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 12, and 13 have been amended. Claims 5-6, 9, 11, 20, and 22-30 are cancelled. New claims 31-35 are added. Claims 1-4, 7-8, 10, 12-19, 21, and 31-35 are pending in present application, and under examination on the merits.
Information Disclosure Statements
Applicants’ Information Disclosure Statement, filed on 04/06/2018, has been considered. Please refer to Applicant’s copy of the PTO-1449 submitted herewith.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment by Applicants’ representative Mr. Nathan P. Letts on 05/29/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments/Amendments
Claim rejection under 35 U.S.C.§103(a)
The ‘725 ENG publication is an official English language version of KR20080094725 with Indian patent application 1938/MUMNP/2008.
Applicant’s argument is on the ground that the combination of the ‘725 ENG publication and Yuan et al. do not hint or suggest a reactor engine with a feed gas comprising a carbon dioxide diluent present at about 5 to about 50 mol.%. In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, 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).
In this case, regarding Applicant’s 1st argument, that is on the ground KR20080094725 (“the ‘725 ENG publication”) discloses a method of synthesis gas production using a compression-type internal combustion engine by mixing hydrocarbon material, water steam and air, or oxygen-enriched air in the form of a combustible charge with an air-oxidizer excess factor (α) equal to 0.3, 0.58 for methane, preheat the combustible charge and ignite the combustible charge with 5 experiments, specifically having CO2 levels of 2.40, 2.57, 2.67, 3.07, and 4.3%, having CO levels of 13.30, 14.27, 14.81, 14.52, and 7.2%, listed in Table 1, on pages 28-29, while the Examiner’s repeated assertions of CO2 content equaling the CO content, the listings for the experiments in Table 1 found CO levels of 13.30, 14.27, 14.81, 14.52, and 7.2%. The CO levels in the ‘725 ENG publication are 70% to over 600% of the CO2 levels shown. Applicant’s argument is found not persuasive because Applicant made incorrect comparison between the present invention and the ‘725 ENG publication under different air-oxidizer excess factor (α) conditions. Specifically, Examiner’s assertions of CO2 content equaling the CO content was carried out under the condition of an air-oxidizer excess factor (α)=0.8 (oxygen content of 29%, see Page 9 of the Office Action), while the 5 experiments listed in Table 1 of the ‘725 ENG publication were carried out under the condition of an air-oxidizer excess factor (α)= 0.3-0.58 (see #3 on page 28). Actually, the ‘725 ENG publication discloses specifically “for α 0.8 CO2 content is equal to CO content.” (see last paragraph on page 11). The present specification [0002] describes the present invention is drawn to a process for controlling syngas composition from an internal combustion engine-based syngas generator by using carbon dioxide (CO2) as a diluent to reduce N2 concentration in the syngas. The ‘725 ENG publication also teaches a method for producing synthesis gas in a plant consisting of a compression-type-internal combustion engine to vary syngas H2/CO by addition supply of CO2 (see page 4). In addition, the ‘725 ENG publication (1st paragraph on page 3) discloses to produce gas for synthesis of methanol the autothermic reforming of natural gas with adding of CO2 was conducted by carbonation of the original natural gas with H2O, mixing it with CO2 and heating up to the temperature of 550-600 °C in the heat exchanger by return converted gas and further conversion of gas-vapor mixture having the following ratio: CO2:H2O:CH4=0.2:0.9:1.0 in shaft catalytic reactor with oxygen at the ratio O2:CH4=0.6:1.0. Therefore, the ‘725 ENG publication discloses the same type of invention as Applicant’s disclosure by addition supply of CO2 for the synthesis of syngas as described above, and would have rendered Applicant’s claims obvious.
Regarding Applicant’s 2nd argument that Yuan et al. is not relevant to either the ‘725 ENG publication or Applicants’ claimed invention. Yuan et al. do not disclose an engine much less a reactor engine, it should be pointed out that the motivation to modify a prior art reference to arrive at the claimed invention need not be the same motivation that the patentee had. The obviousness analysis cannot be confined by a formalistic conception of the words teaching, suggestion, and motivation, or by overemphasis on the importance of published articles and the explicit content of issued patents. Any motivation to combine references, whether articulated in the references themselves or supported by evidence of the knowledge of a skilled artisan, is sufficient to combine those references to arrive at the claimed process. Outdry Techs Corp. v. Geox S.P.A. 859 F.3d 1364, Fed. Cir. (2017) (123 USPQ2d starting 1141 at 1143-1144). Because Yuan et al. teaches spontaneous heating of coals at varying O₂ concentration, the CO/CO2 ratios tended to converge to the same value from under the same heating temperatures (see Figs. 11 – 12), some of the natural gas or coals (both are hydrocarbons) will convert to CO2 at varying O₂ concentration under heating condition. In considering all factors as a whole, the combined prior art references of the ‘725 ENG publication and Yuan et al. would have render instant claims 1-4, 7-8, 10, 12-19, and 21 obvious. The rejection is maintained.
