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 species A1 and B2 (withdrawing Claims 16, 17, 22, 23, 24 and 25) in the reply filed on 4/3/26 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)).
Noting that the withdrawn claims 16, 17, 22 are not subject to examination at this time, the examiner notes that certain non-elected claims possess claim language which would result in rejections under section 112. For example (noting the examiner has not fully examined non-elected claims: see claims 16, 17 and 22), it is suggested applicant consider the correction of these withdrawn claims going forward in the interest of compact prosecution.
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 15, 19, 20, 21 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.
Claim 15, lines 8-9 describe an overall molar ratio of hydrocarbon, oxygen and CO2. However, lines 11-12 also describes an overall molar ratio of the reactant hydrocarbon, oxygen and CO2 with a slightly different range. It is unclear why both of these recite overall molar ratios and what the difference between them are. For examination purposes, it will be interpreted that either range is useable for the overall ratio of reactants.
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.
Claim(s) 15, 16, 17, 18, 20, 21-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McKeigue (US Pub.: 2008/0305030) and in view of Amin et al. “Thermodynamic Equilibrium Analysis of Combined Carbon Dioxide reforming with Partial Oxidation of Methane to Syngas”.
McKeigue describes a process for partial oxidation (abstract) of methane, CO2 and oxygen (para. 38, equation II) for making a syngas product (para. 37, 38). The conversion can be performed in a non-catalytic partial oxidation apparatus (para. 47). The reaction is performed at a temperature range of 700-1400 degrees C (para. 39). The product made can include CO, H2 and water (see equation II at para. 38). Additionally, McKeigue teaches that there may be CO2 byproduct (para. 37 and 41), which is removed and recycled (para. 37). This recycled CO2 stream can be considered “additional imported CO2” of Claim 15. The starting composition is methane (see equations II, III, IV). This can be considered about 100% of the hydrocarbon source.
As to the ratios, McKeigue does not disclose these features.
Amin describes a methane to syngas conversion process (see page 1789, right col, last line). In the background, Amin states that current research studies on the conversion of methane to syngas have certain shortfalls, particularly, one of their focuses is on the catalyst efficiency (page 1790, left col, para. 2) and that the basic variables between CH4:CO2:O2 ratio and temperature differ greatly and the results are hardly comparable (page 1790, left col, para. 2). As a solution to this, Amin analyzes the thermodynamics of the temperature, pressure and feed ratio on the equilibrium composition and conversion of the reactants (page 1790, left col, para. 2). Particularly, the analysis is with respect to the feed ratio of between CH4:CO2:O2 (page 1790, left col, para. 3) and the total Gibbs energy minimization of the system (page 1790, left col. para. 3) and how it can be used to optimize the desired H2/CO ratio (page 1790, left col, para. 3).
The chemical species employed for the reaction includes CO2, O2, CH4 and H2O (page 1791, left col, last line to right col, line 1). The ratio of H2:CO (syngas) varies based on the temperature (page 1794, right col, para. 1). At a temperature range of 1,000K and below, the H2/CO ratio varies from 0.8 to 3.5 (page 1794, right col, para. 1), while at a temperature range above that, the H2/CO ratio narrows to about 1-1.7 (page 1794, right col, para. 1). Other factors effecting the H2/CO ratio include the initial ratio of reactants (page 1796, left col, para. 1-2). In tests, Amin shows that the ratio of H2/CO increases with increased temperature (see Table 3). As to the ratio of reactants, Amin explains that a ratio of CH4:CO2:O2 ranging from 1-0.8: 1-0.2: 1-0.2 of these reactants is effective at a minimum temperature range of 1,000K (abstract). Since the temperature is a minimum and Amin teaches that the H2/CO ratio can be adjusted so that a higher temperature results in a higher H2/CO ratio, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to increase the temperature of the reaction in order to increase the ratio of H2/CO in the produced synthesis gas.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the syngas produced by adjusting the H2/CO ratio by adjusting the ratio of the reactants, to include feeding a ratio of CH4:CO2:O2 ranging from 1-0.8: 1-0.2: 1-0.2, as taught by Amin for use in the production of syn gas, as taught by McKeigue because adjusting these reactants in this range is known to produce syngas product with an optimizable ratio of H2/CO.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McKeigue and Amine as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Fong (US Pat.: 5496859).
The references do not teach that the methane stream includes oxygenates.
Fong describes a gasification process for producing syngas (title) using partial oxidizing reaction with methane (abstract). Fong explains that the process can be combined with a oxygenated reforming step to produce methanol (col. 2, lines 8-11). In the process of Fong, the reactor feed methane and an oxygenate into a gasifier (col. 4, lines 29-30), which includes a partially recycled stream 7 (see Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ a mixed methane and methane stream for use in making syngas, as taught by Fong for use in the process of McKeigue and Amine because Fong explains that it is known to isolate methane from a mixed methane and methanol stream for use in making a syngas.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McKeigue and Amine as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Steele (US Pub.: 2015/0060335).
The references do not teach inclusion of oxygenates.
Steele describes a gasification means of hydrocarbon (abstract). The system can obtain a a stream of hydrocarbon that can be a mixture of methane and methanol (para. 79). The methane can be separated from the methanol and then gasified (para. 79). The methane can also be converted into syngas by further processing (abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to obtain a methane stream that is a mixture of methane and methanol, as taught by Steele for use with the process of McKeigue and Amine because Steele explains that it is known to isolate methane from an oxygenate and methane source for further processing of methane in the manufacture of synthesis gas.
Claim(s) 15, 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McKeigue (US Pub.: 2008/0305030) and in view of Ashcroft et al. “Partial Oxidation of Methane to Synthesis Gas using CO2”, attached.
McKeigue describes a process for partial oxidation (abstract) of methane, CO2 and oxygen (para. 38, equation II) for making a syngas product (para. 37, 38). The conversion can be performed in a non-catalytic partial oxidation apparatus (para. 47). The reaction is performed at a temperature range of 700-1400 degrees C (para. 39). The product made can include CO, H2 and water (see equation II at para. 38). Additionally, McKeigue teaches that there may be CO2 byproduct (para. 37 and 41), which is removed and recycled (para. 37). This recycled CO2 stream can be considered “additional imported CO2” of Claim 15. The starting composition is methane (see equations II, III, IV). This can be considered about 100% of the hydrocarbon source.
As to the ratios, McKeigue does not disclose these features.
Ashcroft describes a partial oxidation of methane to synthesis gas using CO2 (title). In their process, Ashcroft explains that the feed composition can comprise a ratio of CH4: CO2: O2 in a range of 64:3.5:32 (see Table 4, first set of data) to achieve a H2 and CO yield of 89%: 86% (see table 4). Although Ashcroft does not specifically state that the ratios are in terms of moles, the reference discusses the energy required for conversion based on moles (page 226, left col. para. 1, see equation 1, kJ mol-1 and page 225, right col, equation 2 describing the energy needed to convert methane by oxidation to syn gas in terms of moles). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the ratio amounts described in Ashcroft are in terms of moles.
It has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP 2144.05.
Therefore, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ a ratio of CH4: CO2: O2 in a range of 64:3.5:32, as taught by Ashcroft for use with the process of McKeigue because these ratios are known to generate syngas with a high syngas yield of H2 and CO yield of 89%: 86%.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHENG HAN DAVIS whose telephone number is (571)270-5823. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5:30. 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, Fung Coris can be reached at 571-270-5713. 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.
/SHENG H DAVIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1732 April 8, 2026
Prosecution Insights