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 of Group I (claims 1-16, 19, and 20) in the reply filed on 4 March 2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 6-11, 19, and 20 are 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. The claims are rejected for the following reasons.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “a first reducing agent and a second reducing agent different from the first reducing agent are used as the reducing agent” which renders the claim vague and indefinite because it is unclear from the claim language whether each of the recited reactors is intended to contain both the first reducing agent and the second reducing agent, or that the first reducing agent is intended to be contained in the first reactors and the second reducing agent is intended to be contained in the second reactors.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the first reactor in which the first reducing agent is contained" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the first reactor in which the second reducing agent is contained" in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the second reactor in which the second reducing agent is contained" in lines 5-6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the second reactor in which the first reducing agent is contained" in lines 6-7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the adjacent first reactors" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the adjacent second reactors" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "the adjacent first reactors" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "the adjacent second reactors" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1, 12, and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Myoi (EP 2 634 140).
Regarding claim 1, the reference Myoi discloses a gas production device (20) comprising:
an oxidizing gas supply unit that supplies an oxidizing gas including carbon dioxide (see para. [0041]; Fig. 2);
a reducing gas supply unit that supplies a reducing gas including a reducing substance that reduces a reducing agent that has been brought into an oxidized state by contact with the carbon dioxide, the reducing agent including a metal oxide that generates a carbon valuable substance (carbon dioxide) by reducing the carbon dioxide (see paras. [0020]; [0041]; Fig. 2); and
a reaction unit provided with a plurality of reactors (21, 22) connected respectively to the oxidizing gas supply unit and the reducing gas supply unit, and the reducing agent contained in each of the reactors, the reaction unit being capable of switching between the oxidizing gas and the reducing gas to be supplied to each of the reactors (see paras. [0041]-[0043]; Fig. 2), wherein
the plurality of reactors include first reactors (21) and second reactors (22) to which the reducing gas is supplied when the oxidizing gas is supplied to the first reactors, and the number of the first reactors is two or more and/or the number of the second reactors is two or more (see para. [0045]).
Regarding claim 12, the reference Myoi discloses the gas production device, wherein the temperature of the reducing agent is set to a different temperature in at least one of the plurality of reactors (see para. [0044]).
Regarding claim 14, as no structural distinction is seen between the gas production device of Myoi and the instantly claimed gas production device (see paras. [0042]-[0043]; Fig. 2), the gas production device of Myoi is considered capable of attaining a relationship in which P/Q is 0.7 to 1.1 as specified in claim 14, wherein P [mL/min] is the supply amount of the oxidizing gas to the first reactor, and Q [mL/min] is the supply amount of the reducing gas to the second reactor.
Regarding claim 15, the reference Myoi discloses the gas production device, wherein the reducing gas includes hydrogen (see para. [0041]).
Regarding claim 16, the reference Myoi discloses the gas production device, wherein the oxidizing gas is an exhaust gas discharged from a furnace (see para. [0016]).
Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Dasanayake et al. (US 2021/0114004).
Regarding claim 1, the reference Dasanayake et al. discloses a gas production device (see paras. [0032]-[0035]) comprising:
an oxidizing gas supply unit that supplies an oxidizing gas including carbon dioxide (see para. [0144]);
a reducing gas supply unit that supplies a reducing gas including a reducing substance that reduces a reducing agent that has been brought into an oxidized state by contact with the carbon dioxide, the reducing agent including a metal oxide that generates a carbon valuable substance (carbon dioxide) by reducing the carbon dioxide (see paras. [0144]; [00145]); and
a reaction unit provided with a plurality of reactors connected respectively to the oxidizing gas supply unit and the reducing gas supply unit, and the reducing agent contained in each of the reactors, the reaction unit being capable of switching between the oxidizing gas and the reducing gas to be supplied to each of the reactors (see paras. [0148]-[0149]), wherein
the plurality of reactors include first reactors and second reactors to which the reducing gas is supplied when the oxidizing gas is supplied to the first reactors, and the number of the first reactors is two or more and/or the number of the second reactors is two or more (see para. [00153]).
Regarding claim 2, the reference Dasanayake et al. discloses the gas production device, wherein the gas production device is configured so that the number of the second reactors is two or more, and the reducing gas is passed through the two or more second reactors in succession (see paras. [0148]; [0153]).
Regarding claim 4, the reference Dasanayake et al. discloses the gas production device, wherein the gas production device is configured so that the number of the first reactors is two or more, and the oxidizing gas is passed through the two or more first reactors in succession (see paras. [0148]; [0153]).
Regarding claim 6, the reference Dasanayake et al. discloses the gas production device, wherein the gas production device is configured so that the number of the first reactors is two or more and the number of the second reactors is two or more, the oxidizing gas is passed through the two or more first reactors in succession, and the reducing gas is passed through the two or more second reactors in succession, and a first reducing agent and a second reducing agent different from the first reducing agent are used as the reducing agent (see paras. [0148]; [0153]; [00157]).
