DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 03/23/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there is a significant structural element shared by all the groups that represents a special technical feature. This is not found persuasive because applicant fails to point out what the common technical feature is. As such, the prior finding from Porosof which teaches a catalytic reduction of CO2 using a Cu/ZnO/Al2O3 catalyst to produce methanol stands and the restriction is maintained.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 7-8, 12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Porosof (“Catalytic reduction of CO2 by H2 for synthesis of CO, methanol and hydrocarbons: challenges and opportunities”, Energy and Environmental Science, Issue 1, 2016).
In regards to claim 1, Porosof teaches a method for conversion of CO2 to sugars comprising contacting a feed mixture comprising CO2 and a reductant gas (Methanol Synthesis, “Currently the CAMERE (carbon dioxide hydrogenation to form methanol via reverse-water gas shift) process produces MeOH from CO2 and H2 at a capacity of ~75 Mt y-1”)
with a reduction catalyst, which is copper based, at a reduction temperature and a reduction pressure to produce an alcohol (Methanol Synthesis, “Similar to the commercial Cu/ZnO/Al2O3 catalyst, Cu-based materials are popular choices for MeOH synthesis from CO2”). As a reduction is achieved, the process would be done at a reduction temperature and pressure as claimed.
In regards to claim 3, Porosof teaches that the reductant gas is H2 (Methanol Synthesis, “Currently the CAMERE (carbon dioxide hydrogenation to form methanol via reverse-water gas shift) process produces MeOH from CO2 and H2 at a capacity of ~75 Mt y-1”).
In regards to claims 7 and 8, Porosof does not teach that CO makes up the feed mixture and is instead an intermediate that is formed (Introduction, “CO produced by reverse water–gas shift (RWGS) offers high flexibility because CO can be used in both MeOH synthesis and downstream Fischer–Tropsch (FT) for chemicals and fuels.), which would indicate that less than 1% of CO is present within the feed mixture of CO2.
In regards to claim 12, Porosof teaches a ratio of CO2:reductant gas, where the reductant gas is H2, from about 1:10 to about 10:1 (Methanol Synthesis, “Although Cu/ZnO/Al2O3 exhibits promising performance (with a space-time yield up to 7729 gMeOH kgcat-1h-1) under certain conditions (36 MPa and 10 : 1 H2 :CO2 ratio), the pressure is likely too high for economic conversion of CO2”).
In regards to claim 14, Porosof teaches that the alcohol comprises methanol (Methanol Synthesis, “Currently the CAMERE (carbon dioxide hydrogenation to form methanol via reverse-water gas shift) process produces MeOH from CO2 and H2 at a capacity of ~75 Mt y-1”).
Claim(s) 1, 4, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Goujard (“Use of a non-thermal plasma for the production of synthesis gas from biogas”, Applied Catalysis A: General, Pages 228-235, 2009).
In regards to claim 1, Goujard teaches a method comprising CO2 and a reductant gas of CH4 with a reduction catalyst of LaNiO3 to produce an alcohol (Abstract, “The conversion of biogas (mixture CH4/CO2: 60/40) was studied using pulsed dielectric barrier discharges at different temperatures. The influence of the presence of a catalyst obtained after reduction of the perovskite LaNiO3 was reported. The main products of the reaction were hydrogen and carbon monoxide, but hydrocarbons such as: C2H6, C2H4, C2H2, C3H8, trace amounts of C4 to C6, and oxygenate compounds: methanol, ethanol, and acetone, were also formed”; Graphical Abstract, “The influence of the presence of a catalyst obtained after reduction of the perovskite LaNiO3 was reported”; Table 1).
In regards to the reaction having a reduction pressure and temperature, the reaction is taught to be carried out as required. As such, the temperature and pressure meet the claimed limitations as needed for the reaction to occur.
In regards to claims 4 and 6, Goujard teaches that the reductant gas is a hydrocarbon, such as CH4 (Abstract, “The conversion of biogas (mixture CH4/CO2: 60/40) was studied using pulsed dielectric barrier discharges at different temperatures. The influence of the presence of a catalyst obtained after reduction of the perovskite LaNiO3 was reported. The main products of the reaction were hydrogen and carbon monoxide, but hydrocarbons such as: C2H6, C2H4, C2H2, C3H8, trace amounts of C4 to C6, and oxygenate compounds: methanol, ethanol, and acetone, were also formed”; Table 1)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-3, 14, 20, 22, and 25-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Larand (US2272378A), in view of Manenti (US20200222874A1), and further in view of Tan (CN106693981A).
In regards to claims 1 and 2, Larand teaches a method where formaldehyde is condensed with a condensation catalyst in order to form sugars. (Page 1 Lines 1-9, “This invention relates to a method of preparing lower sugars by the condensation of formaldehyde. It has been long known that formaldehyde could be condensed to a mixture of sugars. The condensation was carried out with the aid of alkaline catalysts, the formaldehyde being in dilute aqueous solution in concentrations of below 4%”).
