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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09/19/2023, 06/16/2025 has been considered by the examiner.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 8-10 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 03/10/2026.
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-7, 11-13 in the reply filed on 03/10/2026 is acknowledged.
Duplicate Claim
Claim 13 is a duplicate of claim 6.
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.
Claim 7 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 7 which depends on claim 1 recites “a water-enriched stream” in line 3 which is unclear. It is unclear whether “a water-enriched stream” is the same or different from “a water-enriched stream” recited in claim 1 step f).
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 1, 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meiri et al (“Simulation of Novel Process of CO2 Conversion to Liquid Fuels”, as cited in IDS 09/19/2023) in view of Morar et al (“Review: Important contributions in development and improvement of the heat integration techniques”).
Meiri discloses Carbon dioxide utilization by conversion with hydrogen into liquid fuels (abstract). A detailed kinetic model of the novel iron-based spinel catalyst that included reverse water gas shift (RWGS) (abstract meeting limitation "method for producing syngas using a catalytic reverse water gas shift (RWGS) reaction"). The simulations were conducted with a feed containing H2and CO2 (Pg. 285 left col. par. 1 meeting limitation "a) providing a feed stream comprising at least hydrogen (H2) and carbon dioxide (C02)").
PNG
media_image1.png
373
531
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 1 illustrates the simulation system showing the feed stream being heated in Heater 1 before entering Reactor 1 (Pg. 285 meeting limitation "b) heating the feed stream provided in step a) in a first heat exchanger thereby obtaining a first heated feed stream"). Fig. 1 illustrates the simulation system showing the stream exiting Heater 1 being introduced to Reactor 1 (Pg. 285 meeting limitation "c) introducing the first heated feed stream into a first RWGS reactor and subjecting it to a first catalytic RWGS reaction, thereby obtaining a first syngas containing stream" since RWGS is the key reaction in this process).
Fig. 1 illustrates the simulation system showing the stream exiting Reactor 1 (Pg. 285 meeting limitation "d) removing the first syngas containing stream obtained in step c) from the first RWGS reactor"). Fig. 1 illustrates the simulation system showing the stream exiting Reactor 1 being introduced into Cooler 1 (Pg. 285 meeting limitation "e) cooling the first syngas containing stream removed from the first RWGS reactor in step d)… thereby obtaining a first cooled syngas stream"). Periodical water removal, essential to achieve high CO2 conversion, can be accomplished in multiple reactors in series (Pg. 286 left col. par. 2). Removing water and other condensable products sets the feed CO2 and H2 concentration to each one of the reactors in series at about the same level (Pg. 286 right col. par. 2). Fig. 1 illustrates the simulation system showing the stream exiting Cooler 1 being introduced into Separator 1 (Pg. 285 meeting limitation "f) separating the first cooled syngas stream obtained in step e) in a first gas/liquid separator thereby obtaining a water-enriched stream and a water-depleted syngas stream").
Fig. 1 illustrates the simulation system showing a stream exiting Separator 1 being introduced into Heater 2 (Pg. 285 meeting limitation "g) heating the water-depleted syngas stream obtained in step f) in a second heat exchanger thereby obtaining a heated water-depleted syngas stream"). Fig. 1 illustrates the simulation system showing the stream exiting Heater 2 being introduced to Reactor 2 (Pg. 285 meeting limitation "h) introducing the heated water-depleted syngas stream obtained in step g) into a second RWGS reactor and subjecting it to a second catalytic RWGS reaction, thereby obtaining a second syngas containing stream").
Fig. 1 illustrates the simulation system showing the stream exiting Reactor 2 (Pg. 285 meeting limitation "i) removing the second syngas containing stream obtained in step h) from the second RWGS reactor"). Fig. 1 illustrates the simulation system showing the stream exiting Reactor 2 being introduced into Cooler 2 (Pg. 285 meeting limitation "and j) cooling the second syngas containing stream removed from the second RWGS reactor in step i) in the second heat exchanger … thereby obtaining a cooled syngas product stream").