Regarding claim 7, the reference Dasanayake et al. discloses the gas production device, wherein the oxidizing gas is passed through in succession in order from the first reactor in which the first reducing agent is contained to the first reactor in which the second reducing agent is contained, and the reducing gas is passed through in succession in order from the second reactor in which the second reducing agent is contained to the second reactor in which the first reducing agent is contained (see paras. [0148]; [0153]; [00157]).
Regarding claim 14, as no structural distinction is seen between the gas production device of Dasanayake et al. and the instantly claimed gas production device (see paras. [0148]; [0153]), the gas production device of Dasanayake et al. is considered capable of attaining a relationship in which P/Q is 0.7 to 1.1 as specified in claim 14, wherein P [mL/min] is the supply amount of the oxidizing gas to the first reactor, and Q [mL/min] is the supply amount of the reducing gas to the second reactor.
Regarding claim 15, the reference Dasanayake et al. discloses the gas production device, wherein the reducing gas includes hydrogen (see para. [0130]).
Regarding claim 16, the reference Dasanayake et al. discloses the gas production device, wherein the oxidizing gas is an exhaust gas discharged from a furnace (see para. [0160]; Fig. 1).
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.
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 8, 9, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dasanayake et al. (US 2021/0114004).
Regarding claim 8, the claim depends from claim 6 such that the reasoning applied to claim 6 above with reference to Dasanayake et al. is applied herein for the dependent portion of the claim. The reference Dasanayake et al. is silent with respect to arranging the gas production device such that the direction in which the oxidizing gas is passed through the first reactors and the direction in which the reducing gas is passed through the second reactors are the same. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to providing the gas production device of Dasanayake et al. such that the direction in which the oxidizing gas is passed through the first reactors and the direction in which the reducing gas is passed through the second reactors are the same, since the reference Dasanayake et al. suggests coupling the first reactors and the second reactors by a switching system to the oxidizing gas supply unit or to the reducing gas supply unit such that the first reactors and the second reactors are coupled alternately to the carbon dioxide supply unit or the reducing gas supply unit (see para. [0148]).
Regarding claim 9, the claim depends from claim 6 such that the reasoning applied to claim 6 above with Dasanayake et al. is applied herein for the dependent portion of the claim. The reference Dasanayake et al. is silent with respect to arranging the gas production device such that the direction in which the oxidizing gas is passed through the first reactors and the direction in which the reducing gas is passed through the second reactors are opposite directions. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to providing the gas production device of Dasanayake et al. such that the direction in which the oxidizing gas is passed through the first reactors and the direction in which the reducing gas is passed through the second reactors are opposite directions, since the reference Dasanayake et al. suggests coupling the first reactors and the second reactors by a switching system to the oxidizing gas supply unit or to the reducing gas supply unit such that the first reactors and the second reactors are coupled alternately to the carbon dioxide supply unit or to the reducing gas supply unit (see para. [0148]).
Regarding claim 13, the claim depends from claim 1 such that the reasoning applied to claim 1 above with reference to Dasanayake et al. is applied herein for the dependent portion of the claim. The reference Dasanayake et al. is silent with respect to the relative sizes of the plurality of reactors. However, as the instant application is silent to any unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide at least one of the plurality of reactors different from others in volume, since a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, and the device having the claimed dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device, Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). See MPEP § 2144.04 (IV).
Claims 3, 5, 10, 11, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dasanayake et al. as applied to claims 1, 2, and 4 above, and further in view of Dasanayake et al. (US 2022/0307096), hereinafter, Dasanayake ‘096.
Regarding claim 3, the reference Dasanayake et al. is silent with respect to having the gas production device configured so that the number of the second reactors is two or more, and the reducing gas is passed through the two or more second reactors in parallel.
The reference Dasanayake ‘096 teaches a gas production device (see Abstract; Figs. 1-3) comprising: an oxidizing gas supply unit (2) that supplies an oxidizing gas including carbon dioxide (see para. [0052]; Fig. 2); a reducing gas supply unit (3) that supplies a reducing gas including a reducing substance that reduces a reducing agent (4R) that has been brought into an oxidized state by contact with the carbon dioxide, the reducing agent (4R) including a metal oxide that generates a carbon valuable substance (carbon dioxide) by reducing the carbon dioxide (see paras. [052]; [0058]; Figs. 2-3); and a reaction unit (4) provided with a plurality of reactors (4a, 4b) connected respectively to the oxidizing gas supply unit (2) and the reducing gas supply unit (3), and the reducing agent (4R) contained in each of the reactors (4a, 4b), the reaction unit (4) being capable of switching between the oxidizing gas and the reducing gas to be supplied to each of the reactors (see paras. [0055]-[0056]; Fig. 2), wherein the plurality of reactors (4a, 4b) include first reactors (4a) and second reactors (4b) to which the reducing gas is supplied when the oxidizing gas is supplied to the first reactors (see paras. [0055]-[0056]; Fig. 2). The reference Dasanayake ‘096 further teaches that the gas production device is configured so that the number of the first reactors (4a) is two or more, and the oxidizing gas is passed through the two or more first reactors in parallel (see para. [0058]; Fig. 3); and the number of the second reactors (4b) is two or more, and the reducing gas is passed through the two or more second reactors in parallel (see para. [0058]; Fig. 3).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Dasanayake et al. and Dasanayake ‘096, and modified the gas production device of Dasanayake et al. such that the number of the second reactors is two or more, and the reducing gas is passed through the two or more second reactors in parallel, as taught by the reference Dasanayake ‘096, and claimed by applicant, since the reference Dasanayake ‘096 teaches that such a modification allows to sufficiently secure an opportunity to contact the reducing agent with the reducing gas while preventing an increase in transmission resistance of the reducing gas in the respective first and second reactors (see para. [0065]).
