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
Claims 1-7 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 05/29/2026.
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 8-12 in the reply filed on 05/29/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Objections
Claims 11-12 are objected to because of the following informalities: Both claims state “C2+ hydrocarbon capturing and storage module the inner volume of which is filled with adsorbent.” It is assumed there should be a comma after the word “module.” Appropriate correction is required.
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 8-12 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 8 recites the limitation: a) "the tank of the land gas adsorptive storage module of the gas storage unit" b) “the gas storage pressure” c) “the natural gas treatment unit” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Both “the tank” and “the gas storage unit” should be changed to “a tank” and “a gas storage unit”. “The gas storage pressure” should be changed to “a gas storage pressure.” “The natural gas treatment unit” should be changed to “a natural gas treatment unit.”
Claim 10 recites “the granulated form” and “the form of blocks” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is suggested to remove “the” from both.
Claim 11 recites “the C2+ hydrocarbon capturing and storage module,” “the ethane/methane separation coefficient,” and “the methane enriched gas.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It will be assumed to read “a ethane/methane separation coefficient,” and “a methane enriched gas.” The limitation of “the C2+ hydrocarbon capturing and storage module” is unclear whether it refers to a different storage module than that of the storage module with the adsorbent. It will be assumed to be the same as the adsorptive storage module with the adsorbent as indicated in claim 8.
Claim 12 recites “the granulated form” and “the form of blocks” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is suggested to remove “the” from both.
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.
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) 8, 11, and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP438 (JP2016148438A, attached translation will be referenced) in view of Feaver (US20070113735A1).
Claim(s) 8, 9, 11, and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP438 in view of Wang (US20160346724A1) in view of Feaver.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP438 in view of Wang in view of Feaver in view of Romans (US20130211158A1).
Examiner’s note: Claim 8 has two different methods connected by “or”. Examiner is separating each of the methods as some of the dependent claims are connected to one instead of the other. Examiner notes that in case any dependent claim is deemed allowable, the independent claim would still be rejected if it contains the “or” limitation.
Rejection in view of JP438 and Feaver
Claim 8: JP438 teaches a method for land adsorptive storage of natural gas, methane (Page 1 teaches filling a tank loaded with activated carbon with methane) including: offtake of natural gas from a gas source (Gas is supplied from pipe 24 into the tank 18, pages 6-7 and figure 4), treatment of microporous adsorbent in the tank of the land gas adsorptive storage module of the gas storage unit (Treatment can refer to anything as this is a broad limitation. Merely placing the adsorbent into the tank at the proper location as seen in figure 4 can read upon this limitation.), wherein the tank internal volume is filled with the microporous adsorbent to the extent not exceeding 97% (Figure 4 shows that the adsorbent is about halfway with no gas in the tank.), and further filling of the gas storage unit with gas directly from the gas source (Pages 6-7 teach that the gas is supplied from pipe 24 into the filling tank 18 so that the adsorbent can adsorb the gas.).
JP438 does not explicitly state the adsorbent accumulating at least 155 nm3 of natural gas per 1 m3 of adsorbent. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the invention to select a material that would adsorb the desired amount of natural gas since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. In this case since the prior art teaches using a material for the purpose of storing methane, it would be obvious to choose one with an efficient or desired adsorption capacity.
JP438 does not explicitly state further filling of the gas storage unit with gas directly from the gas source until the gas storage pressure of 3-10 MPa is achieved. JP438 does state filling the tank with gas as stated in pages 6-7. JP438 also states in page 1 that the material can be activated carbon. Feaver teaches in [0003] that natural gas is known to be adsorbed on a medium such as activated carbon but does this at a lower pressure (3.45MPa). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date to have the gas storage pressure be between 3-10MPa in the method of JP438 as Feaver teaches in [0003] that this low pressure allows for easier tank filling, provides room for non cylinder form factors, and allows for optional tank materials and increases safety of the tank.
Claim 11: JP438 teaches in the gas storage unit, purified gas is fed to the C2+ hydrocarbon capturing and storage module the inner volume of which is filled with adsorbent having the ethane/methane separation coefficient of at least 2, and then the methane-enriched gas is delivered for storage to the land gas adsorptive storage module (The gas entering the tank can read upon purified gas and methane gas. The figures show that the inside of the tank contains the adsorbent. Referring to the adsorbent having ethane/methane separation coefficient of at least 2, page 7 teaches that the adsorbent can be any material that meets the requirements. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the invention to chose an adsorbent with this coefficient since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.).
Claim 12: JP438 teaches purified gas is fed to the C2+ hydrocarbon capturing and storage module the inner volume of which is filled with adsorbent in the granulated form or compacted in the form of blocks (Figure 7 shows the gas storage material is in the shape of blocks.).
