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 amendment filed 07/22/2026 for application 18/479120.
Claims 1-2 and 4-6 are currently pending and have been fully considered.
Claim 3 has been cancelled.
Claim 6 has been added.
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 4-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MOZAFFARIAN (WO-0021911-A1) in view of DEVINE (USPGPUB 2009/0115190) and SUGI (WO-2018173143-A1) and 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)
DEVINE is relied on to teach where hydrogen from an external source formed by electrolysis can be sourced from.
DEVINE teaches systems and methods for producing, shipping and distributing and storing hydrogen. DEVINE teaches producing hydrogen from a wind turbine farm and transporting the hydrogen produced. DEVINE teaches in paragraph 118 that a hydrogen pump can be used to receive and deliver hydrogen to various locations from a hydrogen tank. DEVINE further teaches that hydrogen can be delivered to a hydrogen filling pump. A hydrogen filling pump is well known to one of ordinary skill in the art for suppling hydrogen to a different location.
It would be well within one of ordinary skill in the art to source the hydrogen that is employed in the process that MOZAFFARIAN teaches from a hydrogen tank that is filled by a hydrogen filling pump.
DEVINE teaches in paragraph 9 the advantages of sourcing the hydrogen from a wind turbine farm to allow for the harnessing of wind energy and converting such energy to hydrogen in a manner that would allow for the continuous and efficient production, storage, transportation, and distribution of hydrogen to the general public for consumption
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 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.
Regarding claim 6, DEVINE teaches in paragraphs 12 and 14 and 45 and 118 a hydrogen tank that can be used to transport hydrogen to different locations such as hydrogen filling pump. The hydrogen filling pump is at a hydrogen filling station can be used to supply the hydrogen to a third location.
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 07/22/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that MOZAFFARIAN teach away from the transportation of hydrogen in a hydrogen tank that is filled via a hydrogen filling pump because MOZAFFARIAN teaches that transportation of hydrogen is more complicated and will probably require more energy than transportation and storage of hydrogen chemically stored in the form of methane.
This is not persuasive as MOZAFFARIAN teaches processing hydrogen from an external source and hydrogen is employed to produce a methane-rich product gas.
While MOZAFFARIAN teaches that hydrogen will probably require much more energy than transportation and storage of hydrogen chemically stored in the form of methane, it is not always practical to convert hydrogen to methane in every location.
DEVINE teaches one method for continuous and efficient production, storage, transportation, and distribution of hydrogen from a wind turbine farm. The hydrogen produced from the process that DEVINE teaches would need to be moved to the hydrogasification reactor in the process that MOZAFFARIAN teaches. Employing a known method with a hydrogen filling pump and a hydrogen tank taught by DEVINE would be well within one of ordinary skill in the art.
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.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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