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 I, reading on claims 1-11 and 18-20, in the reply filed on June 18, 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)). Claims 12-17 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
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 1-11 and 18-20 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.
Regarding claim 1, the recitation of a “low temperature reducer” (at line 4, and every subsequent recitation in this claim and the dependent claims) renders the claims indefinite because “low” is a relative term, and it is unclear as to what temperature would be considered a “low temperature”, and where it is described in the specification.
Also, the recitation of a “high temperature reformer” (at line 12, and every subsequent recitation in this claim and the dependent claims) renders the claims indefinite because “high” is a relative term, and it is unclear as to what temperature would be considered a “high temperature”, and where it is described in the specification.
Regarding claim 2, the recitation of “MoO3 and CeO2” (at line 4) is unclear because it is unclear as to whether the combination of MoO3 and CeO2 represents a single element of the group, or whether applicant intended for the word “and” to be inserted after “CeO2,”.
Regarding claim 4, the recitation of “the metal oxides” (at line 2) lacks proper positive antecedent basis. It is noted that claim 1 sets forth the term “oxidized metal” (at line 2).
Regarding claim 8, the recitation of “reduced metal oxides” (at line 2) lacks proper positive antecedent basis. It is noted that claim 1 (at lines 4-7) fails to set forth that the oxidized metal is reduced by the fuel during the processing in the low temperature reducer, so as to produce solids which comprise reduced metal oxides.
Regarding claim 18, the recitation of a “low temperature reducer” (at line 4, and every subsequent recitation in this claim) renders the claim indefinite because “low” is a relative term, and it is unclear as to what temperature would be considered a “low temperature”, and where it is described in the specification.
Also, the recitation of a “high temperature reformer” (at line 12, and every subsequent recitation in this claim) renders the claim indefinite because “high” is a relative term, and it is unclear as to what temperature would be considered a “high temperature”, and where it is described in the specification.
Also, the recitation of “reduced metal oxides” (at lines 18, 21, 23) lacks proper positive antecedent basis. It is noted that the claim (at lines 4-7) fails to set forth that the oxidized metal is reduced by the fuel during the processing in the low temperature reducer, so as to produce solids which comprise reduced metal oxides.
The remaining claims are also rejected because they depend from a rejected base 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.
Claims 1, 3, 5, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gilliland (US 2,671,721 A).
Regarding claim 1, Gilliland discloses a synthesis gas production system (i.e., an apparatus for producing industrial mixtures of carbon monoxide and hydrogen; see Figure and entire specification) comprising:
oxidized metal (i.e., fresh metal oxide provided in a hopper 4, see column 3, lines 25-32; for instance, iron oxide or other metals capable of being oxidized by air and giving up their oxygen, see column 5, line 63, to column 6, line 4);
a reducer (i.e., a vessel 2 establishing conditions within which the metal oxide can be reduced to a lower oxide; see column 3, lines 1-14; column 4, lines 68-71), the reducer 2 receiving fuel (i.e., methane or other hydrocarbon, supplied via a line 16 and/or a line 19; see column 4, lines 35-53) and the oxidized metal (i.e., the vessel 2 receives the fresh metal oxide from the hopper 4 by way of lines 3, 8, and 16), the reducer 2 processing the fuel in the presence of the oxidized metal to produce solids and vapor as output components of the reducer (i.e., as a gaseous stream containing solids, leaving overhead through a line 21);
a solid/gas separator (i.e., a cyclone separator 22 or other suitable separator for solids and gases; see column 5, lines 1-18), the solid/gas separator 22 receiving the solids and vapor output components of the reducer (i.e., via the line 21), the solid/gas separator 22 separating the solids output component of the reducer (i.e., separated solids leave the bottom of the separator 22 through a draw-off 23) from the vapor output component of the reducer (i.e., separated vapors leave the upper end of the separator 22 through a line 27); and
a reformer (i.e., a reformer coil 29 packed with a reforming catalyst 31 and arranged in a furnace 30; see column 5, line 15-40), the reformer receiving the vapor output component of the reducer 2 from the solid/gas separator 22 (i.e., via lines 27 and 28), the reformer 29 processing the vapor output component of the reducer 2 to generate synthesis gas (i.e., the gases leaving the separator 22 are reformed in the presence of the reforming catalyst 31 in the reformer coil 29 to produce a reformed gas comprising a synthesis gas, leaving via a line 33).
