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 Group I, Claims 1-11 in the reply filed on 3/17/26 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)).
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) 1, 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moddy (US Pat.: 4025318) and in view of Chinta (CA 3126841) and in view of Klepper (US Pub.: 2009/0018221) and in view of Grainger (US Pat.: 11248184).
Moddy describes a gasification of hydrocarbon process (abstract) that involves feeding a hydrocarbon feedstock that is then gasified (col. 1, lines 12-15). The stream is then fed through a purification section 16 (col. 5, lines 45-46). This stream is then fed to a cryogenic separator (col. 5, lines 47-48), which is used to separate hydrogen from the stream (col. 5, lines 49-50). Some of that hydrogen separated is then recycled back to the gasifier (see Fig. 1). Carbon soot build-up is recycled (col. 8, lines 64-68). Additionally, a second hydrogen plant is utilized after the air separation unit (see Fig. 3, 130-132, 134). Some of the hydrogen generated here may also be recycled back to the gasifier (see Fig. 3). The stream from which hydrogen is separated from is then fed to a shift unit, which reacts with water vapor to react with H2 and CO gas (col. 9, lines 41-48). After this, the CO2 in this newly shifted gas stream is then fed to a carbon dioxide removal unit (col. 10, lines 20-25) using a catalyst (col. 10, lines 14-17). This can be considered to meet the features of S3 of Claim 1. As to separation from the catalyst, Moddy teaches that the stream assed from 170 to 172 in Fig. 3, where the stream is sent from the shift converter (170) to the cooler (172). The separated stream is fed back to 173, which can be removed as H2 and CO fuel (see Fig. 3).
The effluent from this shift converter step is then passed through a cooler and then through a CO2 removal unit (col. 10, lines 18-20).
The streams from which the hydrogen is separated and the CO2 are removed are combined as shown by the streams feeding into one another after separation (see Fig. 1, 2 and 3).
Moddy does not disclose adding the separated hydrogen to the final product or that the separated CO2 is converted to CO through a reverse Boudouard reaction or that the hydrocarbon fed to the gasifier is an organic waste.
As to adding separated hydrogen to the final product, Chita describes a process for the production of syngas (title). In the background, Chita explains that when generating methanol, the ratio of hydrogen in the syngas is often relatively low (para. 3). As a solution to this, Chita explains that their process separates hydrogen from the hydrocarbon stream (para. 10 and Fig. 1, 63a, 63b) and then produces syngas (Fig. 1, 15) and then adds the separated hydrogen with the produced syngas (see Fig. 1, 15 and 16). This added hydrogen is required when generating methanol (para. 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add hydrogen that was previously separated to the produced syngas, as taught by Chita for use with the process of making syngas, as taught by Moddy because this is an effective method to adjust the H2 and CO ratio in the syngas for later production of other compositions, such as methanol.
As to the reverse Boudourd reaction, Klepper describes a method of making syngas (title) by converting a carbon-containing feed (para. 54) in the presence of heat to a gaseous product (para. 59, 62). The stream is then purified or otherwise conditioned (para. 62). One of these conditioning systems includes CO2 removal system, which can employ any method to remove CO2 (para. 121). The removed CO2 can be reused, such as to convey or entrain solid material from one point to another point or to react with carbon deposits on the reactor walls or catalyst surfaces in a reverse Boudouard reaction (para. 123).
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 reverse Boudourd reaction, as taught by Klepper for use with the process of making syngas, as taught by Moddy because Klepper explains that separated CO2 (which is also performed in the Moddy reference) can be reused to remove carbon deposits on the reator wall or the catalyst surface using this method.
As to the use of organic waste, Moddy describes use of hydrocarbon feedstock (col. 2, line 24), such as heavy crude oils, bitumen and coals (col. 2, lines 26-29), but not the inclusion of organic wastes.
Grainger teaches a gasification system (title) that combines a hydrocarbon source, such as oils (fuels), bitumen and coal (col. 1, lines 43-44) with organic wastes (col. 1, line 43). Grainger explains that this method facilities the disposal of various wastes (col. 1, lines 10-13).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ organic waste as the fuel source in the gasifier in lieu of crude oils, bitumen and coals, as taught by Grainger for use with the process of Moddy because organic waste is known to be an effective substitution for oils, bitumen and coals.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to substitute organic waste by its functional equivalent of crude oils, bitumen or coals in Moddy with an expected success. See MPEP 2144.06.
As to Claim 11, Grainger teaches that the feedstock can include municipal solid waste (col. 16, lines 62-67).
Claim(s) 2, 3, 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moddy, Chinta, Klepper and Grainger as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Grover (US Pub.: 2012/0003145).
Moddy teaches use of a gasifier for heating the hydrocarbon stream (col. 6, lines 15), and that the product composition after reacting contains methane, H2 and other hydrocarbons (Table 1, II), but does not disclose all the components included in this gas stream. Specifically, Moddy does not recite that the product also includes CO and CO2.
Grover describes a method of making syngas (title and abstract). The process describes feeding hydrocarbon fuel source in a gasification unit (para. 16). Grover explains that the term “gasification unit” refers to any gasification unit known in the art which is capable of processing hydrocarbon fuel sources in order to produce a syngas stream that contains at least H2 and CO2 that derives from a hydrogen fuel sources (para. 16). The syngas stream contains H2 and CO2 and can also include a variety of other components, such as CO (para. 17).
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 gasified product of Moddy includes CO and CO2, as taught by Grover because gasified fuels heated in gasification units are known to produce syngas that contains H2, CO2 and CO.