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 1-4, 7-8, 10, 12-19, 21, and 31-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR20080094725A (“the `725 publication”) to Mihailovich et al. having an official English language version of published as Indian patent application 1938/MUMNP/2008, in view of Yuan et al., Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, (2013), v.26, p.1321-1327, US2002/0144506A1 (“the `506 publication”) to Viteri et al., and U.S. Patent No. 3,986,349 (“the `349 patent”) to Egan et al.
Applicant’s claim 1 is drawn to a method for producing syngas which comprises reacting a hydrocarbon fuel and enriched-oxygen containing feed gas in internal combustion engine reactor wherein the feed gas comprises a carbon dioxide diluent present at about 5 to about 50 mol.% and the enriched-oxygen is present about 25 to 95% mol.% so as to produce the syngas.
Determination of the scope and content of the prior art (MPEP §2141.01)
The `725 publication [1] discloses a method for producing synthesis gas (syngas) in a compression-type internal combustion engine to vary syngas H2/CO by addition supply of CO2 (see page 4). The `725 publication [37] discloses it is possible to produce synthesis gas by burning a mixture of hydrocarbon fuel with oxygen-enriched air at α=0.5-0.8 (“α” means air excess coefficient), explosive partial oxidation of the hydrocarbons within the cylinder volume of an internal combustion engine, expansion and cooling of the process product during the movement of the engine piston to bottom dead center, recovery of the process product containing synthesis gas from the reaction during the movement of the engine piston to top dead center, and injection of a new portion of the air-fuel mixture during the movement of the engine piston to bottom dead center. The `725 publication [37] further discloses coal production mixed gas, which mainly contains carbon dioxide (CO2), methane and ethylene fractions, is used as a hydrocarbon raw material. The `725 publication [40] discloses when the method is carried out with oxygen-enriched air at α=0.5-0.8 (oxygen contents of 50% and 29%), the H2/CO ratio does not satisfy the catalyst synthesis requirement (in some cases of 1 below). In addition, the ‘725 ENG publication (1st paragraph on page 3) discloses to produce gas for synthesis of methanol the autothermic reforming of natural gas with adding of CO2 was conducted by carbonation of the original natural gas with H2O, mixing it with CO2 and heating up to the temperature of 550-600 °C in the heat exchanger by return converted gas and further conversion of gas-vapor mixture having the following ratio: CO2:H2O:CH4=0.2:0.9:1.0 in shaft catalytic reactor with oxygen at the ratio O2:CH4=0.6:1.0.
Ascertainment of the difference between the prior art and the claims (MPEP §2141.02)
The difference between Applicant’s claim 1 and the `725 publication is that the prior art does not specifically teach the feed gas comprises a carbon dioxide diluent present at about 5 to about 50 mol.%. Instead, the `725 publication [37] further discloses coal production mixed gas, which mainly contains carbon dioxide (CO2), methane and ethylene fractions, is used as a hydrocarbon raw material. The `725 publication [40] further discloses when the method is carried out with oxygen-enriched air at α=0.5-0.8 (oxygen contents of 50% and 29%), and for α= 0.8 (oxygen contents of 29%), the CO2 content is equal to the CO content. The ‘725 ENG publication (1st paragraph on page 3) discloses to produce gas for synthesis of methanol the autothermic reforming of natural gas with adding of CO2 was conducted by carbonation of the original natural gas with H2O, mixing it with CO2 and heating up to the temperature of 550-600 °C in the heat exchanger by return converted gas and further conversion of gas-vapor mixture having the following ratio: CO2:H2O:CH4=0.2:0.9:1.0 in shaft catalytic reactor with oxygen at the ratio O2:CH4=0.6:1.0.
