DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-13 have been amended. Claims 1-16 and 22 are cancelled. New claims 14-20 are added. Claims 1-20 are pending and under examination on the merits.
Information Disclosure Statements
Applicants’ Information Disclosure Statements, filed on 10/31/2025, 11/03/2025, 01/30/2026, 02/12/2026, and 02/18/2026, have been considered. Please refer to Applicant’s copies of the PTO-1449 submitted herewith.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment by Applicants’ representative Travis D. Boone on 01/07/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments/Amendments
Claim objection
Applicant’s amendments to claims 1-13 obviate the objection. The objection is withdrawn.
Claim rejection under 35 U.S.C.§112(b)
Applicant’s amendments to claims 6 and 10 obviate the rejection. The rejection is withdrawn.
Claim rejection under 35 U.S.C.§103(a)
Applicant’s argument is on the ground that Claim 1 differs from Schiødt (“the `099 patent”) in at least two material and interrelated respects: i. the synthesis gas comprises at least 1 ppmv sulfur during the water gas shift reaction (WGS); and ii. the water gas shift catalyst has a mercury-intrusion pore volume of ≥240 ml/kg; and neither limitation is taught or suggested by Schiødt, and Guo does not cure these deficiencies. Specifically, Applicant argued that Schiødt (“the `099 patent”) does not discloses or suggests a synthetic gas with >1 ppmv during WGS because Example 27 of the `099 patent generates ~0.4 ppm H2S, which is expressly described as an upper limit for sulfur concentration during reaction. The experiment is designed to demonstrate tolerance only at low sulfur levels, and sulfidation at 10% H2S in Example 28 is explicitly not part of the reaction feed, but a separate pretreatment step.
Applicant’s argument is found not persuasive. The `099 patent (col. 2, lns. 57-59) discloses the HTS catalyst has high tolerance towards impurities in the gas phase containing sulfur and chlorine, which was further demonstrated in Example 28 of the `099 patent. Example 28 of the `099 patent (col. 12, lns. 41-67) demonstrates the tolerance of catalyst A including Catalyst G towards sulfur at a concentration at 10% H2S in hydrogen. Specifically, the catalyst was then exposed to 10% H2S in hydrogen for 4 hours after which the catalyst was unloaded and found to contain 10.7% sulphur. The catalyst was reloaded into the reactor and the test was resumed. Conversion was found to be 21% thus less than half the original conversion. After 30 hours at 380 °C the conversion was observed to increase to 22.5%. One ordinary skilled in eth art would have known that said test is not a pretreatment step. Instead, it is a test step for demonstrate the catalyst has a high tolerance (e.g., 10% H2S) towards impurities in the gas phase containing sulfur. In terms of Applicant’s argument that “Example 27 of the `099 patent generates ~0.4 ppm H2S, which is expressly described as an upper limit for sulfur concentration during reaction”, it should be pointed out that Example 27 was disclosed as an example of the invention, not the entire disclosure of the invention by the `099 patent.
In terms of Applicant’s augment that Guo does not remedy the sulfur deficiency and introduces new incompatibilities, it should be pointed out that the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). For the instant case, Guo (Table 1 at p.2363) was cited in the Examiner’s Office action to demonstrate Cu/ZnO/Al2O3 water-gas shift catalysts having a pore volume (Vpore) at the range of 0.42 cm3/g - 0.69 cm3/g (i.e., 420 ml/kg - 690 ml/kg), which reads on the claimed range of 240 ml/kg or higher.
In terms of Applicant’s argument that the claimed features operate synergistically to address sulfur poisoning in the water gas shift reactor, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). The instantly claimed method would have been obvious over the method disclosed in the `099 patent because the difference of the CO-rich synthesis gas comprising at least 15 vol% CO of claim 1 and the CO-rich synthesis gas comprising 13 vol% CO disclosed by the `099 patent is further taught and/or suggested by the same prior art. The `099 patent (col. 5, lns. 15-17) discloses the synthesis gas entering the HTS-reactor contains normally 5-50 vol % CO, which covers the CO-rich synthesis gas comprising at least 15 vol% CO of claim 1. In terms of the limitation “CO-rich synthesis gas comprising at least at least 1 ppmv sulfur”, the `099 patent (col. 2, lns. 57-59) discloses the HTS catalyst has high tolerance towards impurities in the gas phase containing sulfur and chlorine. The `099 patent (Example 28, col. 12, lns. 41-67) demonstrates the tolerance of catalyst A including Catalyst G towards sulfur at a concentration at 10% H2S in hydrogen. One ordinary skilled in the art would have been motivated to modify the process by the `099 patent to use a synthesis gas containing at least 1 ppmv sulfur because of the catalyst’s high tolerance towards impurities in the gas phase containing sulfur. The rejection is maintained.
