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 .
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, claims 1-6 in the reply filed on March 16, 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that complete
search for the subject matter of the elected claims would necessarily encompass a
thorough and complete search for the subject matter of the non-elected claims.
This is not found persuasive because in this case the process as claimed can be practiced by another and materially different apparatus as shown in JP 2019-
156658. However, if the apparatus claims are found allowable, and the process claims contain all the limitations of the apparatus claims, rejoining the process claims will be considered. The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2019156658 A (JFE STEEL machine translation of document submitted by applicant on August 01, 2023).
Applicants’ claimed invention is directed to a liquid fuel synthesis system comprising: a liquid fuel synthesis unit having a separation membrane permeable to a product of a conversion reaction of a raw material gas containing at least hydrogen and carbon dioxide to a liquid fuel; and a sweep gas supply unit configured to supply a sweep gas for sweeping the product permeating through the separation membrane to the liquid fuel synthesis unit, the sweep gas containing hydrogen or carbon dioxide as a main component. JP’658 teaches a liquid fuel synthesis system comprising a liquid fuel synthesis part having a separation membrane that allows a product in a conversion reaction from a raw material gas containing hydrogen and carbon dioxide to a liquid fuel to pass through, and a sweep gas supply part that supplies a sweep gas for sweeping the product that passed through the separation membrane to the liquid fuel synthesis part, wherein the sweep gas contains carbon dioxide as a main component. JP”658 also teaches a configuration comprising a moisture removal part that removes moisture from flue gas discharged from the liquid fuel synthesis part that contains the sweep gas and the product. JP’ 658 further describes a liquid fuel synthesis method provided with a step in which a conversion reaction from a feedstock gas containing hydrogen and carbon dioxide to a liquid fuel is made to proceed by supplying the feedstock gas to the non-permeate side of the separation membrane while a sweep gas for sweeping the product generated by the conversion reaction and passing through the separation membrane is supplied to the permeate side of the separation membrane, wherein the sweep gas contains carbon dioxide as a main component. JP’658 also indicates that a step for removing moisture from flue gas containing the sweep gas and the product is additionally provided. The moisture removal unit contains a heat exchanger with the raw material gas, i.e. a gas which contains hydrogen and carbon dioxide. JP’ 658 discloses the gas was separated into a CO2-containing gas (CO2: 90%, CO: 10%) and other gases. Subsequently, the CO2-containing gas, H2 (99% or more) gas, and the unreacted gas separated from the gas-liquid separator at the rear stage of the membrane reactor were mixed so that (CO + CO2): H2 = 1: 3. Thereafter, the pressure was increased to 3 MPa with a compressor and the mixture was introduced into the separation membrane reactor. See paragraph 0022-0037.
The sole difference between claim 1 and JP’658 is that the claim specifies the sweep gas contains both hydrogen and carbon dioxide as main component, whereas JP’658 explicitly identifies carbon dioxide as the main component.
It would have been obvious to a PHOSITA, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include hydrogen along with carbon dioxide as a main component of the sweep gas because JP’658 already discloses a system where the raw material feedstock (containing H2 and CO2) is thermally integrated with the sweep gas stream for moisture removal. Since H2 and CO2 are the primary reactant in the system, utilizing a portion of the combined feedstock as a seep gas represents a routine optimization that simplifies the plant design by eliminating the need to isolate pure CO2. This modification yields the predictable result of maintaining the necessary concentration gradient across the membrane while allowing the post-sweep gas to be recycled directly back into the synthesis unit without further separation , thereby improving overall process efficiency.
Regarding claim 2, while JP’658 teaches a sweep gas where carbon dioxide is the main component, claim 2 specifies that the sweep gas contains hydrogen as a main component. It would have been obvious to a PHOSITA, to utilize hydrogen as main component of the sweep gas because JP’658 already discloses a raw material gas containing H2 and CO2 and teaches the feedstock is thermally integrated with the sweep gas stream via a heat exchanger for moisture removal. A PHOSITA, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize that H2, like CO2, is a primary reactant that does not permeate the membrane and is therefore functionally equivalent sweeping agent for maintaining the necessary concentration gradient. Choosing to use H2 as a main component either by diverting a portion of the H2-rich feedstock or by utilizing a recycled H2 stream is a routine design choice aimed at simplifying the recycling loop. Since both H2 and CO2 must be fed into the reactor regardless, sing the H2 already present in the system as a sweep gas achieves the predictable result of efficient product removal without introducing foreign impurities into the synthesis process.