Meiri does not disclose "against the feed stream provided in step a)" and "against the water-depleted syngas stream obtained in step f)".
The reuse of excess process heat, however, is a routine convention in the field of chemical engineering, also known as process heat integration. As detailed in the introduction of Morar, the design of a heat exchanger network for a chemical process is a routine step in the design of a chemical process that results from analysis of the energy balance of the process, or in other words, determining where energy enters and leaves the process, and ensuring that the amount leaving the process is equal to the amount that enters to maximize energy usage within the process- by this analysis, it is readily apparent where in the process excess energy may be directed in order to ensure maximum process efficiency and reduce the heating and cooling duty of the process, thereby reducing process operation costs. Morar even discloses that "...it is possible to save an important part from the necessary energy required by a plant through specific actions and therefore resulting saving related to capital and operational costs up to 15-45%". Such an energy balance analysis considers where process units require heat, such as in the case of an endothermic reaction requiring energy in order to proceed, and, by the use of heat exchangers, byproduct heat from one process gas stream may be used to provide heat to another, effectively 'recycling' heat from one process step to another.
Thus, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to design a heat exchange network that would effectuate heat transfer between the feed stream and the water-depleted syngas stream as such heat integration would reduce the heating duty of Meiri thereby improving the energy efficiency of the production of syngas and reducing the cost of the process associated with temperature control as suggested by Morar.
Regarding claim 7, Meiri discloses all the limitations in the claims as set forth above and further discloses periodical water removal, essential to achieve high CO2 conversion, can be accomplished in multiple reactors in series (Pg. 286 left col. par. 2). Removing water and other condensable products sets the feed CO2 and H2 concentration to each one of the reactors in series at about the same level (Pg. 286 right col. par. 2). Fig. 1 illustrates the simulation system showing the stream exiting Cooler 2 being introduced into Separator 2 (Pg. 285 meeting limitation " wherein the method further comprises the step of separating the cooled syngas product stream obtained in step j) in a second gas/liquid separator, thereby obtaining a water-enriched stream and a water-depleted syngas product stream").
Claims 2, 6, 11, 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meiri et al (“Simulation of Novel Process of CO2 Conversion to Liquid Fuels”, as cited in IDS 09/19/2023) in view of Morar et al (“Review: Important contributions in development and improvement of the heat integration techniques”) and in further view of Kim et al (US 20160296916, as cited in IDS 09/19/2023).
Regarding claim 2, Meiri discloses all the limitations in the claims as set forth above but does not disclose "wherein the temperature of the first catalytic RWGS reaction in step c) is kept below 700 °C".
Kim discloses a composite oxide catalyst for a reverse water gas shift (RWGS) reaction (abstract). The composite oxide exhibits excellent catalytic activity even at the reaction condition of low temperature such as 400 °C, and thus enables a large amount of carbon dioxide to be removed at low cost (abstract).
As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). In the instant case, the range taught by Kim (400 °C) lies inside the claimed range (below 700 °C). Therefore, the range in Kim renders obvious the claimed range.
Prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious for the temperature of the first catalytic RWGS reaction in step c) is kept below 700 °C in the method of Meiri in order to remove a large amount of carbon dioxide at low cost as taught by Kim.
Regarding claim 6 and 13, Meiri discloses all the limitations in the claims as set forth above but does not disclose "wherein the temperature of the second catalytic RWGS reaction in step c) is kept below 700 °C".
Kim discloses a composite oxide catalyst for a reverse water gas shift (RWGS) reaction (abstract). The composite oxide exhibits excellent catalytic activity even at the reaction condition of low temperature such as 400 °C, and thus enables a large amount of carbon dioxide to be removed at low cost (abstract).
As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). In the instant case, the range taught by Kim (400 °C) lies inside the claimed range (below 700 °C). Therefore, the range in Kim renders obvious the claimed range.
Prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious for the temperature of the second catalytic RWGS reaction in step c) is kept below 700 °C in the method of Meiri in order to remove a large amount of carbon dioxide at low cost as taught by Kim.
Regarding claim 11, Meiri discloses all the limitations in the claims as set forth above but does not disclose "wherein the temperature of the first catalytic RWGS reaction in step c) is kept below 600°C".
Kim discloses a composite oxide catalyst for a reverse water gas shift (RWGS) reaction (abstract). The composite oxide exhibits excellent catalytic activity even at the reaction condition of low temperature such as 400 °C, and thus enables a large amount of carbon dioxide to be removed at low cost (abstract).
As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). In the instant case, the range taught by Kim (400 °C) lies inside the claimed range (below 600 °C). Therefore, the range in Kim renders obvious the claimed range.
Prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious for the temperature of the first catalytic RWGS reaction in step c) is kept below 600 °C in the method of Meiri in order to remove a large amount of carbon dioxide at low cost as taught by Kim.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meiri et al (“Simulation of Novel Process of CO2 Conversion to Liquid Fuels”, as cited in IDS 09/19/2023) in view of Morar et al (“Review: Important contributions in development and improvement of the heat integration techniques”) and in further view of Wolf et al (“Syngas Production via Reverse Water-Gas Shift Reaction over a Ni-Al2O3 Catalyst: Catalyst Stability, Reaction Kinetics, and Modeling”, as cited in IDS 09/19/2023).
Meiri discloses all the limitations in the claims as set forth above but does not disclose "wherein at least one of the first and the second RWGS reactors contains two or more catalyst beds with additional intermediate heating between the two or more catalyst beds".
Wolf discloses research on the RWGS using a Ni-catalyst (abstract). Stage-wise adiabatic operation with intermediate heating of the gas is an option (Pg. 1046 right col. par. 5). Tab. 4 indicates that an industrial RWGS reactor should at least consist of two adiabatic stages, i.e. catalyst beds, to achieve a sufficiently high CO2 conversion of about 80% (Pg. 1047 left col. par. 2).
Prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious for at least one of the first and the second RWGS reactors contains two or more catalyst beds with additional intermediate heating between the two or more catalyst beds in the method of Meiri in order to achieve a sufficiently high CO2 conversion of about 80% as taught by Wolf.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meiri et al (“Simulation of Novel Process of CO2 Conversion to Liquid Fuels”, as cited in IDS 09/19/2023) in view of Morar et al (“Review: Important contributions in development and improvement of the heat integration techniques”) and in further view of Lee et al (“The Power of Molten Salt in Methane Dry Reforming: Conceptual Design With a CFD Study”, as cited in IDS 09/19/2023).
Meiri discloses all the limitations in the claims as set forth above but does not disclose "wherein at least one of the first and the second RWGS reactors comprises a multi-tubular reactor heated by molten salt circulating around the tubes of the multi-tubular reactor".
Lee discloses a study of the dry reforming of methane by applying molten salt as the heat source (abstract). The reactor consists of twelve packed bed reactors which are numbered 1-12 as indicated and connected by one heating tube (Pg. 4 section 3.1). Molten salt flows into reactor 1 first and finally flows out through reactor 12 (Pg. 5 left col. par. 1). The reactants (feedstocks) flow in opposite directions to the molten salt flow (Pg. 5 left col. par. 1). Fig. 1 illustrates the reactor geometry (Pg. 5 meeting limitation "multi-tubular reactor heated by molten salt circulating around the tubes of the multi-tubular reactor"). Lee further discloses compared to conventional heating systems, for example, burning of natural gas, the small temperature drop of the molten salt has the advantage that most of reactors can be supplied with more uniform heat (Pg. 11 Section 5 Conclusions par. 1).
Thus, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for at least one of the first and the second RWGS reactors to comprise a multi-tubular reactor heated by molten salt circulating around the tubes of the multi-tubular reactor in the method of Meiri in order to supply the reactors with uniform heat as taught by Lee.