Non-status double patenting rejection
Applicant fails to respond to the ODP rejection. The rejection is maintained.
The following rejections are necessitated by the amendment on 01/07/2026:
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 (revised)
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 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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 8,119,099 (“the `099 patent”) to Niels C. SchiØdt in view of Guo et al., International J of Hydrogen Energy, (2009), v.34, p.2361-2368, Aasberg-Persen et al., J. of Natural Gas Science and Engineering, (2011), v.3, p423-459, and Wismann et al, Science, (2019), v.364, 756-759.
Applicant’s claim 1 is drawn to a process for enriching a synthesis gas in hydrogen by contacting said synthesis gas with a water gas shift catalyst in a water gas shift reactor, said synthesis gas being a CO-rich synthesis gas comprising at least 15 vol% CO and at least 1 ppmv sulfur, the water gas shift catalyst comprising Zn, Al, optionally Cu, and an alkali metal or alkali metal compound, said water gas shift catalyst being free of chromium (Cr) and iron (Fe), and wherein the water gas shift catalyst has a pore volume, as determined by mercury intrusion, of 240 ml/kg or higher.
Determination of the scope and content of the prior art (MPEP §2141.01)
The `099 patent (claim 1) discloses a process for enriching a synthesis gas mixture in hydrogen by contacting said synthesis gas mixture with a catalyst consisting in its active form of a mixture of zinc alumina (Zn, Al) spinel and zinc oxide in combination with an alkali metal selected from the group consisting of Na, K, Rb, Cs and mixtures thereof, said catalyst having a Zn/Al molar ratio in the range 0.5 to 1.0 and a content of alkali metal in the range 0.4 to 8.0 wt % based on the weight of oxidized catalyst. The `099 patent (Example 24) discloses a specific process for enriching a synthesis gas mixture in hydrogen by contacting said synthesis gas mixture with Catalyst G, wherein the synthesis gas mixture comprises a CO-rich synthesis gas comprising 13.0% CO (see TABLE 5), and the Catalyst G comprises 1.17 wt% K, 34.4 wt% Zn, 24.0 wt% Al, and Zn/Al (molar ratio) =0.59 (see TABLE 1). The `099 patent (col. 5, lns. 15-17) discloses the synthesis gas entering the HTS-reactor contains normally 5-50 vol % CO. Example 27 serves to demonstrate the tolerance of catalyst A towards sulfur in low H2S concentration of 0.4 ppm. In addition, the `099 patent (col. 2, lns. 57-59) discloses the HTS catalyst has high tolerance towards impurities in the gas phase containing sulfur and chlorine, which was further demonstrated in Example 28 of the `099 patent. Example 28 of the `099 patent (col. 12, lns. 41-67) demonstrates the tolerance of catalyst A including Catalyst G towards sulfur at a concentration at 10% H2S in hydrogen. Specifically, the catalyst was then exposed to 10% H2S in hydrogen for 4 hours after which the catalyst was unloaded and found to contain 10.7% sulphur. The catalyst was reloaded into the reactor and the test was resumed. Conversion was found to be 21% thus less than half the original conversion. After 30 hours at 380 °C the conversion was observed to increase to 22.5%. One ordinary skilled in eth art would have known that said test is not a pretreatment step. Instead, it is a test step for demonstrate the catalyst has a high tolerance (e.g., 10% H2S) towards impurities in the gas phase containing sulfur. In terms of Example 27 of the `099 patent generates ~0.4 ppm H2S, it is an example of the invention, not the entire disclosure of the invention by the `099 patent.