The recitation that the reducer comprises a “low temperature” reducer does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from the prior art apparatus. Also, the recitation that the reformer comprises a “high temperature” reformer does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from the prior art apparatus. The recitations with respect to the operating temperature of the reducer and the reformer are directed to an intended use of the apparatus, and the reducer 2 and the reformer 29 in the system of Gilliland would be structurally capable of operating under the recited temperature ranges. See MPEP § 2114.
Furthermore, the limitation of “the oxidized metal having been oxidized in an uncoupled oxidation process outside the synthesis gas production system” is a product-by-process claim limitation. In this case, the product implied by the process steps is an oxidized metal obtained from an outside source. See MPEP § 2113. In Gilliland, the oxidized metal (i.e., the fresh metal oxide provided in the hopper 4) was obtained from an outside source and, therefore, the claimed oxidized metal appears to be the same as the oxidized metal in the system of Gillliand.
Regarding claim 3, the “fuel” is not considered an element of the apparatus, as it is merely a material to be worked upon by the apparatus during an intended operation. See MPEP § 2115. In any event, Gilliland discloses that suitable fuels can include hydrocarbons, such as methane (see column 2, lines 25-32). Therefore, the reducer 2 in the system of Gilliland would be capable of processing a fuel selected from the claimed listing of fuels; for instance, natural gas, which is mainly methane, with smaller amounts of higher hydrocarbons.
Regarding claim 5, Gilliland also discloses that external heat sources are used to provide heat to the reducer 2 (i.e., a heat exchanger 34 is external to the vessel 2, wherein the heat exchanger 34 supplies heat to the vessel 2, indirectly, by heating the hydrocarbon feed to the vessel 2, see column 5, lines 35-45; in addition, a vessel 1 is external to the vessel 2, wherein the vessel 1 supplies heat to the vessel 2, indirectly, by heating inert solid particles of fairly high heat capacity being fed into the vessel 2, see column 4, lines 53-67).
Regarding claim 6, Gilliland discloses that the solid/gas separator comprises a cyclone 22 (see column 5, lines 1-5).
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over in view of Gilliland (US 2,671,721 A) in view of Corner et al. (US 2,553,551 A).
Gilliland discloses that the oxidized metal comprises an oxygen carrier such as iron oxide or an oxide of any other metal capable of being oxidized by air and giving up their oxygen under the conditions in the reducer (see column 1, line 29, to column 2, line 8; column 2, lines 25-28; column 2, line 52, to column 3, line 3; column 5, lines 62, to column 6, line 4). Gilliland, however, does not specifically mention the claimed oxidized metal compounds.
Corner et al. discloses a synthesis gas production system (see FIG. 1) comprising: a reducer (i.e., a reaction vessel 1) receiving fuel (i.e., a hydrocarbon gas, fed through line 13) and oxidized metal (i.e., finely divided metal oxide particles as an oxygen carrier), wherein the reducer 1 processes the fuel in the presence of the oxidized metal to produce solids and vapors (i.e., carbon monoxide and hydrogen). Specifically, Corner et al. discloses that the oxidized metal comprises Fe2O3 and MnO2 (see column 3, lines 14-18).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Fe2O3 and MnO2 for the oxidized metal in the system of Gilliland because Fe2O3 and MnO2 were shown to be preferred oxygen carriers for the production of synthesis gas, given the ability of the oxygen carriers to produce a high conversion level and high selectivity to carbon monoxide and hydrogen for an extended period of time, as taught by Corner et al. (see column 3, lines 19-59; see FIG. 2-3).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over in view of Gilliland (US 2,671,721 A) in view of Mayland (US 2,628,161 A).
