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 .
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-14 and 20 in the reply filed on May 14, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 15-19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 May 14, 2026.
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 1-14 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al (US 2012/0241676 A1) in view of Ju et al (Kr 20180105823A) and further in view of Xu et al (US 2016/0186079 A1).
Applicants’ claimed invention is directed a method for manufacturing syngas, the method comprising:(S1) heat-treating organic wastes under a catalyst in a first reactor to produce a first mixed gas; (S2) separating the catalyst and carbon dioxide (CO2) from the first mixed gas, and recovering a second mixed gas from which the catalyst and the carbon dioxide (CO2) have been removed; (S3) converting the carbon dioxide (CO2) separated in (S2) into carbon monoxide (CO) by a reverse Boudouard reaction in a second reactor; and (S4) mixing the second mixed gas recovered in (S2) and the carbon monoxide (CO) converted in (S3) to produce syngas.
Kim explicitly teaches introducing a carbon containing material (organic waste) into a gasification step (first reactor along with H2O and a gasification catalyst. Kim teaches steps S1, S3 and S4. Specifically, a catalytic gasification of carbonaceous material to form a mixed gas (S1), isolating CO2 and converting it via the reverse Boudourad reaction in a separate reactor (S3), and re-mixing the gases to yield (S4).
Kim discloses the carbon-containing material used for the gasification method according to the present invention may include coal, biomass, waste, heavy oil, petroleum coke, etc., (claim 13) but the present invention is not limited thereto. See [0030]-[0038]; [0045]; [0048] and Figure 2.
The differences: Kim does not explicitly disclose a single, combined step (S2) where the gasification catalyst and CO2 are separated together to recover the gas mixture. It is the Examiner’s position that Kim already discloses utilizing a catalyst in paragraph [0030] and separating CO2 downstream. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, through routine engineering optimization to design a separation sequence (such as, cyclone or filter for the catalyst followed immediately by a gas separation unit for CO2) to clear the gas stream of all non-syngas components before the final mixing step.
Regarding claim 2, Kim discloses H2 generated upon CH4 decomposition may increase the H2 proportion of the synthetic gas which is the gasification product, and C generated upon CH4 decomposition may be used as a reactant for conversion of CO2 or as a fuel for supplying heat of reaction demanded for gasification[0041].
Regarding claim 3, Kim discloses In the gasification step, the following reactions take place, so that H2, CO, CH4, CO2, etc., are produced [0031].
Regarding claim 4, Kim establishes the foundation process loop: utilizing a catalyst in a first gasification reactor, separating the resulting gas components, and utilizing a second gas reactor to convert CO2 to CO via the reverse Boudouard reaction [0030]
Ju establishes the ideal operational conditions for this specific chemistry: showing that running the reverse Boudouard reaction at temperature at or above 700C forces the reaction to proceed predominantly forward, optimally converting carbon into CO[0070]-[0074].
A person ordinary skill in the art, prior to the filing date of the claimed invention knows that using a catalyst to heat-treat organic waste (as taught by Kim) inevitably leads to carbon fouling (coking), which masks the catalyst and ruins its efficiency. However, Ju teaches that running a reverse Boudouard reaction at a high temperature (700 C or higher) actively consumes carbon to generate carbon monoxide. Ju’s high temperature environment >700 C simultaneously strips away the choking carbon deposits to regenerate the catalyst while generating the required carbon monoxide gas.
Regrading claims 5-9, Xu explicitly teaches the gasification of biomass utilizing nickel based catalyst supported on silica [0031]; [0029] and [0015], which directly qualifies as a supported nickel catalyst. Xu also teaches utilizing chemical absorbent to capture and remove CO2 from gasification product stream, specifically selecting these absorbents from limestone, dolomite or calcium oxide [0031]. Xu teaches operating the CO2 absorption phase at an elevated temperature range of 700 to 750C under atmospheric pressure [0015] and [0031].
The combination of Kim and Ju is made obvious by the further teaching of Xu because choosing specific, are-recognized materials like a supported nickel catalyst for gasification and limestone, dolomite or calcium oxide for carbon dioxide absorption represents a routine selection of standard industrial agents to achieve their known predictable functions. Furthermore, operating the adsorption step at Xu’s disclosed range of 700-750C inherently satisfies the temperature criterion of 500 C or higher, while the process within a pressure range of 50 to 200 Kpa represents a routine engineering optimization of since Xu’s explicit use of atmospheric pressure (101.3 K) falls squarely within the middle of the claimed range, making the operating parameters entirely predictable to a person having ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 10 and 20 Kim teaches the ratio of H2/CO in a synthetic gas that is stoichiometrically required for F-T synthesis or methanol production is set to 2 [0011].
Regarding claims 11 and 12, the combination of Kim, Ju and Xu makes dependent claims 11 and 12 obvious because Kim explicitly establishes that the core purpose of isolating and converting CO2 via the secondary reverse Boudouard loop is to fine-tune and optimize the ultimate composition profile of the final syngas product, which a person having ordinary skill in the art knows is defined by its target H2/CO molar ratio. Furthermore, adjusting the conversion metric of this reaction (claim 11) or utilizing basic industrial automation to feed a separate supply of external CO2 into the reactor based on fluctuating downstream CO product flow rate (claim 12) represents nothing more than the predictable application of routine chemical process control loops and mass-balance stabilization techniques to maintain a steady chemical equilibrium and ensure a consistent, marketable syngas output.
Regarding claim 14 the combination of Kim and Ju makes dependent claim 14 obvious because Ju explicitly teaches that a raw syngas stream generated from a thermal conversion process contains volatile impurities and must go under standard purification phases—such as dust collection, sulfide separation, and acid removal to protect the system [0056].
A person having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize that positioning Ju’s purification steps immediately after Kim’s first gasification reactor and right before step (S2) separation phase is a matter of routine engineering design to protect downstream carbon dioxide isolation units and the secondary reverse Boudouard reactor from fouling, corrosion, or catalyst poisoning, yielding the entirely predictable result of a clean, reliable, and optimized industrial operation.
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
Prosecution Insights