Ascertainment of the difference between the prior art and the claims (MPEP §2141.02)
The difference between the instantly claimed method and the method of the `099 patent (Example 24) is that the prior art does not teach the CO-rich synthesis gas comprising at least 15 vol% CO and at least 1 ppmv sulfur. Instead, Example 24 of the `099 patent teaches the CO-rich synthesis gas comprising 13 vol% CO; and the `099 patent (col. 2, lns. 57-59) further discloses the HTS catalyst has high tolerance towards impurities in the gas phase containing sulfur and chlorine. In addition, the `099 patent does not teach the water gas shift catalyst has a pore volume, as determined by mercury intrusion, of 240 ml/kg or higher.
Finding of prima facie obviousness--rational and motivation (MPEP §2142-2413)
However, the instantly claimed method would have been obvious over the method disclosed in the `099 patent because the difference of the CO-rich synthesis gas comprising at least 15 vol% CO of claim 1 and the CO-rich synthesis gas comprising 13 vol% CO disclosed by the `099 patent is further taught and/or suggested by the same prior art. The `099 patent (col. 5, lns. 15-17) discloses the synthesis gas entering the HTS-reactor contains normally 5-50 vol % CO, which covers the CO-rich synthesis gas comprising at least 15 vol% CO of claim 1.
In terms of the limitation “CO-rich synthesis gas comprising at least at least 1 ppmv sulfur”, Example 27 of the `099 patent generates ~0.4 ppm H2S, which is described as an upper limit for sulfur concentration during reaction. It should be pointed out that Example 27 was disclosed as an example of the invention, not the entire disclosure of the invention by the `099 patent. The difference of sulfur concentration between Applicant’s claim 1 (at least 1 ppmv) and Example 27 of the `099 patent (0.4 ppm) is further taught and/or suggested by the same prior art. Specifically, the `099 patent (col. 2, lns. 57-59) discloses the HTS catalyst has high tolerance towards impurities in the gas phase containing sulfur and chlorine. Example 28 of the `099 patent (col. 12, lns. 41-67) demonstrates the tolerance of catalyst A including Catalyst G towards sulfur at a concentration at 10% H2S in hydrogen. One ordinary skilled in the art would have been motivated to modify the process of Example 27 of the `099 patent to use synthesis gas comprising at least 1 ppmv sulfur as taught and/or suggested by Example 28 of the `099 patent and the disclosure at col. 2, lns. 57-59.
In terms of the limitation “the water gas shift catalyst has a pore volume, as determined by mercury intrusion, of 240 ml/kg or higher”, Guo et al. (Table 1 at p.2363) teaches Cu/ZnO/Al2O3 water-gas shift catalysts having a pore volume (Vpore) at the range of 0.42 cm3/g - 0.69 cm3/g (i.e., 420 ml/kg - 690 ml/kg), which reads on the claimed range of 240 ml/kg or higher. Therefore, the `099 patent in view of Guo et al. would have rendered claim 1 obvious.
In terms of claim 2, the water gas shift catalyst is a high temperature shift (HTS) catalyst and the water gas shift reactor is a HTS reactor operating at a temperature in the range of 300-570 °C, and optionally also at a pressure in the range 2.0-6.5 MPa, the `099 patent (TABLE 2) teaches the water gas shift reactor is operating at a temperature 380 °C at a pressure 2.3 MPa.
In terms of claim 3, wherein the HTS reactor is an adiabatic HTS-reactor without recycle, the `099 patent (TABLE 2, Examples 3-10, and col. 5, lns. 6-44) the HTS reactor is an adiabatic HTS-reactor without recycle; and Aasberg-Persen et al. (Abstract) disclose an integrated reformer system for syngas production through autothermal reforming (ATR) of the hydrocarbon feed gas through adiabatic, oxidative reforming, mainly autothermal reforming (ATR) and secondary reforming.
In terms of claim 4, wherein the CO-rich synthesis gas comprises at least 20 vol% CO but no more than 60 vol% CO, the `099 patent (col. 5, lns. 15-17) teaches the synthesis gas entering the HTS-reactor contains normally 5-50 vol % CO.