Gilliland fails to disclose that, in addition to the metal oxides and fuel, one or more supplementary oxygen sources are provided to the reducer 2.
Mayland discloses a synthesis gas production system (see FIG. 1; column 4, line 57, to column 5, line 2) comprising: a reducer (i.e., a reaction chamber 10) receiving fuel (i.e., natural gas, through line 11) and oxidized metal (i.e., iron oxide, through line 12), wherein the reducer 10 processes the fuel in the presence of the oxidized metal to produce solids (i.e., as reduced iron oxide) and vapor (i.e., as a gas stream comprising synthesis gas). Specifically, Mayland discloses that, in addition to the metal oxides and fuel, one or more supplementary oxygen sources (i.e., a gaseous oxidant, such as steam, oxygen, carbon dioxide, or a mixture thereof, through line 13) are provided to the reducer 2.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further provide one or more supplementary oxygen sources to the reducer in the system of Gilliland because the one or more supplementary oxygen sources could be used to further react with the fuel which was not oxidized by the oxidized metal, thereby maximizing the amount of fuel that was reacted and giving a greater yield than would be had when not using the supplementary oxygen source, as taught by Mayland (see column 2, lines 14-24; column 4, lines 65-69).
Claims 7-9 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over in view of Gilliland (US 2,671,721 A) in view of Sass et al. (US 3,736,233 A).
Regarding claim 7, Gilliland (see column 5, lines 7-14) discloses that the solids outlet (i.e., drawoff 23) from the solid/gas separator 22 can be used to remove any desired quantity of the solids from the system (i.e., by operating a suitable valve 26). For instance, “Removal of this solid in small quantities from time to time may be desirable in the event that the solid becomes contaminated in such a way as to interfere with its efficiency as an oxygen carrier.”
Gilliland, however, fails to disclose a solid separator, wherein the solid separator receives the solids output component of the reducer 2 from the solid/gas separator 22 and separates organic materials from metallic materials (i.e., metallic materials including the contaminated, reduced metal oxides being removed from the system).
Sass et al. discloses a system (see Figure) comprising:
oxidized metal (i.e., metal oxide in a hopper (shown by dotted line));
a reactor 14 receiving fuel (i.e., carbonaceous matter from a reservoir 12, through a line 8) and the oxidized metal (i.e., metal oxide from the hopper, through the line 8), the reactor 14 processing the fuel in the presence of the oxidized metal to produce solids and vapor as output components of the reactor;
a solid/gas separator (i.e., a cyclone separator 22), the solid/gas separator receiving the solids and vapor output components of the reactor 14, the solid/gas separator separating the solids output components of the reactor from the vapor output component of the reactor; and,
specifically, a solids separator (i.e., a magnetic separator (shown); see column 5, lines 43-52), the solids separator receiving the solids output component of the reactor 14 from the solid/gas separator 22 and separating organic materials (i.e., char) from metallic materials (i.e., the spent metal oxide, such as iron oxide).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a solid separator (i.e., a magnetic separator) for receiving the solids output component of the reducer from the solid/gas separator and separating organic materials from metallic materials in the system of Gilliland because organic materials present in the solids output component, including char, could be recovered from the metallic materials being removed from the system and recycled to the system as fuel for additional processing, as taught by Sass et al. (see column 5, line 53-60).
Regarding claim 8, in the modified system of Gilliland, the solids separator (i.e., the magnetic separator) would separate reduced metal oxides in the solids output component of the reducer 2 (i.e., the contaminated, reduced metal oxides, such as iron oxide, removed via the drawoff 23) from carbon, ash, and biochar in the solids output component of the reducer 2.
Regarding claim 9, Sass et al. discloses that the solids separator comprises a magnetism based solid separator (i.e., a magnetic separator (shown); see column 5, lines 48-52).
