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
Applicant's arguments filed 2/3/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The amendment to claim 1 incorporates cancelled claims 5 and 13. Claims 5 and 13 were rejected in the Non-Final Rejection mailed 11/5/25. The rejection of claim 1 has been modified to address the features of cancelled claims 5 and 13.
Applicant asserts that the combination of Cai and Schmieder is inappropriate because the residence time taught for the second reactor (water gas shift reactor) is for very high pressures (250 bar) and the claim now recites an operating pressure of 0-60 bar. However, claim 1 now recites the residence time of the second reactor and the pressure of the first reactor. These are discrete reaction conditions. Cai discloses that it’s first reactor (gasifier) operates at the claimed pressured as cited in the art rejections below. Schmieder discloses the claimed residence time for the second reactor (shift reactor) as cited in the art rejections below. There is nothing precluding operating the first reactor at the claimed lower pressure and the second reactor at a higher pressure. Schmieder offers means and motivation for the claimed second reactor conditions. No other features or claims are separately argued.
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.
Claims 1-4, 6, 8-12, and 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cai (US 2015/0144842 A1) in view of Schmieder (DE 19955150 A1). A machine translation of Schmieder was provided 11/5/25 and is used for citation purposes.
Regarding claims 1, 2, 8, 9, 15, and 16, Cai discloses a process comprising: providing dimethyl disulfide and hydrogen to the catalysts of a first reactor 9 and a second reactor 2, wherein both the first reactor (paragraph 74) and second reactor catalysts comprise Mo, W, Co, and Ni (paragraph 81). Cai discloses providing syngas 1 to the first reactor and the second reactor to produce a hydrogen rich stream through shift reactions (paragraph 82). Cai does not disclose the residence time in the shift reactors. Schmieder—in an invention for producing hydrogen with water gas shift—discloses a shift reactor with Cr, Ni and Mo oxides, that residence time for the shift reaction is particularly important, and that a residence time of 36 seconds was sufficient for over 99.8% conversion (page 3, paragraph 1 of machine translation).
Regarding claims 3 and 11, Cai discloses that the shift reaction occurs from 200-350 °C and 0.1 to 12 MPa (paragraph 80).
Regarding claims 4, 6, and 18, Cai discloses that the first reactor is at 200-350 °C and a space velocity of 100 to 12,000 /h, and a pressure of 0.1 to 12 MPa (paragraph 73).
Regarding claim 10, Cai discloses that the second catalyst comprises potassium (paragraph 19).
Regarding claims 12 and 19, Cai discloses that the water/CO ratio of the crude syngas is 0.1 to 2.5 (paragraph 16).
Regarding claim 17, absent details, a start-up phase would always occur before implementation of a process.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cai as applied to claim 1 above.
Cai discloses utilizing hydrogen in its process (paragraph 79) but does not explicitly disclose the source of hydrogen. Cai does disclose producing hydrogen in its process, though (paragraph 82). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to utilize the hydrogen available as a product in Cai as a material for sulfiding the catalyst as it is readily available and would thus increase system efficiency.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cai as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zhou (CN 1583272 A). A machine translation is provided herewith.
Cai discloses the importance of sulfur-containing gases for the process (paragraph 79) but not specifically dimethyl sulfoxide. Zhou—in an invention for sulfiding water gas shift catalysts for improving their efficacy—discloses that dimethyl sulfoxide is an effective gas for improving conversion activity (page 3, paragraphs 1 & 4 of machine translation). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to utilize dimethyl sulfoxide as the sulfur-containing gas of Cai for its efficacy at improved the catalyst as suggested by Zhou.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the 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 IMRAN AKRAM whose telephone number is (571)270-3241. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9a-5p.
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, Basia Ridley can be reached at 571-272-1453. 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.
/IMRAN AKRAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725
Prosecution Insights