In terms of claim 5, the CO-rich synthesis gas comprises: CO 30-60 vol%, H2O 30-50 vol%, CO2 0-5 vol%, and H2 0-20 vol%; the `099 patent (col. 5, lns. 15-18) discloses the synthesis gas entering the HTS-reactor contains normally 5-50 vol% CO, 5-50 vol % CO2, 20-60 vol % H2, 15-50 vol % H2O, 0-30 vol % N2.
In terms of claim 6, further comprising a step for producing said synthesis gas, said step being any of: steam reforming of a hydrocarbon feed gas such as natural gas or naphta; by partial oxidation of the hydrocarbon feed gas; autothermal reforming (ATR) of the hydrocarbon feed gas; thermal decomposition of a carbonaceous material including gasification or pyrolysis of a solid carbonaceous material; combinations thereof, Aasberg-Persen et al. (Abstract) disclose an integrated reformer system for syngas production through autothermal reforming (ATR) of the hydrocarbon feed gas through adiabatic, oxidative reforming, mainly autothermal reforming (ATR) and secondary reforming.
In terms of claims 7-10, the `099 patent (claim 1) discloses a process for enriching a synthesis gas mixture in hydrogen by contacting said synthesis gas mixture with a catalyst consisting in its active form of a mixture of zinc alumina (Zn, Al) spinel and zinc oxide in combination with an alkali metal selected from the group consisting of Na, K, Rb, Cs and mixtures thereof, said catalyst having a Zn/Al molar ratio in the range 0.5 to 1.0 and a content of alkali metal in the range 0.4 to 8.0 wt % based on the weight of oxidized catalyst.
In terms of claim 11, wherein the content of Cu is in the range 0.1-10 wt% based on the weight of oxidized catalyst, Guo et al. teaches Cu/ZnO/Al2O3 water-gas shift catalysts having the molar ratio Cu:Zn:Al=1:0.8:0.2 (see “2.1 Catalyst preparation at p.2362).
In terms of claim 12, the `099 patent (Example 1) teaches the catalyst A was formed through a process of pelletizing to give cylindrical tablets, 6 mm diameter by 4 mm height, density 1.80 g/cm3, which would have been obvious to the density of 1.75 g/cm3 based on different measurement method and moisture content of the catalyst.
In terms of claim 13, the catalyst having the mechanical strength is in the range ACS: 30-750 kp/cm2, the `099 patent (Example 1) teaches the catalyst A was formed through a process of pelletizing to give cylindrical tablets, and was calcined at 500 °C for two hours. In addition, preparing a catalyst having the mechanical strength is a routine optimization at grasp of one ordinary skilled in the art based on the disclosure of Aasberg-Persen et al.
In terms of claim 14, wherein said synthesis gas comprises at least 15 ppmv sulfur, the `099 patent (col. 2, lns. 57-59) discloses the HTS catalyst has high tolerance towards impurities in the gas phase containing sulfur and chlorine. Example 28 of the `099 patent (col. 12, lns. 41-67) demonstrates the tolerance of catalyst A including Catalyst G towards sulfur at a concentration at 10% H2S in hydrogen. One ordinary skilled in the art would have been motivated to modify the process of Example 27 of the `099 patent to use synthesis gas comprising at least 15 ppmv sulfur as taught and/or suggested by Example 28 of the `099 patent and the disclosure at col. 2, lns. 57-59.
In terms of claim 15, wherein said synthesis gas comprises at least 5 vol% sulfur, the `099 patent (col. 2, lns. 57-59) discloses the HTS catalyst has high tolerance towards impurities in the gas phase containing sulfur and chlorine. Example 28 of the `099 patent (col. 12, lns. 41-67) demonstrates the tolerance of catalyst A including Catalyst G towards sulfur at a concentration at 10% H2S in hydrogen. One ordinary skilled in the art would have been motivated to modify the process of Example 27 of the `099 patent to use synthesis gas comprising at least 5 vol% sulfur as taught and/or suggested by Example 28 of the `099 patent and the disclosure at col. 2, lns. 57-59.
In terms of claim 16, wherein the water gas shift catalyst has a pore volume, as determined by mercury intrusion, of 250 ml/kg or higher, Guo et al. (Table 1 at p.2363) teaches Cu/ZnO/Al2O3 water-gas shift catalysts having a pore volume (Vpore) at the range of 0.42 cm3/g - 0.69 cm3/g (i.e., 420 ml/kg - 690 ml/kg), which reads on the claimed range of 250 ml/kg or higher. Therefore, the `099 patent in view of Guo et al. would have rendered claim 16 obvious.