Regarding claim 18, Gilliland discloses a synthesis gas production system (i.e., an apparatus for producing industrial mixtures of carbon monoxide and hydrogen; see Figure and entire specification) comprising:
oxidized metal (i.e., fresh metal oxide provided in a hopper 4, see column 3, lines 25-32; for instance, iron oxide or other metals capable of being oxidized by air and giving up their oxygen, see column 5, line 63, to column 6, line 4);
a reducer (i.e., a vessel 2 establishing conditions within which the metal oxide can be reduced to a lower oxide; see column 3, lines 1-14; column 4, lines 68-71), the reducer 2 receiving fuel (i.e., methane or other hydrocarbon, supplied via a line 16 and/or a line 19; see column 4, lines 35-53) and the oxidized metal (i.e., the vessel 2 receives the fresh metal oxide from the hopper 4 by way of lines 3, 8, and 16), the reducer 2 processing the fuel in the presence of the oxidized metal to produce solids and vapor as output components of the reducer (i.e., as a gaseous stream containing solids, leaving overhead through a line 21);
a solid/gas separator (i.e., a cyclone separator 22 or other suitable separator for solids and gases; see column 5, lines 1-18), the solid/gas separator 22 receiving the solids and vapor output components of the reducer (i.e., via the line 21), the solid/gas separator 22 separating the solids output component of the reducer (i.e., separated solids leave the bottom of the separator 22 through a draw-off 23) from the vapor output component of the reducer (i.e., separated vapors leave the upper end of the separator 22 through a line 27); and
a reformer (i.e., a reformer coil 29 packed with a suitable reforming catalyst 31 and arranged in a furnace 30; see column 5, line 15-40), the reformer receiving the vapor output component of the reducer 2 from the solid/gas separator 22 (i.e., via lines 27 and 28), the reformer 29 processing the vapor output component of the reducer 2 to generate synthesis gas (i.e., the gases leaving the separator 22 are reformed in the presence of the reforming catalyst 31 in the reformer coil 29 to produce a reformed gas comprising a synthesis gas, leaving through a gas line 33).
The recitation that the reducer comprises a “low temperature” reducer does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from the prior art apparatus. Also, the recitation that the reformer comprises a “high temperature” reformer does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from the prior art apparatus. The recitations with respect to the operating temperatures of the reducer and the reformer are directed to an intended use of the apparatus, and the reducer 2 and the reformer 29 in the system of Gilliland would be structurally capable of operating under the recited temperature ranges. See MPEP § 2114.
Furthermore, the limitation of “the oxidized metal having been oxidized in an uncoupled oxidation process outside the synthesis gas production system” is a product-by-process claim limitation. In this case, the product implied by the process steps is oxidized metal obtained from an outside source. See MPEP § 2113. In Gilliland, the oxidized metal (i.e., the fresh metal oxide provided in the hopper 4) was obtained from an outside source, and, therefore, the claimed oxidized metal appears to be the same as the oxidized metal in the system of Gillliand.
Gilliland (see column 5, lines 7-14) also discloses that the solids outlet (i.e., drawoff 23) from the solid/gas separator 22 can be used to remove any desired quantity of the solids from the system (i.e., by operating a suitable valve 26). For instance, “Removal of this solid in small quantities from time to time may be desirable in the event that the solid becomes contaminated in such a way as to interfere with its efficiency as an oxygen carrier.”
Gilliland, however, fails to further disclose a solids separator, wherein the solids separator receives the solids output component of the reducer 2 from the solid/gas separator 22 and separates organic materials from metallic materials, and wherein the solids separator separates reduced metal oxides (i.e., the reduced, contaminated metal oxides being removed from the system) in the solids output component of the reducer 2 from carbon, ash, and biochar in the solids output component of the reducer 2.