Larand lacks forming the formaldehyde through reduction and dehydrogenation reactions as required by claim 1. However, these claim limitations are known in the art. Manenti teaches a method of contacting a feed mixture comprising CO2 and a reductant gas, such as H2, with a reduction catalyst to produce an alcohol (Para. 0019-0020, “a) reforming by converting methane and carbon dioxide contained in the biogas into syngas, b) synthesis of methanol by using syngas from step 1),”; Para. 0073, “To improve this aspect and reduce it for the biogas sector, catalysts based on iron and copper oxides have been developed, capable of guaranteeing yields of 25-35 % by volume for each passage in the reactor”). The methanol is then used to produce formaldehyde [0079]. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the method of Manenti of contacting a feed mixture of CO2 and reductant gas to create an alcohol which is then dehydrogenated in order to acquire the formaldehyde starting material that is required for the reaction that is taught in Larand to produce sugars through condensation.
In regards to the dehydrogenation catalyst, Manenti does not explicitly teach a dehydrogenation catalyst is used. However, Tan teaches the use of a catalyst that comprises iron and molybdenum oxides for the synthesis of formaldehyde using methanol (Para. 0004,” The iron-molybdenum process uses iron and molybdenum metal oxides as catalysts, mixes methanol with excess air, and reacts at a temperature of 320–380°C to produce formaldehyde). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the catalyst as taught by Tan in the method taught by Manenti as the iron-molybdenum catalyst is low cost, long service life, and low calcination and reaction temperature (Para. 0024, “Compared with general iron-molybdenum catalysts, this catalyst has the characteristic of significantly reducing the calcination temperature. The preparation process uses a lower calcination temperature of 360-380℃, which not only reduces the production cost and energy consumption of the catalyst, but also helps to extend the service life of the catalyst”).
In regards to the reaction having a reduction pressure and temperature, dehydrogenation pressure and temperature, and condensation pressure and temperature, the reactions are taught to be carried out as required. As such, the temperatures and pressures meet the claimed limitations as needed for the reactions to occur.
In regards to claim 3, Manenti teaches that the reductant gas used in the method is H2 [0072].
In regards to claim 14, Manenti teaches that the alcohol produced in the reduction reaction comprises methanol [0072].
In regards to claim 20, Manenti teaches that the aldehyde formed from dehydrogenation comprises formaldehyde [0079].
In regards to claim 22, Tan teaches that the dehydrogenation catalyst is a mixture of iron oxide and molybdenum oxide (Para. 0004, “The iron-molybdenum process uses iron and molybdenum metal oxides as catalysts, mixes methanol with excess air, and reacts at a temperature of 320–380°C to produce formaldehyde”).
In regards to claim 25, Larand teaches that the sugar produced comprises glyceraldehyde (Page 4 Lines 68-73, “By the terms "lower sugars' and "2-4 carbon atom sugars' is meant the monosaccharides having 2-4 carbon atoms, for example, glycolaldehyde, glyceraldehyde, dihydroxy acetone, ketotetrose, and the various aldotetroses in aldehydric or lactol forms”).
In regards to claim 26, Larand teaches that the condensation catalyst teaches the use of alkaline catalysts, which would include a group II metal salt (Page 1 Lines 1-9, “This invention relates to a method of preparing lower sugars by the condensation of formaldehyde. It has been long known that formaldehyde could be condensed to a mixture of sugars. The condensation was carried out with the aid of alkaline catalysts, the formaldehyde being in dilute aqueous solution in concentrations of below 4%”).
Claim(s) 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Larand (US2272378A), in view of Manenti (US20200222874A1), further in view of Tan (CN106693981A), and further in view of Snowden (US4129523).
Larand, Manenti, and Tan do not explicitly teach a reduction catalyst which is a mixture of copper oxide, zinc oxide, and aluminum oxide. Teaches the use of a catalyst that comprises copper oxide, zinc oxide, and aluminum oxide in the synthesis of methanol utilizing CO2 (Col. 1 Lines 8-12, “Catalysts containing active metallic copper have come into widespread use for processes such as low temperature carbon monoxide shift, methanol synthesis and minor uses such as hydrogenations, oxygen absorption and sulphur absorption”; Col. 1 Lines 40-44, “The catalyst precursor usually contains in addition to copper oxide one or more oxides that are not or substantially not reducible by hydrogen at atmospheric pressure. Among these oxides are alumina, chromia and zinc oxide and mixtures thereof in catalysts in common use”). As discussed by Snowden, catalysts containing copper have use for processes such as for methanol synthesis. The copper catalyst of Snowden could be used in the method as taught by Manenti as Manenti also teaches that copper oxide catalysts can be used to synthesize methanol [0073]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute one precursor for another, both known for being used as catalysts in the synthesis of methanol. See MPEP §2143.I.B.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 34-35 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Porosof (“Catalytic reduction of CO2 by H2 for synthesis of CO, methanol and hydrocarbons: challenges and opportunities”, Energy and Environmental Science, Issue 1, 2016), Manenti (US20200222874A1), Lorand (US2272378A), Goujard (“Use of a non-thermal plasma for the production of synthesis gas from biogas”, Applied Catalysis A: General, Pages 228-235, 2009), and Tan (CN106693981) are considered to be the closest prior arts to the claimed invention in the instant application.
In regards to claim 34-35, Porosof, Manenti, Lorand, Goujard, and Tan do not teach or suggest a condensation catalyst comprising the structures as required in claims 34-35.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAANZEB RAJA whose telephone number is (703)756-4531. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 8:30-6.
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, Anthony Zimmer can be reached at 571-270-3591. 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.
/JAANZEB C RAJA/ Examiner, Art Unit 1736
/ANTHONY J ZIMMER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1736
Prosecution Insights