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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 09/09/2025 has been entered.
Claims 1-14 are currently pending and have been fully considered.
The 35 USC 112 rejections of claims 1-13 have been withdrawn in light of applicant’s amendment.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5 and 7-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over REPASKY (WO2021062384) in view of CASTELLI (USPGPUB 2014/0288195).
REPASKY teaches process for the conversion of carbon dioxide.
Regarding claims 1 and 14, one exemplary multi stage process is taught in paragraph 33 of REPASKY that comprises a three-step reaction process with an initial RWGS reaction step 122, an intermediary RWGS reaction step 132, and a final RWGS reaction step 152.
REPASKY teaches in paragraph 34 that CO2 stream 121 and H2 stream 123 are combined and heated at heating step 124 (heat exchanger) to form a heated stream 127.
The heated stream 127 are fed into a RWGS reactor 122 where a portion of the CO2 and H2 are converted into CO and H2O.
A product stream 133 is taught in paragraph 36 is fed into an intermediary heating step 134 to form a heated stream 137.
Heated stream 137 is fed into a RWGS reaction step 132 where some of the carbon dioxide and hydrogen within heat stream 137 is converted to CO and forms an intermediary product stream 143.
Intermediary product stream from the one or more intermediary RWGS reaction steps such as stream 143 is routed to a final RWGS reaction step 152
Claim 1 of the present application states “b. mixing a stream comprising oxygen with the heated RWGS feed stream at the second temperature in an oxyfuel combustor, thereby causing a combustion reaction that produces a RWGS feed stream at a third temperature, wherein the third temperature is higher than the second temperature”.
REPASKY teaches an intermediary heating step 134 to form a heated stream 137. Heat for the heating step 134 may be supplied to from a dedicated source or from excess heat from the system.
REPASKY also teaches in paragraph 81 that means for providing heat include alternate means such as oxycombustion. CO2 generated is taught to be fed back into the RWGS reactors.
REPASKY further teaches in paragraph 36 that heating step 134 and reaction step 132 may be combined into a single step depending upon the type of reactor.
CASTELLI teaches thermochemical conversion of a carbon-based feedstock to synthesis gas containing predominantly H2 and CO.
CASTELLI teaches in paragraphs 25- 27 that oxycombustion comprises utilizing a stream of O2 to produces essentially, or even uniquely, CO2 as gas, without CO. Generally, all the carbon of a carbon-based feedstock is transformed into CO2.
REPASKY also teaches in paragraph 39 that there may be unreacted reactants in final product stream 153.
Given that REPASKY teaches that the reaction step 132 is an intermediate step that provides a feed into final RWGS reaction step 152, one of ordinary skill in the art would be led to perform the oxycombustion by supplying a stream of O2 into RWGS heating step 134 to generate CO2 for RWGS reaction step 132 and final RWGS reaction step 152 as well as provide the heat for reaction step 132.
REPASKY teaches in paragraph 32 that the temperature in the one or more intermediary RWGS reactions step may be higher than the temperature of the initial RWGS reaction step.
REPASKY also teaches in paragraph 32 that each step of the multi-step process is randomly operated relative to temperature.
It would be well within one of ordinary skill in the art to operate the final RWGS reaction steps to be at a lower temperature than the intermediate RWGS reaction steps.
Regarding claims 2 and 3, REPASKY teaches in paragraph 34 that some of the product stream 133 comprises some of the CO2 and H2 is converted to CO and H2O. The heated stream 137 that is fed into the intermediate RWGS reaction steps include CO and H2.
Regarding claims 4 and 5, REPASKY teaches in paragraph 39 final RWGS reaction step 152, CO2 and H2 within product stream 143 are reacted to further produce CO and H2O, which together with any unreacted reactants exit final RWGS reaction step 152 as final product stream 153.
REPASKY teaches in paragraph 75 that the product stream comprising carbon monoxide and hydrogen may be subjected into a Fischer-Tropsch process to produce hydrocarbons such as gasoline and diesel.
Gasoline is known to be a mixture of alkanes that include pentane.
Regarding claim 7, ambient temperature is about 60-75°F. Table 1 shows a mixed feed at 87°F.
A prima facie case of obviousness exists wherein the claimed ranges overlap.