As to Claim 3, Moddy teaches that the amount of methane by vol% made in the vaporizer ranges from 28 vol. % to 36.3vol. % (table II).
As to Claim 4, Moddy describes separating hydrogen in the cryogenic separation unit (Fig. 3) and the hydrogen plant (Fig. 3). Moddy explains that the product composition in the first step includes methane, H2 and other HCs (see tables I and II). In the water gas shift reaction step of Moddy, Moddy explains that the stream contains purified H2/CO (col. 9, line 41) and that it is fed to a CO2 removal unit (col. 10, line 20). Given that, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the stream also contains CO2. Moddy does not state the presence of CO.
Grover describes feeding hydrocarbon fuel source in a gasification unit (para. 16). Grover explains that the term “gasification unit” refers to any gasification unit known in the art which is capable of processing hydrocarbon fuel sources in order to produce a syngas stream that contains at least H2 and CO2 that derives from a hydrogen fuel sources (para. 16). The syngas stream contains H2 and CO2 and can also include a variety of other components, such as CO (para. 17).
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 gasified product of Moddy includes CO and CO2, as taught by Grover because gasified fuels heated in gasification units are known to produce syngas that contains H2, CO2 and CO.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moddy, Chintas, Klepper and Grainger as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Iwamoto et al. “Reactivity of Iron Carbonyl Complexes in a Hydrated Sodium-Y Zeolite Matrix. . “.
Moddy describes that the shift catalyst can contain an iron-based material, but does not disclose that the shift catalyst is a metal hydride supported on a zeolite.
Iwamoto describes a metal hydride catalyst for use in a water-gas-shift (title). The iron hydride is grafted onto the zeolite (page 5246, left col., lines 10-13) and is effective for use in water gas shift reactions (page 5246, left col., lines 16-18).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ an iron hydride grafted onto the zeolite as the water gas shift catalyst, as taught by Iwanoto for use with the water gas shift catalyst of Moddy, Chinta, Klepper and Grainger because use of this type of catalyst would lead to predictable and expected results.
Claim(s) 8, 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moddy, Chinta, Klepper and Grainger as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wittenbrink (WO 99/37736).
The references do not describe a hydrogen: CO ratio.
Wittenbrink describes a synthesis gas production (abstract). The syngas is generated using any known suitable syngas generation means (page 3, para. 2). Some hydrogen is removed and some of that hydrogen can be reused for the hydrocarbon synthesis step or other process steps (page 3, para. 2). The process steps can be adjusted in order to obtain the syngas at the desired mole ratio (page 6, lines 13-14). Adjustment of process features, such as the amount of CO2 in the feed used in the syngas generator alters the equilibrium that alters the H2 and CO ratio of the syngas (page 7, para. 1). In one example, Wittenbrink describes adjusting the H2 to CO mole ratio to be 2.1: 1 (page 11, lines 11-12).
A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges overlap or are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. See MPEP 2144.05 I.”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the H2 to CO mole ratio to 2.1: 1, as taught by Wittenbrink for use with the syngas production process of Moddy, Chinta, Klepper and Grainger because it is known to adjust the ratio of H2 and CO in syngas to result in a 2.1: 1 ratio by adjusting known process parameters.
As to Claim 9, Wittenbrink teaches that the amount of CO2 removed effects the molar ratio of H2 and CO in the syngas (page 6, lines 11-14). Also, the amount of CO2 in the syngas generator is adjusted to achieve the H2 and CO content (page 7, para. 1). As a result, Wittenbrink teaches use of a CO2 removal step (page 14, last para, last line and page 15, para. 1).
Klepper teaches that use of a CO2 removal system, which is then used to remove entrained carbon solids using a reverse Boudouard reaction (see above).
Since Wittenbrink explains that CO2 removal is an adjustable feature that alters the syngas composition and Klepper explains that this CO2 removal is known for use in reverse Boudouard reactions for removing entrained carbon solids, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that adjustment of the CO2 removal unit, as taught by Wittenbrink, which Klepper explains can be integrated with a reverse Boudouard reaction is known to alter the syngas composition.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moddy, Chinta, Klepper, Grainger and Wittenbrink as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Tiverios (US Pub.: 20200255754).
The references describe producing syngas (hydrogen and CO) and that CO2 is separated from the stream, but the references do not disclose adjusting the H2:CO ratio by adjusting by supplying the separated CO2 to either step S3, the flow rate of separated H2 or the CO produced in S2 or the CO converted in S5.
Tiverios describes a process for making syngas using a gasification system (para. 59). The syngas-containing stream is then fed to various processing steps where recycled CO2 is added in order to moderate a water-gas-shift reaction (para. 59).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add recycled CO2 that is separated into the system back into the water-gas-shift reaction (step S3), as taught by Tiverios for use with the process of Moddy, Chinta, Klepper, Grainger and Wittenbrink because use of recycled CO2 in the water-gas-shift step is known to moderate this process step.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6, 7 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: Alenazey et al. “Coke Removal from deactivated Co-Ni steam reforming catalysts. . “.
Alenazey describes a coke removal (title) using a reverse Boudouard reaction (abstract) at elevated temperature (see page 410, left col. para 1). The references do not teach removal of the catalyst into a separate reactor for performing the reverse Boudouard reaction and then recirculating the catalyst back (Claim 6) or that the reaction is performed at a pressure of 300-500kPa.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
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
June 25, 2026
Prosecution Insights