Sass et al. discloses a system (see Figure) comprising:
oxidized metal (i.e., metal oxide in a hopper (shown by dotted line));
a reactor 14 receiving fuel (i.e., carbonaceous matter from a reservoir 12, through a line 8) and the oxidized metal (i.e., metal oxide from the hopper, through the line 8), the reactor 14 processing the fuel in the presence of the oxidized metal to produce solids and vapor as output components of the reactor;
a solid/gas separator (i.e., a cyclone separator 22), the solid/gas separator receiving the solids and vapor output components of the reactor 14, the solid/gas separator separating the solids output components of the reactor from the vapor output component of the reactor; and,
specifically, a solids separator (i.e., a magnetic separator (shown); see column 5, lines 43-52), the solids separator receiving the solids output component of the reactor 14 from the solid/gas separator 22 and separating organic materials (i.e., char) from metallic materials (i.e., the spent metal oxide, such as iron oxide).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a solid separator (i.e., a magnetic separator) for receiving the solids output component of the reducer from the solid/gas separator and separating organic materials, including carbon, ash, and biochar, from metallic materials, including the reduced metal oxides, in the system of Gilliland because the organic materials present in the solids output component could be recovered from the metallic materials being removed from the system and recycled to the system as fuel for additional processing, as taught by Sass et al. (see column 5, line 53-60).
Lastly, as commented above, Gilliland (at column 5, lines 7-14) discloses that the metal oxides being removed from the system may be “contaminated in such a way as to interfere with its efficiency as an oxygen carrier.” Gilliland further recognizes that reduced metal oxides can be regenerated by oxidizing with air (see column 1, lines 29-31; column 2, lines 25-28). However, Gilliland does not further disclose an oxidizer for receiving the contaminated, reduced metal oxides being removed from the system, wherein the oxidizer oxidizes the reduced metal oxides to produce oxidized metal. In any event, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further provide an oxidizer for receiving the reduced metal oxides in the modified system of Gilliland because the examiner takes Official Notice that the provision of an oxidizer for oxidizing a reduced metal oxide, so as to regenerate the metal oxide and restore its efficacy as an oxygen carrier for continued use, would have been well-known by one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 19, Gilliland discloses that the synthesis gas (i.e., in line 33) is suitable for immediate use as a reactant for the production of methanol via methanol synthesis or liquid hydrocarbons via Fischer-Tropsch synthesis (see column 1, lines 1-15; column 5, lines 35-52). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a gas treatment station (i.e., a unit for producing methanol or liquid hydrocarbons) for receiving the synthesis gas from the reformer and processing the synthesis gas from the reformer to generate one or more desired products in the modified system of Gilliland because the synthesis gas from the reformer would have been suitable for immediate use as a reactant for the production of methanol via methanol synthesis or liquid hydrocarbons via Fischer-Tropsch synthesis, as disclosed by Gilliland.
Regarding claim 20, Gilliland discloses that the desired product comprises methanol or Fischer-Tropsch fuels (see column 1, lines 1-15; column 5, lines 35-52).
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over in view of Gilliland (US 2,671,721 A).
Regarding claim 10, Gilliland discloses that the synthesis gas (i.e., in the gas line 33) is suitable for immediate use as a reactant for the production of methanol via methanol synthesis or liquid hydrocarbons via Fischer-Tropsch synthesis (see column 1, lines 1-15; column 5, lines 35-52). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a gas treatment station (i.e., a unit for producing methanol or liquid hydrocarbons) for receiving the synthesis gas from the reformer and processing the synthesis gas from the reformer to generate one or more desired products in the system of Gilliland because the synthesis gas from the reformer would have been suitable for immediate use as a reactant for the production of methanol via methanol synthesis or liquid hydrocarbons via Fischer-Tropsch synthesis, as disclosed by Gilliland.
Regarding claim 11, Gilliland discloses that the desired product comprises methanol or Fischer-Tropsch fuels (see column 1, lines 1-15; column 5, lines 35-52).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: White et al. (US 7,824,574 B2) and Scharmann (US 2,794,725 A) are cited to further illustrate the state of the art.
* * *
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER A LEUNG whose telephone number is (571)272-1449. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:30 AM - 4:30 PM EST.
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 X 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.
/JENNIFER A LEUNG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1774
Prosecution Insights