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 of Species A, Claims 1 and 7 of Group I in the reply filed on May 18, 2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)). Claims 2-6 and 8-20 have been withdrawn as being directed to a non-elected invention.
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.
Claims 1 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lim et al. (WO2020/210865A1, rejection relied on US equivalent patent pub. No. 2022/0194787, hereinafter Lim).
In regards to Claim 1, Lim discloses a reactor system, comprising:
a first reactor (FR1 #210) comprising:
a first inlet (#265, #252) in fluid communication with an oxidized oxygen carrier stream (see figure 2 and paragraphs [0108]-[0109]);
a second inlet (#251) configured to receive carbonaceous feedstock (see figure 2 and paragraph [0108]);
a first outlet (#254) in fluid communication with a reduced oxygen carrier stream (see figure 2 and paragraph [0108]); and
a second outlet (#240) in fluid communication with one or more processes (see figure 2 and paragraph [0106]);
a second reactor (FR2 #211) comprising:
a first inlet (#261) in fluid communication with the oxidized oxygen carrier stream (see figure 2 and paragraph [0109]); and
a first outlet (#264) (see figure 2 and paragraph [0109]);
a third reactor (R4 #230) comprising:
a first inlet (inlet in the bottom of reactor R4 #230) in fluid communication with the first outlet (#264) of the second reactor (#211) (see figure 2 and paragraph [0109]);
a first outlet (#268) being in fluid communication with the reduced oxygen carrier stream (see figure 2 and paragraph [0109]);
the third reactor (R4 #230) being in series with the second reactor (FR2 #211); and
the first reactor (#FR1 #210) being in parallel with the second reactor (FR2 #211) and the third reactor (R4 #230) (see figure 2 and paragraph [0106]); and
a fourth reactor (R2 #220) comprising:
an inlet (inlet in the bottom of R2 #220) in fluid communication with the reduced oxygen carrier stream (see figure 2 and paragraph [0108]);
an outlet (outlet on top of R2 #220) in fluid communication with the oxidized oxygen carrier stream (see figure 2 and paragraph [0108]); and
the fourth reactor (R2 #220) being configured as a fluidized bed reactor (see figure 2 and paragraphs [0078] and [0108]).
In regards to Claim 7, Lim discloses wherein the second outlet (#240) of the first reactor (FR1 #210) is positioned at a bottom portion of the first reactor (FR1 #210) and in fluid communication with a second inlet (inlet at a bottom part of FR2 #211) of the second reactor and the one or more processes (see figure 2 and paragraph [0106]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JELITZA M PEREZ whose telephone number is (571)272-8139. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00am-6:00pm.
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, Claire Wang can be reached at (571) 270-1051. 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.
/JELITZA M PEREZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1774
Prosecution Insights