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
Claims 1-4 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 7/20/26.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 5, line 3 “configured to receive” describes a device that is capable of performing and/or containing the composition, but does not necessarily require that it performs and/or contains the described composition.
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) 5, 7, 8, 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller (US Pub.: 2020/0254413) and in view of Bowe (WO 2009/101434) and in view of Rees (US Pat.: 2552737).
Miller describes a device for use in methane reforming (para. 2). The device contains a steam methane reformer tube (Fig. 1, 101 and para. 19), which can be considered the reformer tube of Claim 5. Inside the reactor is a pressurized gas conduit, 107 (para. 24) that is positioned at the center of the reactor (see para. 48). Next to the pressurized gas conduit is a temperature measurement device (abstract). Therefore, since the pressurized gas conduit is for gas and is next to a temperature measurement device, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that this pressurized gas conduit would be effective to receive a temperature control gas.
Around the bottom of the pressurized gas conduit, the reactor is filled with catalyst (para. 46, 47 and Figure 8, 112). Although some of the pictures show that the catalyst does not fill the tube, paragraph 46 of Miller states that the reactor tube is filled.
Miller does not teach that the flow rate of the temperature control gas is adjusted.
As to the flow rate of the temperature control gas, Bowe teaches a steam methane reforming reaction module (abstract). Bowe explains that in a steam reforming module (page 11, lines 10-14), a gas mixture, 36, which consists of steam and methane, is subjected to a control loop comprising a pressure tramsitter that provides data about the pressure of the gas mixture to a pressure controller (page 11, lines 13-15). The pressure controller can adjust the flow rate using a control valve and can open a vent valve to divert a gas mixture to a flare if the pressure of the gas mixture exceeds a predetermined safe threshold pressure for the reactor (page 11, lines 15-19).
Therefore, 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 flow controller, as taught by Bowe for use with the process of Miller because Bowe explains that use of a flow controller can adjust the flow if the pressure of the gas mixture exceeds a predetermined safe threshold pressure for the reactor.
As to the multiple delivery holes, Miller does not specifically teach this.
Rees describes a process for producing synthesis gas (title) by reacting methane with CO2 and steam (col. 1, lines 7-9). The process feeds a flow of the reactants into a reactor with porous walls (Claim 1) so that a combustible mixture of reactants passes through the pore walls to produce a hot combustion gas that contacts the methane (Claim 1). The reactor with porous walls is a pipe with pores (col. 5, lines 60-61). The amount of hydrocarbon reactants can pass through in the proportion required for a reaction to form and produce CO and H2 (Claim 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add numerous pores to the device of Miller, as taught by Rees because Rees explains that use of a tube with porous walls allows a required proportion of hydrocarbon reactants to pass through the pipe in order to produce the reactants CO and H2.
As to introducing a temperature control gas into the lance, Rees explains that the temperature conditions are maintained in the reaction zone so that the hydrocarbon reacts with CO2 and steam from a surface combustion (col. 1, lines 45-50).
As to the method of assembling the device, although Miller does not describe this feature, such as, placing the gas conduit inside the reactor, since Miller described the final structure, such as, the pressurized gas conduit in the reactor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that these steps were taken in order to assemble the product.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller, Bowe and Rees as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Yang (US Pub.: 2021/0197160).
Yang teaches a reactor (title) used to react chemicals in a reaction (para. 3). The reference explains that the pores in the reactor can be distributed evenly in a flow channel (para. 31) so that the reactants can be reacted evenly (para. 40, 83).
The reference relates to the current invention because it is concerned with chemical reactors and use of those reactors in chemical reactions.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to place the pores in an even distribution, as taught by Yang for use with the device of Miller, Bowe and Rees because an even distribution facilities an even distribution of reactants.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10, 11 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: Miller does not teach that there is a second axial quench lance or the features described in Claim 11.
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 September 3, 2026