Regarding claim 8, the mixed feed is taught in Table 1 to be heated to 1000F. The first heating step is taught in paragraph 49 to be greater than 300°C and less than 1000°C. (572°F to 1832°F)
A prima facie case of obviousness exists wherein the claimed ranges overlap.
Regarding claim 9, the intermediate RWGS reaction step is taught in paragraphs 32 and 49 to be greater than 300°C and less than 1200°C. (572°F to 2192°F)
A prima facie case of obviousness exists wherein the claimed ranges overlap.
Regarding claim 10, the final RWGS reaction step is taught in paragraph 50 to be greater than 500°C and less than 1200°C. (932°F to 2192°F)
A prima facie case of obviousness exists wherein the claimed ranges overlap.
Regarding claims 11, REPASKY teaches in paragraph 12 that the system may comprise on or more intermediate reactors.
It would be well within one of ordinary skill in the art to use another intermediate reactor that also utilizes oxycombustion to produce more CO2 and generate heat for the reactor.
Regarding claim 12, the intermediate RWGS reaction steps are taught in paragraphs 32 and 49 to be greater than 300°C and less than 1200°C.
A prima facie case of obviousness exists wherein the claimed ranges overlap.
Regarding claim 13, REPASKY teaches in paragraphs 4 and 71 that oxygen is produced from electrolysis.
Claim(s) 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over REPASKY (WO2021062384) in view of CASTELLI (USPGPUB 2014/0288195) as applied to claims 1-5 and 7-14 above, and further in view of FANG (USPGPUB 2012/0116137).
The above discussion of REPASKY in view of CASTELLI is incorporated herein by reference.
Claim 6 of the present application states “liquid hydrocarbon is further processed to produce a jet fuel component that meets ASTM D7566”.
FANG teaches that in paragraph 16 that synthesis gas can be converted into gasoline and heavy gasoline and into diesel and jet fuels.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the process that FANG teaches to produce other fuels from synthesis gas given that REPASKY teach paragraph 75 that the product stream comprising carbon monoxide and hydrogen (synthesis gas) may be converted into gasoline and diesel.
Therefore, the invention as a whole would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09/09/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the prior art does not teach “mixing a stream comprising oxygen with the heated RWGS stream at the second temperature in an oxyfuel combustor, thereby causing a combustion reaction that produces a RWGS feed stream at a third temperature”.
Applicant argues that fuel from the RWGS stream itself is used for combustion in conjunction with oxygen and a feed source is not added to the stream for combustion.
Applicant argues that REPASKY teaches oxycombustion but the “oxycombustion” referenced in REPASKY is not a combustion caused by mixing an RWGS feed in an oxyfuel combustor and that the deficiency is not made up by CASTELLI.
Examiner disagrees. REPASKY not only teaches oxycombustion as a means of providing heat, REPASKY also teaches that the heating step and the reaction step may be combined into a single step.
CASTELLI teaches oxycombustion as defined by the widespread definition which is combustion based on air enriched with oxygen, as an oxidizing agent.
CASTELLI teaches thermochemical conversion of a carbon-based feedstock to synthesis gas containing predominantly H2 and CO.
REPASKY also teaches in paragraph 39 that there may be unreacted reactants in final product stream 153.
REPASKY teaches in paragraph 36 that heating step 134 and reaction step 132 may be combined into a single step depending upon the type of reactor.
Given that REPASKY teaches that the reaction step 132 is an intermediate step that provides a feed into final RWGS reaction step 152, one of ordinary skill in the art would be led to perform the reaction step 132 and heating step 134 in a single step with the same reactor such as an oxycombustion reactor by supplying a stream of O2 into the oxycombustion reactor.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
HEIDEL (USPGPUB 2019/0359894) teaches a method and system for synthesizing fuel from dilute carbon dioxide source. HIEDEL teaches in paragraph 16 an SGR unit that operates to produce a syngas using reverse water gas shift (RWGS) reaction.
HEIDEL teaches in paragraph 18 that an SGR can be heated by the combustion of an oxidant and a fuel.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MING CHEUNG PO whose telephone number is (571)270-5552. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-6.
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, PREM SINGH can be reached at 5712726381. 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.
/MING CHEUNG PO/ Examiner, Art Unit 1771
/ELLEN M MCAVOY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771