In terms of claim 17, wherein the water gas shift catalyst has a pore volume, as determined by mercury intrusion, of 300-600 ml/kg, Guo et al. (Table 1 at p.2363) teaches Cu/ZnO/Al2O3 water-gas shift catalysts having a pore volume (Vpore) at the range of 0.42 cm3/g - 0.69 cm3/g (i.e., 420 ml/kg - 690 ml/kg), which reads on the overlapped claimed range of 300-600 ml/kg.
In terms of claim 18, wherein said step is a combination of e-SMR and ATR, Aasberg-Persen et al. (Abstract) discloses an integrated reformer system for syngas production through autothermal reforming (ATR) of the hydrocarbon feed gas through adiabatic, oxidative reforming, mainly autothermal reforming (ATR) and secondary reforming; and Wismann et al. teaches a method of electrified methane reforming for industrial hydrogen production. The motivation for combining the Aasberg-Persen et al. and Wismann et al. is to use environmentally friendly and cost-effective methods for preparing the starting material of the process, namely the synthesis gas.
In terms of claim 19, wherein the content of alkali metal is potassium, the `099 patent discloses the Catalyst G comprises 1.17 wt% K, 34.4 wt% Zn, 24.0 wt% Al, and Zn/Al (molar ratio) =0.59 (see TABLE 1), wherein the content of alkali metal is potassium.
In terms of claim 20, wherein the content of potassium is in the range 2.5-5 wt%, the `099 patent (Examples 5-6, TABLEs 1-2) discloses the Catalysts C and D comprise 3.95 wt% K, and 2.77 wt% K, respectively.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2 of U.S. Patent No. 8,119,099 (“the `099 patent”) to Niels C. SchiØdt in view of Guo et al., International J of Hydrogen Energy, (2009), v.34, p.2361-2368, Aasberg-Persen et al., J. of Natural Gas Science and Engineering, (2011), v.3, p423-459, and Wismann et al, Science, (2019), v.364, 756-759.
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because Applicant’s claims 1-20 and claims 1-2 of the `099 patent are both drawn to a process for enriching a synthesis gas mixture in hydrogen by contacting said synthesis gas mixture with a catalyst consisting in its active form of a mixture of zinc alumina spinel and zinc oxide in combination with an alkali metal selected from the group consisting of Na, K, Rb, Cs and mixtures thereof.
The difference between the instant claims and claim 1 of the `099 patent is that the claim 1 of the `099 patent do not teach the CO-rich synthesis gas comprising at least 15 vol% CO and at least 1 ppmv sulfur. In addition, the `099 patent does not teach the water gas shift catalyst has a pore volume, as determined by mercury intrusion, of 240 ml/kg or higher.
However, the instant claim 1 would have been obvious over the claim 1 of the `099 patent because the difference of the CO-rich synthesis gas comprising at least 15 vol% CO of claim 1 and the CO-rich synthesis gas comprising 13 vol% CO disclosed by the `099 patent is further taught and/or suggested by the same prior art. The `099 patent (col. 5, lns. 15-17) discloses the synthesis gas entering the HTS-reactor contains normally 5-50 vol % CO, which covers the CO-rich synthesis gas comprising at least 15 vol% CO of claim 1.
In terms of the limitation “CO-rich synthesis gas comprising at least at least 1 ppmv sulfur”, Example 27 of the `099 patent generates ~0.4 ppm H2S, which is described as an upper limit for sulfur concentration during reaction. It should be pointed out that Example 27 was disclosed as an example of the invention, not the entire disclosure of the invention by the `099 patent. The difference of sulfur concentration between Applicant’s claim 1 (at least 1 ppmv) and Example 27 of the `099 patent (0.4 ppm) is further taught and/or suggested by the same prior art. Specifically, the `099 patent (col. 2, lns. 57-59) discloses the HTS catalyst has high tolerance towards impurities in the gas phase containing sulfur and chlorine. Example 28 of the `099 patent (col. 12, lns. 41-67) demonstrates the tolerance of catalyst A including Catalyst G towards sulfur at a concentration at 10% H2S in hydrogen. One ordinary skilled in the art would have been motivated to modify the process of Example 27 of the `099 patent to use synthesis gas comprising at least 1 ppmv sulfur as taught and/or suggested by Example 28 of the `099 patent and the disclosure at col. 2, lns. 57-59.