Regarding claim 3, while JP’658 teaches a sweep gas with CO2 as the main component, claim 3 specifies a sweep gas where H2 is the main component and CO2 is the secondary component. It would have been obvious to PHOSITA to utilize a seep gas containing hydrogen as main component and CO2 as a secondary components because JP’658 already discloses a raw material gas containing both H2 and CO2 and teaches that this feedstock mixture is thermally integrated with the sweep gas stream via a heat exchanger. Since both gases are the primary reactants already present in the system, a PHOSITA would recognize that using the combined feedstock mixture as the sweep gas rather than isolated CO2 is a routine optimization to simplify the plant design. Adjusting the ratio of H2 to CO2 in the seep gas to match the reactor’s required feed ratio is a predictable use of known elements that ensures the post sweep gas can be recycled directly back into the synthesis unit without further separation or purification.
Regarding claim 4, there is functional difference regarding the moisture removal unit .JP’658 specifically describes a configuration comprising a moisture removal unit that removes moisture from the flue gas discharged from the liquid synthesis unit, where the gas contains both the sweep gas and the product.
It would have been obvious to a PHOSITA to include a moisture removal unit in the system of claim 1 because JP’658 explicitly teaches this component for the purpose of treating the discharged sweep gas stream. The reference describes the removal of moisture as a necessary step to manage the product swept from the separation membrane. Furthermore, JP’658 teaches that this moisture removal unit can be thermally integrated with the raw material gas via a heat exchanger. Therefore, incorporating this unit into the liquid fuel synthesis system is the direct application of a known element taught by the prior art to achieve the predictable result of purifying the sweep gas stream for potential downstream use or recycling.
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.
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2019156658 A (JFE STEEL machine translation of document submitted by applicant on August 01, 2023) as applied to claims 1-4 above, and further in view of Rah et al (US 2021/0170322).
JP’ 658 fails to teach wherein at least hydrogen and carbon dioxide , as a refrigerant. However, Rah teaches using a refrigerant for removing moisture in the reaction effluent of the water gas shift reaction unit during adsorption, so that it is possible to easily control the adsorption/desorption heat of the PSA [0042]. Meanwhile, the refrigerant supply unit supplies the refrigerant to the PSA unit and/or the condenser. The refrigerant may use any kind of refrigerant without limitation as long as it is used as the heat medium for the heat exchange in the art. The refrigerant may be preferably coolant, brine, liquid hydrogen or the like, and more preferably coolant [0052]. Since the coolant used as the refrigerant is not different from components contained in the reaction effluent produced in the water gas shift reaction unit, the adsorption/desorption heat of the PSA unit can be controlled using the same heat medium path for the heat exchange without installing a separate heat medium path for heat exchange [0053].
While JP’658 teaches a moisture removal unit containing a heat exchanger with the raw material gas (H2/CO2) , it primarily describes this as heat exchange step. Claim 5 specially characterizes the H2 and CO2 as being used as a refrigerant within the moisture removal unit.
It would have been obvious to a PHOSITA to utilize the raw material gas containing H2 and CO2 as a refrigerant in the heat exchanger of JP’658 because Rah explicitly teaches the use of reactant specially liquid hydrogen as a refrigerant to remove moisture from reaction effluents. A PHOSITA, prior to the filing of the claimed invention, would be motivated to appl Rah’s teaching of using cold feedstock as a refrigerant to the thermal integration scheme of JP’658 to enhance efficiency of moisture condensation. Using the inherently cold or compressed raw material (H2/CO2) as a cooling medium (refrigerant) to condense water from the sweep gas represents a predictable application of known cooling techniques to achieve the expected result of a self-contained, thermally optimized system without the need for external cooling utilities.
Regarding claim 6, there is no functional difference between the claimed pressurizing unit and the compressing/mixing assembly described JP’658. The reference explicitly describes the integration of the material gas and the recycled gas (including the sweep gas) into a single mixed stream that is pressurized for reinjection.
The inclusion of a pressurizing unit as claimed is directly taught by JP’658. This reference specifies that the mixture of raw material gas (H2 and CO2) and the unreacted gases from the separator must be compressed to the reaction pressure (3Mpa) before being supplied to the synthesis unit. A PHOSITA would recognize this as standard industrial practice for gas phase synthesis reaction to overcome pressure drops across the membrane and moisture removal stages. Furthermore, the specific mixing of these streams prior to compression as disclosed in paragraphs [0022]-[0037] of JP’658 matches the configuration of claim 6. Therefore, the claimed pressurizing unit represents a predictable application of known gas-handling equipment to achieve the expected result of maintaining a high pressure reactant feed for the synthesis unit.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAFAR F PARSA whose telephone number is (571)272-0643. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:00 AM-6:30PM.
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, Scarlett Goon can be reached at 571-270-5241. 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.
/JAFAR F PARSA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1692