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 .
Response to Amendment
This is the response to response after final action filed 03/16/2026 for application 18/479120.
Claims 1-2 and 4-5 are currently pending and have been fully considered.
Claim 3 has been cancelled.
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) 1-2 and 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MOZAFFARIAN (WO-0021911-A1) in view of SUGI (WO-2018173143-A1) in view of the machine translation of SUGI, and CAHN et al. (U.S. 3993457).
SUGI will hereafter be referring to the machine translation of SUGI.
MOZAFFARIAN teaches a process for producing methane rich product gas (SNG).
Regarding claims 1 and 5, the process is summarized in the abstract. Biomass, together with hydrogen from an external source, are fed to a hydrogasification reactor. (gasification furnace)
MOZAFFARIAN teaches on page 3 that a gas mixture of CH4, CO, H2, and H2O are sent to a high temperature gas purification apparatus to be purified. Solid residue and gaseous impurities are removed by the high temperature gas purification apparatus. (scrubber)
The purified gas mixture is fed into a methanation reactor and converted into substitute natural gas (SNG).
The hydrogen from an external source is taught on pages 2-3 and may be formed by electrolysis of water. The electrolysis of water would be expected to be performed in an apparatus. (hydrogen supply device)
CAHN et al. are relied on to teach how purified synthetic gas can be used to produce methanol as well as synthetic natural gas concurrently.
CAHN et al. teach that synthesis gas generated from gasification or organic material from a gasification zone is sent through a water gas shift zone and then sent through an acid gas removal zone to form a substantially purified synthesis gas and then eventually through a methanation zone.
CAHN et al. further teach a methanol reaction zone and a knock-out zone between the acid gas removal zone and the methanation zone. The methanol reaction zone produces methanol and the knock-out zone separates a portion which is substantially methanol. (liquid fuel production device) The methanol is purified and can be utilized commercially or otherwise.
It would be well within one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the process and apparatus that MOZAFFARIAN teaches to produce methanol as well as synthetic natural gas as taught by CAHN et al. from the purified gas mixture in MOZAFFARIAN.
The motivation to do so can be found in columns 1-2 of CAHN et al. CAHN et al. teach that concurrent production of methanol and synthetic natural gas allows for adjustment if the supply of feed was adversely affected or disrupted. Furthermore, CAHN et al. teach that the setup taught in CAHN et al. overcomes the disadvantages commonly associated with the high costs of both synthetic natural gas production and methanol synthesis.
MOZAFFARIAN teaches in pages 3-4 that the temperature in the hydrogasification affects the thermodynamic equilibrium and the rate of carbon conversion.
MOZAFFARIAN recognizes on pages 3-4 the reaction dynamics of the hydrogasification reaction and how temperature and hydrogen adjust the rate and the products formed.
The methanol reaction zone taught in CAHN et al. is also taught in column 3 to be maintained at a range of temperatures and pressures in which carbon monoxide and carbon dioxides react with hydrogen to form methanol.
One of ordinary skill in the art would be able to use a predetermined value for what temperature may be employed.
It would be well within one of ordinary skill in the art that the temperature should be monitored to maintain the desired thermodynamic equilibrium. Employing a device or a person to monitor the temperature would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. (temperature detector)
CAHN et al. teach in column 3 that a molar ratio of carbon monoxide to hydrogen is used to generate methanol. Carbon dioxide will also react with hydrogen to produce methanol.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further add external hydrogen to a path to the methanol reaction zone as supplemental hydrogen if insufficient hydrogen to present for conversion of carbon oxides present.
SUGI teaches a process Fig 1 in which natural gas is treated sequentially in multiple reactors. SUGI teaches a source of hydrogen, denoted BB, that is passed through a series of valves, V0 and V1 and V2 and V3, that control the flow of hydrogen into the reactors.
SUGI recognizes in pp 3 that methanation reaction occurs when carbon dioxide reacts with hydrogen to form methane. Carbon monoxide also reacts with hydrogen to form methane. CO + 3H2 to form CH4.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to place a sensor in the path leading to the scrubber of MOZAFFARIAN that leads to the methanol reaction zone and then to the methanation reactor to ensure that proper ratios of H2 is available for conversion of CO and CO2 to form methanol and CH4. (H2/CO sensor)
SUGI further teaches that hydrogen may be supplied to the path before a first methanation reactor.
MOZAFFARIAN teaches hydrogasification and methanation. CAHN et al. teach methanol reaction zone. All these processes are known to employ hydrogen and controlling the rate of hydrogen would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to control reaction dynamics.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to supply hydrogen from a common hydrogen source to both the hydrogasification reactor and the path before the methanation reactor with different hydrogen paths that are controlled by valves.
Having a device or a person adjust the flow such as starting or stopping the flow of hydrogen from the common hydrogen source based on the reaction conditions would be well within one of ordinary skill in the art.
SUGI teaches the use of valves to control the flow of hydrogen with flow rate adjusting valves. Closing specific rate adjusting valves would also be possible to control the flow of hydrogen at different points throughout the process to ensure the proper ratio of hydrogen to other components would be well within one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 2, the hydrogen from an external source in MOZAFFARIAN is taught on pages 2-3 and may be formed by electrolysis of water. An electrolyzer is known to for the electrolysis of water to produce hydrogen.
Regarding claim 4, methanation as a process is known in the art for reacting hydrogen with carbon oxides to produce methane.
It would be well within one of ordinary skill in the art to add external hydrogen to ensure that sufficient hydrogen is present for the methanation reaction.
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 with respect to the present claim(s) teaching a liquid fuel and MOZAFFARIAN (WO-0021911-A1) teaching the production of synthetic natural gas, filed 03/16/2026, along with the interview conducted on 02/24/2026 with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 2, 4, and 5 under MOZAFFARIAN (WO-0021911-A1) in view of SUGI (WO-2018173143-A1) in view of the machine translation of SUGI have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of MOZAFFARIAN (WO-0021911-A1) in view of SUGI (WO-2018173143-A1) in view of the machine translation of SUGI and CAHN et al. (U.S. 3993457)
CAHN et al. has been added to teach that it is known in the art for concurrent production of methanol and synthetic natural gas from a purified synthesis gas produced from gasification of organic materials.
Applicant’s argument that there is no motivation to switch the hydrogen supply location from inside the gasification furnace to the downstream side of the gasification furnace based on the temperature of the gasification furnace is not persuasive.
MOZAFFARIAN as well as CAHN et al. teach downstream processes of a gasification reactor in which the ratio of hydrogen to carbon oxides is used to produce downstream products such as synthetic natural gas and methanol respectively.
Both MOZAFFARIAN and CAHN et al. also teach that the conditions in the gasification reactor also affect the composition of the output of the gasification reactor.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
HAPPEL (EP0120590A1) teaches LSNG, liquefied synthetic natural gas.
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
Prosecution Insights