Rejection in view of JP438, Wang, and Feaver
Claim 8: JP438 teaches a method for land adsorptive storage of natural gas, methane (Page 1 teaches filling a tank loaded with activated carbon with methane) including: offtake of natural gas from a gas source (Gas is supplied from pipe 24 into the tank 18, pages 6-7 and figure 4), treatment of microporous adsorbent in the tank of the land gas adsorptive storage module of the gas storage unit (Treatment can refer to anything as this is a broad limitation. Merely placing the adsorbent into the tank at the proper location as seen in figure 4 can read upon this limitation.), wherein the tank internal volume is filled with the microporous adsorbent to the extent not exceeding 97% (Figure 4 shows that the adsorbent is about halfway with no gas in the tank.), and further filling of the gas storage unit with gas (Pages 6-7 teach that the gas is supplied from pipe 24 into the filling tank 18 so that the adsorbent can adsorb the gas.).
JP438 does not explicitly state the adsorbent accumulating at least 155 nm3 of natural gas per 1 m3 of adsorbent. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the invention to select a material that would adsorb the desired amount of natural gas since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. In this case since the prior art teaches using a material for the purpose of storing methane, it would be obvious to choose one with an efficient or desired adsorption capacity.
JP438 does not explicitly teach treatment of the offtake of natural gas in the natural gas treatment unit that includes purification from solid inclusions and foreign admixtures. Wang teaches a natural gas storage facility (abstract). It teaches in [0036] and figure 1 an impurity separator 118 and two guard adsorbers configured to remove natural gas impurities and separate natural gas into heavy and light components before sending the rest for storage. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the invention to have a treatment of the natural gas as in Wang in the method of JP438 as Wang teaches the benefit of removing impurities that can damage adsorbents in the gas ([0069]).
JP438 and Wang do not explicitly state further filling of the gas storage unit with gas directly from the gas source until the gas storage pressure of 3-10 MPa is achieved. JP438 does state filling the tank with gas as stated in pages 6-7. JP438 also states in page 1 that the material can be activated carbon. Feaver teaches in [0003] that natural gas is known to be adsorbed on a medium such as activated carbon but does this at a lower pressure (3.45MPa). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date to have the gas storage pressure be between 3-10MPa in the method of JP438 and Wang as Feaver teaches in [0003] that this low pressure allows for easier tank filling, provides room for non cylinder form factors, and allows for optional tank materials and increases safety of the tank.
Claim 9: Wang teaches natural gas treatment includes natural gas separation using a cryogenic, adsorptive or membrane method or the combination thereof into methane-enriched natural gas and C2+ hydrocarbon concentrate ([0073] teaches that the guard bed 114 that separates the natural gas into heavy and light can use cryogenic, membranes, and adsorption towers.).
Claim 11: JP438 teaches in the gas storage unit, purified gas is fed to the C2+ hydrocarbon capturing and storage module the inner volume of which is filled with adsorbent having the ethane/methane separation coefficient of at least 2, and then the methane-enriched gas is delivered for storage to the land gas adsorptive storage module (The gas entering the tank can read upon purified gas and methane gas. The figures show that the inside of the tank contains the adsorbent. Referring to the adsorbent having ethane/methane separation coefficient of at least 2, page 7 teaches that the adsorbent can be any material that meets the requirements. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the invention to chose an adsorbent with this coefficient since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.).
Claim 12: JP438 teaches purified gas is fed to the C2+ hydrocarbon capturing and storage module the inner volume of which is filled with adsorbent in the granulated form or compacted in the form of blocks (Figure 7 shows the gas storage material is in the shape of blocks.).
Rejection in view of JP438, Wang, Feaver, and Romanos
Claim 10: The prior arts do not explicitly state treatment of microporous adsorbent in the granulated form or compacted in the form of blocks in high- pressure tanks is carried out by purging with heated nitrogen with excess pressure of up to 0.05 MPa, vacuuming until rarefaction of not more than 10-4 MPa is achieved and further purging with purified and methane-enriched natural gas at excess pressure of 0.05-0.15 MPa. JP438 teaches being able to use an activated carbon adsorbent for methane in page 1. Romanos teaches a method of producing activated carbon material with prespecified surface areas and pore size distributions. It teaches in [0091] that nitrogen purge is used and the mixture is kept at an activation temperature during a specific time in order to influence the surface area and pore size distribution of the activated carbon material. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the invention to use a nitrogen purge as taught by Romanos in the method of the prior art as Romanos teaches using a nitrogen purge in order to creature specific pore sizes distributions and surface areas.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. WO2017222420A2, US20160356425, 20100000252, 20080207442, 20060177372, 20030056535, 6475411, 6225257, 5965483, 5912424, 5744421, 5626637, 5416056.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHILLIP Y SHAO whose telephone number is (571)272-8171. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri; 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, Jennifer Dieterle can be reached at (571) 270-7872. 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.
/P.Y.S/Examiner, Art Unit 1776 07/17/2026
/Jennifer Dieterle/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1776
Prosecution Insights