Finding of prima facie obviousness--rational and motivation (MPEP §2142-2413)
However, the difference of the feed gas comprises a carbon dioxide (CO2) diluent present at about 5 to about 50 mol.% over the CO2 content disclosed by the `725 publication [40] (i.e., produced as a coal production mixed gas via oxygen-enriched air at α=0.5-0.8 (oxygen contents of 50% and 29%), and for α= 0.8 (oxygen contents of 29%). The ‘725 ENG publication (1st paragraph on page 3) discloses to produce gas for synthesis of methanol the autothermic reforming of natural gas with adding of CO2 was conducted by carbonation of the original natural gas with H2O, mixing it with CO2 and heating up to the temperature of 550-600 °C in the heat exchanger by return converted gas and further conversion of gas-vapor mixture having the following ratio: CO2:H2O:CH4=0.2:0.9:1.0 in shaft catalytic reactor with oxygen at the ratio O2:CH4=0.6:1.0. In terms of the CO2 content is equal to the CO content, Yuan et al. discloses that spontaneous heating of coals at varying O2 concentration, the CO/CO2 ratios tended to converge to the same value from under the same heating temperatures, see Figs. 11-12. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art to recognize the amount of added CO2 disclosed by the ‘725 ENG publication would have been present within the range of about 5 to about 50 mol %.
Furthermore, the `506 publication [0084] teaches in the combustion device 550, the enriched oxygen gases from the air separation plant 530 are combined with the hydrogen containing fuel from a fuel supply 540 and combustion is initiated within the combustion device 550. A water or carbon dioxide diluent is added into the combustion device to decrease a temperature of the products of combustion within the combustion device 550 and to increase a mass flow rate for a steam or steam and carbon dioxide working fluid exiting the combustion device 550. Therefore, the `725 publication in view of Yuan et al. and the `506 publication would have rendered claim 1 obvious.
In terms of claim 2, the additional features of the claim can be easily derived by a person skilled in the art, considering the feature of the `506 publication in the enriched oxygen gases from the air separation plant (see paragraph [0084)).
In terms of claims 3-4, 7-8, and 12-13, the additional features of the claims can be easily modified by a person skilled in the art without the exercise of inventive skill, considering the feature of the `725 publication in the hydrocarbon fuel such as natural gas and a mixed gas comprising H2, CO for producing the syngas (see paragraph [0003]; claim 1).
In terms of claim 10, the additional features of the claims can be easily modified by a person skilled in the art without the exercise of inventive skill, considering the feature of the `506 publication in that carbon dioxide diluent path is provided out of a condenser for returning carbon dioxide diluent back to the combustion device (see paragraph [0086]).
In terms of claims 14-15, the additional features of the claims can be easily modified by a person skilled in the art without the exercise of inventive skill, considering the feature of the `725 publication in the step of heating the composition comprising the hydrocarbon fuel and the enriched-oxygen gas in the internal combustion engine to produce the syngas (see claim 1).
In terms of claims 16 and 21, the additional features of the claims are merely matters of design option from the feature of the `725 publication in the step of heating the composition comprising the hydrocarbon fuel and the enriched-oxygen gas in the internal combustion engine to produce the syngas (see claim 1). In addition, the `725 publication [27] describes a process from the `349 patent for converting coal into a liquid hydrocarbon fuel by gasifying coal into a syngas, hydrogenating the resulting syngas, and extracting a liquid hydrocarbon fuel from the hydrogenation product.
In terms of claim 17, the additional features of the claims can be easily derived by a person skilled in the art, considering the feature of the `725 publication in the step of separating a product comprising the syngas (see paragraph [0109]).
In terms of claims 18-19, the additional features of the claims can be easily derived by a person skilled in the art, considering the feature of the `725 publication in the steps of: recovering the product comprising the syngas; and converting the syngas to methanol or dimethyl ether (see claim 1).
In terms of claims 31-36, the ‘725 ENG publication teaches a method for producing synthesis gas in a plant consisting of a compression-type-internal combustion engine to vary syngas H2/CO by addition supply of CO2 (see page 4). Addition supply of CO2 in about 20 to about 50 mol. % would have been a routine optimization for one ordinary skilled of art as an obvious-to-try, unless Applicant can demonstrate otherwise.
Conclusions
Claims 1-4, 7-8, 10, 12-19, 21, and 31-36 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
Prosecution Insights