Claims 5, 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meiri et al (“Simulation of Novel Process of CO2 Conversion to Liquid Fuels”, as cited in IDS 09/19/2023) in view of Morar et al (“Review: Important contributions in development and improvement of the heat integration techniques”) and in further view of Mamedov et al (US 20100190874, as cited in IDS 06/16/2025).
Regarding claim 5, Meiri discloses all the limitations in the claims as set forth above but does not disclose wherein the first syngas containing stream comprises at most 1.0 vol.% methane (CH4).
Mamedov discloses a process of making a syngas mixture containing hydrogen, carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide, comprising a step of contacting a gaseous feed mixture containing carbon dioxide and hydrogen with a catalyst (abstract). In the process according to the present invention, carbon dioxide is selectively converted into carbon monoxide by a reverse water gas shift reaction in the presence of a specific catalyst ([0036]). In the process according to the present invention a product mixture is obtained having an amount of methane of typically less than 0.5 vol%, preferably the amount of methane is less than 0.1 vol%, or even below the detection limit of the CG equipment used for on-line analysis of the product stream ([0019]). The process according to the invention thus shows very high selectivity towards syngas, more specifically to forming CO; CO selectivity is typically higher than 95%, preferably higher than 98%, and most preferably higher than 99% Or even 99.5% ([0019]).
As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). In the instant case, the range taught by Mamedov (less than 0.1 vol%) overlaps with the claimed range (at most 1.0 vol.%). Therefore, the range in Mamedov renders obvious the claimed range.
Prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious for the first syngas containing stream to comprise at most 1.0 vol.% methane (CH4) in the method of Meiri in order to have very high selectivity towards syngas and forming CO as taught by Mamedov.
Regarding claim 12, Meiri discloses all the limitations in the claims as set forth above but does not disclose wherein the first syngas containing stream comprises at most 0.1 vol.% methane.
Mamedov discloses a process of making a syngas mixture containing hydrogen, carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide, comprising a step of contacting a gaseous feed mixture containing carbon dioxide and hydrogen with a catalyst (abstract). In the process according to the present invention, carbon dioxide is selectively converted into carbon monoxide by a reverse water gas shift reaction in the presence of a specific catalyst ([0036]). In the process according to the present invention a product mixture is obtained having an amount of methane of typically less than 0.5 vol%, preferably the amount of methane is less than 0.1 vol%, or even below the detection limit of the CG equipment used for on-line analysis of the product stream ([0019]). The process according to the invention thus shows very high selectivity towards syngas, more specifically to forming CO; CO selectivity is typically higher than 95%, preferably higher than 98%, and most preferably higher than 99% Or even 99.5% ([0019]).
As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). In the instant case, the range taught by Mamedov (less than 0.1 vol%) overlaps with the claimed range (at most 0.1 vol.%). Therefore, the range in Mamedov renders obvious the claimed range.
Prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious for the first syngas containing stream to comprise at most 0.1 vol.% methane in the method of Meiri in order to have very high selectivity towards syngas and forming CO as taught by Mamedov.
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 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 nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-2, 4-7, 11-13 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 12, 16, 18 of copending Application No. 18/690767.