In terms of the limitation “the water gas shift catalyst has a pore volume, as determined by mercury intrusion, of 240 ml/kg or higher”, Guo et al. (Table 1 at p.2363) teaches Cu/ZnO/Al2O3 water-gas shift catalysts having a pore volume (Vpore) at the range of 0.42 cm3/g - 0.69 cm3/g (i.e., 420 ml/kg - 690 ml/kg), which reads on the claimed range of 240 ml/kg or higher. Therefore, the `099 patent in view of Guo et al. would have rendered claim 1 obvious.
In terms of claim 2, the water gas shift catalyst is a high temperature shift (HTS) catalyst and the water gas shift reactor is a HTS reactor operating at a temperature in the range of 300-570 °C, and optionally also at a pressure in the range 2.0-6.5 MPa, the `099 patent (TABLE 2) teaches the water gas shift reactor is operating at a temperature 380 °C at a pressure 2.3 MPa.
In terms of claim 3, wherein the HTS reactor is an adiabatic HTS-reactor without recycle, the `099 patent (TABLE 2, Examples 3-10, and col. 5, lns. 6-44) the HTS reactor is an adiabatic HTS-reactor without recycle; and Aasberg-Persen et al. (Abstract) disclose an integrated reformer system for syngas production through autothermal reforming (ATR) of the hydrocarbon feed gas through adiabatic, oxidative reforming, mainly autothermal reforming (ATR) and secondary reforming.
In terms of claim 4, wherein the CO-rich synthesis gas comprises at least 20 vol% CO but no more than 60 vol% CO, the `099 patent (col. 5, lns. 15-17) teaches the synthesis gas entering the HTS-reactor contains normally 5-50 vol % CO.
In terms of claim 5, the CO-rich synthesis gas comprises: CO 30-60 vol%, H2O 30-50 vol%, CO2 0-5 vol%, and H2 0-20 vol%; the `099 patent (col. 5, lns. 15-18) discloses the synthesis gas entering the HTS-reactor contains normally 5-50 vol% CO, 5-50 vol % CO2, 20-60 vol % H2, 15-50 vol % H2O, 0-30 vol % N2.
In terms of claim 6, further comprising a step for producing said synthesis gas, said step being any of: steam reforming of a hydrocarbon feed gas such as natural gas or naphta; by partial oxidation of the hydrocarbon feed gas; autothermal reforming (ATR) of the hydrocarbon feed gas; thermal decomposition of a carbonaceous material including gasification or pyrolysis of a solid carbonaceous material; combinations thereof, Aasberg-Persen et al. (Abstract) disclose an integrated reformer system for syngas production through autothermal reforming (ATR) of the hydrocarbon feed gas through adiabatic, oxidative reforming, mainly autothermal reforming (ATR) and secondary reforming.
In terms of claims 7-10, the `099 patent (claim 1) discloses a process for enriching a synthesis gas mixture in hydrogen by contacting said synthesis gas mixture with a catalyst consisting in its active form of a mixture of zinc alumina (Zn, Al) spinel and zinc oxide in combination with an alkali metal selected from the group consisting of Na, K, Rb, Cs and mixtures thereof, said catalyst having a Zn/Al molar ratio in the range 0.5 to 1.0 and a content of alkali metal in the range 0.4 to 8.0 wt % based on the weight of oxidized catalyst.
In terms of claim 11, wherein the content of Cu is in the range 0.1-10 wt% based on the weight of oxidized catalyst, Guo et al. teaches Cu/ZnO/Al2O3 water-gas shift catalysts having the molar ratio Cu:Zn:Al=1:0.8:0.2 (see “2.1 Catalyst preparation at p.2362).
