This is considered a nested product-by-process limitation. The hydrocarbon feed is defined by its composition and not its origin. Kobayashi teaches hydrocarbon sources that are the same as those that are common produced from the claimed sources, e.g. propane, (Kobayashi [0009]).
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.
Claim(s) 6-8 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi (JP 2008018414).
Regarding claim 6, Kobayashi does not disclose whether or not the composition of H2 within the hydrocarbon stream can be increased by mixing it with a portion of a purified hydrogen product. However, one of ordinary skill in the art can apply mass balance to determine how much purified hydrogen can be added to the hydrocarbon stream, to increase H2 molar composition.
Regarding claim 7, Kobayashi does not disclose whether or not the composition of H2 within the hydrocarbon stream can be increased by mixing it with a portion of a purified hydrogen product. However, one of ordinary skill in the art can apply mass balance between reactions to determine the effects of adding purified hydrogen into the stream, and how much hydrogen can be added before the H2 molar composition increases.
Regarding claim 8, Kobayashi discloses that past processes of steam reformation contains a stream of raw material gas being passed through a reactor that contains two sections to allow for different temperature levels (Kobayashi [0116]). Another apparatus that was used by the prior art was a single reformer, which is made up of a catalyst filled tube that is heated (Kobayashi [0130]). One of ordinary art could have retrofitted past designs to process hydrocarbons differently as the prior art has described two different systems that can be modified in order to maximize hydrogen production.
Regarding claim 13, Kobayashi discloses the processing of layered double hydroxide particles (LDH) (Kobayashi [0057]) where “having nickel present on the particle surface can be obtained by the above-mentioned multi-step reaction production method, which can be molded and fired to form a porous oxide molded body, which can then be impregnated with a solution containing nickel to support nickel near the surface ” (Kobayashi [0088]). This process is a form of preformation which utilizes LDH particles to form metal oxides. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to pre reduce catalytic material before installation, as pre reduced materials would result in improved activity.
Claims 18, 20, 22, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi (JP 2008018414 A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kaplan (US 20160045841 A1).
Regarding claim 18, Kobayashi does not disclose using water to quench the heat exchanger system. However, Kaplan discloses that the pyrolysis reactor can include a thermal quench/transition chamber, which is a type of heat exchanger (Kaplan [0322]). One of ordinary skill in the art would identify the quenching process as commonly using water to cool the heat exchanger generating system. Therefore, they would have been able to apply the teachings of Kaplan to Kobayashi, as Kaplan provides a form of temperature control for the hydrocarbon streams.
Regarding claim 20, Kobayashi does not disclose the condensation of a steam stream. Kaplan however, uses a distillation reactor to condense various components of the gas stream where volatile materials can be removed (Kaplan [0339]). Furthermore, Kaplan also rivals the use of CO2 stripper apparatus to purify the steam stream (Kaplan [Fig. 76M]). One of ordinary skill in the art would be able to combine the teachings of Kaplan to Kobayashi to remove any CO2 or other materials from the product stream.
Regarding claim 22, Kobayashi does not disclose the presence of a low-pressure tail gas stream. However, in Kaplan, the prior art displays a table where Claus tail gas, a type of low-pressure tail gas, would enter a furnace boiler (Kaplan [Table 3]). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to apply the use of LPTG to the furnace as a way to reduce waste and provide a flammable fuel to the furnace.
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi (JP 2008018414) and further in view of Fischer (CN 1791777 A) .
Regarding claim 21, Kobayashi does not disclose the use of a pressure swing in order to purify the gas stream. However, Fischer (CN 1791777 A) discloses a process where the synthesis gas stream is discharges, cooled, and delivered through a separator where water can be removed (Fischer [0153]), Fischer also teaches a potential for separation/hydrogen purification can be managed by pressure swing dampers, indicating that pressure swing adsorption is used in the purification process (Fischer [0117]), leading to a purified product stream and a lower pressure stream utilized for other processes (Fischer [0153]). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to apply the teachings of Fischer to Kobayashi in order to more thoroughly process the synthesis gas and ensuring a purer hydrogen product.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANNETTE H PHAN whose telephone number is (703)756-4520. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-6:30 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 5712703591. 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.
/ANNETTE PHAN/Examiner, Art Unit 1736
/ANTHONY J ZIMMER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1736