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 Amendment
The amendment filed 05/15/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-10 remain pending in the application, with claims 1-4 and 9-10 withdrawn from further consideration following the requirement for restriction made in the Office action mailed on 10/21/2025.
The amendments to the claims overcome the objection and each and every 112(b) rejection made in the previous Office action mailed on 02/20/2026.
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.
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, Wolf et al. (2005), Parametric study of chemical looping combustion for tri-generation of hydrogen, heat, and electrical power with CO2 capture. Int. J. Energy Res., 29: 739-753, referred to herein as Wolf, and Singh et al. 2009, Stabilization and functional properties of La3NiAlMnO9 and La3CoAlMnO9 magnetoelectric triple perovskites, Submitted on ArXiv 3 Apr 2009 to Condensed Matter > Materials Science, referred to herein as Singh. Wolf and Singh are provided with this Office action; Document 1, Document 2, and Zhao are made of record in the previous Office action.
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. 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).
Document 1, Document 2, and Zhao do not teach that the reaction of chemical-looping reforming of methane to hydrogen is conducted in a fluidized bed. However, Document 1 teaches a structure of a fluidized bed reactor (Fig. 1, p. 2) which is taught to be used for CLSMR as known in the art (caption of Fig. 1). It would be obvious to one skilled in the art to combine this teaching with the teachings of Document 1 and Document 2, in view of Wolf. Wolf teaches chemical-looping steam methane reforming (Equation 2, p. 741) in a circulating fluidized bed reactor (Figure 1) wherein CLSMR is conducted in a fluidized bed (Fig. 1, page 741). One would be motivated to combine the teaching of Fig. 1 of Document 1 with the prior art because the fluidized bed allows for the inherent separation of carbon dioxide while allowing for the production and separation of hydrogen, as Wolf teaches (p. 740, bottom of page).
While the teachings of Document 1 and Document 2 do not teach the exact molar ratio of the cations or the pure perovskite crystalline phase, one of ordinary skill in the art would find it necessary to look to the prior art in order to implement the combination to synthesize the material. Singh teaches the structure of La3MnCoAlO9 wherein the ratio of the cations is 3:1:1:1 and teaches known methods to arrive at this structure (p. 3 pp. 2). Singh further teaches that the obtained LMCAO structure has an “absence of impurity phase” (p. 3 pp. 3), therefore meeting the limitation of a pure perovskite crystalline phase, since the material is a perovskite (p. 3 pp. 2) and is crystalline (p. 3 pp. 3). It would be obvious to one skilled in the art to adjust the ionic molar ratio of each element to arrive at the claimed ratio of 3:1:1:1, as taught by Singh, and therefore arrive at the present invention with reasonable expectation of success.
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, Zhao, Wolf, and Singh, 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.).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks page 7, filed 5/15/2026, with respect to the rejections of claims 5-8 under U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in the present action in view of Wolf and Singh.
Applicant has asserted that one skilled in the art would not have reason to arrive at the precise stoichiometry of La3CoMnAlO9 as instantly claimed, where the ratios of each cation are 3:1:1:1. This argument is not found convincing, in view of Singh, which is the only disclosure of LCMAO in the prior art, which discloses the ratio of 3:1:1:1 for the cations of LCMAO, and discloses known methods of forming the LCMAO. One skilled in the art would find it necessary and obvious to look to the prior art for the method of implementing such a structure, and would therefore arrive at the claimed ratio with a reasonable expectation of success.
Applicant asserts that the advantage of the claimed La3CoMnAlO9 is that it possesses a pure perovskite phase. This argument is found convincing; the rejection is therefore withdrawn and new grounds of rejection have been set forth.
Applicant asserts that the rejection over claim 5 does not address the limitation of application in a fluidized bed reactor. This argument is found convincing; the rejection is therefore withdrawn and new grounds of rejection have been set forth.
Regarding applicant’s assertion that Sridhar does not remedy the deficiencies of the rejections over Document 1, Document 2, and Zhao, these arguments are rendered moot because the new grounds of rejection does not rely on the teachings specifically challenged in the argument.
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 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 (571)272-6297. 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
Prosecution Insights