In terms of claim 12, the `099 patent (Example 1) teaches the catalyst A was formed through a process of pelletizing to give cylindrical tablets, 6 mm diameter by 4 mm height, density 1.80 g/cm3, which would have been obvious to the density of 1.75 g/cm3 based on different measurement method and moisture content of the catalyst.
In terms of claim 13, the catalyst having the mechanical strength is in the range ACS: 30-750 kp/cm2, the `099 patent (Example 1) teaches the catalyst A was formed through a process of pelletizing to give cylindrical tablets, and was calcined at 500 °C for two hours. In addition, preparing a catalyst having the mechanical strength is a routine optimization at grasp of one ordinary skilled in the art based on the disclosure of Aasberg-Persen et al.
In terms of claim 14, wherein said synthesis gas comprises at least 15 ppmv sulfur, the `099 patent (col. 2, lns. 57-59) discloses the HTS catalyst has high tolerance towards impurities in the gas phase containing sulfur and chlorine. Example 28 of the `099 patent (col. 12, lns. 41-67) demonstrates the tolerance of catalyst A including Catalyst G towards sulfur at a concentration at 10% H2S in hydrogen. One ordinary skilled in the art would have been motivated to modify the process of Example 27 of the `099 patent to use synthesis gas comprising at least 15 ppmv sulfur as taught and/or suggested by Example 28 of the `099 patent and the disclosure at col. 2, lns. 57-59.
In terms of claim 15, wherein said synthesis gas comprises at least 5 vol% sulfur, the `099 patent (col. 2, lns. 57-59) discloses the HTS catalyst has high tolerance towards impurities in the gas phase containing sulfur and chlorine. Example 28 of the `099 patent (col. 12, lns. 41-67) demonstrates the tolerance of catalyst A including Catalyst G towards sulfur at a concentration at 10% H2S in hydrogen. One ordinary skilled in the art would have been motivated to modify the process of Example 27 of the `099 patent to use synthesis gas comprising at least 5 vol% sulfur as taught and/or suggested by Example 28 of the `099 patent and the disclosure at col. 2, lns. 57-59.
In terms of claim 16, wherein the water gas shift catalyst has a pore volume, as determined by mercury intrusion, of 250 ml/kg or higher, Guo et al. (Table 1 at p.2363) teaches Cu/ZnO/Al2O3 water-gas shift catalysts having a pore volume (Vpore) at the range of 0.42 cm3/g - 0.69 cm3/g (i.e., 420 ml/kg - 690 ml/kg), which reads on the claimed range of 250 ml/kg or higher. Therefore, the `099 patent in view of Guo et al. would have rendered claim 16 obvious.
In terms of claim 17, wherein the water gas shift catalyst has a pore volume, as determined by mercury intrusion, of 300-600 ml/kg, Guo et al. (Table 1 at p.2363) teaches Cu/ZnO/Al2O3 water-gas shift catalysts having a pore volume (Vpore) at the range of 0.42 cm3/g - 0.69 cm3/g (i.e., 420 ml/kg - 690 ml/kg), which reads on the overlapped claimed range of 300-600 ml/kg.
In terms of claim 18, wherein said step is a combination of e-SMR and ATR, Aasberg-Persen et al. (Abstract) discloses an integrated reformer system for syngas production through autothermal reforming (ATR) of the hydrocarbon feed gas through adiabatic, oxidative reforming, mainly autothermal reforming (ATR) and secondary reforming; and Wismann et al. teaches a method of electrified methane reforming for industrial hydrogen production.
In terms of claim 19, wherein the content of alkali metal is potassium, the `099 patent discloses the Catalyst G comprises 1.17 wt% K, 34.4 wt% Zn, 24.0 wt% Al, and Zn/Al (molar ratio) =0.59 (see TABLE 1), wherein the content of alkali metal is potassium.
In terms of claim 20, wherein the content of potassium is in the range 2.5-5 wt%, the `099 patent (Examples 5-6, TABLEs 1-2) discloses the Catalysts C and D comprise 3.95 wt% K, and 2.77 wt% K, respectively.
Conclusions
Claims 1-20 are rejected.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Telephone Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Yong L. Chu, whose telephone number is (571)272-5759. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30am-5:00pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Amber R. Orlando can be reached on 571-270-3149. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
/YONG L CHU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1731