Regarding claim 1, copending application ‘767 claims a method for producing syngas using a catalytic reverse water gas shift (RWGS) reaction, the method at least comprising the steps of:
a) providing a feed stream comprising at least hydrogen (H2) and carbon dioxide (C02);
b) heating the feed stream provided in step a) in a first heat exchanger thereby obtaining a first heated feed stream;
c) introducing the first heated feed stream into a first RWGS reactor and subjecting it to a first catalytic RWGS reaction… thereby obtaining a first syngas containing stream,
(d) cooling the first syngas containing stream in the first heat exchanger against the feed stream, thereby obtaining a first cooled syngas stream;
(e) separating the first cooled syngas stream in a first gas/liquid separator thereby obtaining a first water-enriched stream and a first water-depleted syngas stream;
(f) heating the first water-depleted syngas stream in a second heat exchanger thereby obtaining a heated first water-depleted syngas stream;
(g) introducing the heated first water-depleted syngas stream into a second RWGS reactor and subjecting it to a second catalytic RWGS reaction…thereby obtaining a second syngas containing stream;
(h) cooling the second syngas containing stream in the second heat exchanger against the first water-depleted syngas stream, thereby obtaining a second cooled syngas stream (claim 12 meeting limitations “A method for producing syngas using a catalytic reverse water gas shift (RWGS) reaction, the method at least comprising the steps of:
a) providing a feed stream comprising at least hydrogen (H2) and carbon dioxide (C02);
b) heating the feed stream provided in step a) in a first heat exchanger thereby obtaining a first heated feed stream;
c) introducing the first heated feed stream into a first RWGS reactor and subjecting it to a first catalytic RWGS reaction, thereby obtaining a first syngas containing stream;
e) cooling the first syngas containing stream removed from the first RWGS reactor in step d) in the first heat exchanger against the feed stream provided in step a), thereby obtaining a first cooled syngas stream;
f) separating the first cooled syngas stream obtained in step e) in a first gas/liquid separator thereby obtaining a water-enriched stream and a water-depleted syngas stream;
g) heating the water-depleted syngas stream obtained in step f) in a second heat exchanger thereby obtaining a heated water-depleted syngas stream;
h) introducing the heated water-depleted syngas stream obtained in step g) into a second RWGS reactor and subjecting it to a second catalytic RWGS reaction, thereby obtaining a second syngas containing stream;
and j) cooling the second syngas containing stream removed from the second RWGS reactor in step i) in the second heat exchanger against the water-depleted syngas stream obtained in step f), thereby obtaining a cooled syngas product stream”).
Copending application ‘767 does not claim “d) removing the first syngas containing stream obtained in step c) from the first RWGS reactor” or “i) removing the second syngas containing stream obtained in step h) from the second RWGS reactor”. However, it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art that any syngas stream must be removed from a reactor in order to be cooled in a heat exchanger.
Regarding claim 2, 6, 11 and 13 , copending application ‘767 claims wherein the temperature as used in the first and second RWGS reactors is below 550 °C (claim 16).
As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). In the instant case, the range taught by copending application ‘767(below 550 °C) overlaps with the claimed ranges (below 700 °C and 600 °C in claim 11). Therefore, the range in copending application ‘767 renders obvious the claimed ranges.
Regarding claim 4, copending application ‘767 claims wherein the first and the second RWGS reactors each comprise a multi-tubular reactor heated by molten salt circulating around the tubes of the multi-tubular reactor (claim 12 meeting limitation “wherein at least one of the first and the second RWGS reactors comprises a multi-tubular reactor heated by molten salt circulating around the tubes of the multi-tubular reactor”).
Regarding claim 5, copending application ‘767 claims wherein the first syngas containing stream comprises at most 1.0 vol.% methane (CH4) (claim 12 meeting limitation “wherein the first syngas containing stream comprises at most 1.0 vol.% methane (CH4)”).
Regarding claim 7, copending application ‘767 claims (i) separating the second cooled syngas stream in a second gas/liquid separator thereby obtaining a second water-enriched stream and a second water-depleted syngas stream(claim 12 meeting limitation “wherein the method further comprises the step of separating the cooled syngas product stream obtained in step j) in a second gas/liquid separator, thereby obtaining a water-enriched stream and a water-depleted syngas product stream”).
Regarding claim 12, copending application ‘767 claims wherein the first syngas containing stream comprises at most 0.1 vol.% methane (claim 18 meeting limitation “wherein the first syngas containing stream comprises at most 0.1 vol.% methane”).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICOLE L QUIST whose telephone number is (571)270-5803. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30-5:00.
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.
/N.L.Q./Examiner, Art Unit 1738
/MICHAEL FORREST/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1738
Prosecution Insights