Regarding claim 5, the reference Dasanayake et al. is silent with respect to having the gas production device configured so that the number of the first reactors is two or more, and the oxidizing gas is passed through the two or more first reactors in parallel.
The reference Dasanayake ‘096 teaches a gas production device (see Abstract; Figs. 1-3) comprising: an oxidizing gas supply unit (2) that supplies an oxidizing gas including carbon dioxide (see para. [0052]; Fig. 2); a reducing gas supply unit (3) that supplies a reducing gas including a reducing substance that reduces a reducing agent (4R) that has been brought into an oxidized state by contact with the carbon dioxide, the reducing agent (4R) including a metal oxide that generates a carbon valuable substance (carbon dioxide) by reducing the carbon dioxide (see paras. [052]; [0058]; Figs. 2-3); and a reaction unit (4) provided with a plurality of reactors (4a, 4b) connected respectively to the oxidizing gas supply unit (2) and the reducing gas supply unit (3), and the reducing agent (4R) contained in each of the reactors (4a, 4b), the reaction unit (4) being capable of switching between the oxidizing gas and the reducing gas to be supplied to each of the reactors (see paras. [0055]-[0056]; Fig. 2), wherein the plurality of reactors (4a, 4b) include first reactors (4a) and second reactors (4b) to which the reducing gas is supplied when the oxidizing gas is supplied to the first reactors (see paras. [0055]-[0056]; Fig. 2). The reference Dasanayake ‘096 further teaches that the gas production device is configured so that the number of the first reactors (4a) is two or more, and the oxidizing gas is passed through the two or more first reactors in parallel (see para. [0058]; Fig. 3); and the number of the second reactors (4b) is two or more, and the reducing gas is passed through the two or more second reactors in parallel (see para. [0058]; Fig. 3).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Dasanayake et al. and Dasanayake ‘096, and modified the gas production device of Dasanayake et al. such that the number of the first reactors is two or more, and the oxidizing gas is passed through the two or more first reactors in parallel, as taught by the reference Dasanayake ‘096, and claimed by applicant, since the reference Dasanayake ‘096 teaches that such a modification allows to sufficiently secure an opportunity to contact the reducing agent with the oxidizing gas while preventing an increase in transmission resistance of the oxidizing gas in the respective first and second reactors (see para. [0065]).
Regarding claim 10, the reference Dasanayake et al. is silent with respect to the gas production device including a carbon monoxide removal unit that removes carbon monoxide from the oxidizing gas that has passed through the first reactor. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a carbon monoxide removal unit downstream of the first reactor to remove carbon monoxide from the oxidizing gas that has passed through the first reactor, since the reference Dasanayake ‘096 suggests arranging a carbon monoxide removal unit (14a, 14b) that removes carbon monoxide from the oxidizing gas that has passed through the first reactor (see Dasanayake ‘096: paras. [0211]-[0214]; Fig. 8).
Regarding claim 11, the reference Dasanayake et al. is silent with respect to the gas production device including a water removal unit that removes water from the oxidizing gas that has passed through the second reactor. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a water removal unit downstream of the second reactor to remove water from the reducing gas that has passed through the second reactor, since the reference Dasanayake ‘096 suggests arranging a water removal unit (14a, 14b) that removes water from the reducing gas that has passed through the second reactor (see Dasanayake ‘096: paras. [0211]-[0214]; Fig. 8).
Regarding claim 19, the references Dasanayake et al. and Dasanayake ‘096 teach that the gas production device can include a carbon monoxide removal unit (14a, 14b) that removes carbon monoxide from the oxidizing gas that has passed through the first reactor (see Dasanayake ‘096: paras. [0211]-[0214]; Fig. 8).
Regarding claim 20, the references Dasanayake et al. and Dasanayake ‘096 teach that the gas production device can include a water removal unit (14a, 14b) that removes water from the reducing gas that has passed through the second reactor (see Dasanayake ‘096: paras. [0211]-[0214]; Fig. 8).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Lessanework T Seifu whose telephone number is (571)270-3153. The examiner can normally be reached M-T 9:00 am - 6:30 pm; F 9:00 am - 1:00 pm.
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, Claire Wang can be reached at 571-270-1051. 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.
/LESSANEWORK SEIFU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1774
Prosecution Insights