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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 5-8 in the reply filed on December 22, 2025 is acknowledged.
Claim Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 5 as currently amended reads “Application of a medium-entropy perovskite oxygen in a reaction of…”. This is interpreted to be a typographic error that should read, “Application of a medium-entropy perovskite oxygen carrier in a reaction of…”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 5 as amended includes preparation steps of the medium-entropy perovskite oxygen carrier. This claim is examined with the interpretation that a medium-entropy perovskite oxygen carrier having the same structure as limited by the preparation steps is capable of performing the same function as a medium-entropy perovskite oxygen carrier which has not been prepared by the preparation steps.
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 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the elements. See MPEP § 2172.01. Claim 5 recites “wherein at a reduction stage, the oxygen carrier reacts with under an oxygen-free condition” which is missing the object of the sentence: it is unclear what the oxygen carrier reacts with. Claims 6-8 depend upon claim 5 and do not rectify the issue, and are therefore similarly rejected.
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.
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 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yin et al. 2021, International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, Volume 46, Issue 67, 28 September 2021, Pages 33375-33387, in view of Yin et al. 2022, Applied Catalysis B: Environmental, Volume 301, February 2022, 120816, referred to herein as Document 1 and Document 2 respectively, and in further view of Zhao et al. 2017, Applied Catalysis B: Environmental 219 (2017) 672–682, referred to herein as Zhao.
Regarding claim 5, Document 1 discloses a chemical looping steam methane reforming (CLSMR) scheme (Figure 1) wherein:
at a reduction stage, the oxygen carrier reacts under an oxygen- free condition (CH4 and N2 only, p. 33377 column 2)
the methane is partially oxidized by lattice oxygen in the oxygen carrier to generate syngas (p. 33376 pp. 4)
meanwhile the oxygen carrier is reduced (p. 33376 pp. 4)
at the re-oxidation stage, the oxygen carrier reacts with steam, to obtain part of the lattice oxygen (p. 33376 pp. 4)
meanwhile hydrogen is generated (p. 33376 pp. 4)
Document 1 does not disclose that at an air combustion stage, the oxygen carrier is further oxidized by air to be cyclically regenerated, so that the oxygen carrier restores to a structure before reacting with the methane. However, Zhao discloses the use of an air oxidation stage (p. 673 Column 1). It would be obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to modify the invention of Document 1 further with the air oxidation taught by Zhao. One would be motivated to do so in order to completely regenerate the oxygen carrier, motivation taught by Zhao (“Usually, an air oxidation stage is also needed if the oxygen carrier cannot be completely regenerated by steam,” p. 673 Column 1).
Document 1 does not disclose the structure of the perovskite oxygen carrier as required by the instant claim, having a structure of La3CoMnAlO9 in an ionic molar ratio of La to Co to Mn to Al of 3: 1: 1: 1; instead, Document 1 discloses the structure of LaMn1-xAlxO3+δ (x = 0, 0.1, 0.3, 0.5 and 0.7) (p. 33377 Column 1 pp. 3). However, Document 2 discloses the structure of double and triple perovskites used as oxygen carriers for chemical looping steam methane reforming (title), wherein the structure LaMn1−yCoyO3+δ (y=0.1, 0.3, 0.4, 0.5) is taught (p. 2 column 2). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to modify the perovskite structure taught by Document 1 by doping with cobalt as taught in Document 2, and adjust the ionic molar ratio of each element within a workable optimum range including the claimed ratio of 3:1:1:1, and arrive at the present invention with reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to do so in order to regulate the number of active sites for methane activation in the surface of oxygen carrier, motivation taught in Document 2 (p. 2 column 2).
Regarding claim 6, Document 1 discloses a temperature of 850°C (p. 33377 column 2). This falls within the claimed range of 700°C to 1100°C.
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Document 1, Document 2, and Zhao, as applied to claim 5 above, and in further view of Sridhar et al. 2012, Energy & Fuels, Vol 26/Issue 4, p. 2292−2302, herein referred to as Sridhar.
Regarding claim 7, Document 1 discloses a 5 vol% CH4/N2, which falls within the claimed range of a volume percentage of the methane is 5% to 100%, and a volume space velocity (VSV) of approximately 70 h-1, from the flow rate of 200 mL/min (p. 33377 column 2) given that the reactor tube is taught as having a length of 600 mm and an inner diameter of 19 mm (p. 33377 column 2), giving a volume of 60 cm * 2π(0.95 cm)2 = 170 cm3 = 170 mL, such that the VSV = 200 mL/min * 60 min/h * 1/170mL = 70.6 h-1. While this falls outside the claimed ranges of a volume space velocity of the reaction is 120 h-1 to 12000 h-1, Sridhar teaches that the steam flow rate and gas velocity are critical and result-effective parameters that influences the oxygen demand (Equations 11, 14), in the field of chemical looping (title). As the oxygen demand is a variable can be modified, among others, by adjusting the flow rate of steam, the precise flow rate and therefore the volume percentages and volume space velocity of steam used would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed ranges of volume percentage of steam and volume space velocity of steam cannot be considered critical. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the volume percentage and volume space velocity in Document 1 to obtain the desired balance between the flow rate and the gas velocity as taught by Sridhar (Section 2.2, Oxidizer Design) (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223). “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
Regarding claim 8, Document 1 discloses steam and N2 introduced at the oxidation stage, at a proportion of 0.1 g/min of steam in 200 mL/min of N2, yielding a volume percentage of 0.05% and thus a volume space velocity of 1.2 h-1. While these values fall outside the claimed ranges of 5% to 100% for the volume percentage and 120 to 12,000 h-1 for the volume space velocity, Sridhar teaches that the steam flow rate and gas velocity are critical and result-effective parameters that influences the oxygen demand (Equations 11, 14), in the field of chemical looping (title). As the oxygen demand is a variable can be modified, among others, by adjusting the flow rate of steam, the precise flow rate and therefore the volume percentages and volume space velocity of steam used would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed ranges of volume percentage of steam and volume space velocity of steam cannot be considered critical. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the volume percentage and volume space velocity in Document 1 to obtain the desired balance between the flow rate and the gas velocity as taught by Sridhar (Section 2.2, Oxidizer Design) (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223). “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Eileen Moudou whose telephone number is (571)272-1768. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8 AM - 4 PM 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, Sally Merkling can be reached at 5712726297. 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.
/Eileen Moudou/ Examiner, Art Unit 1738
/MICHAEL FORREST/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1738