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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/19/2025 has been entered.
Claims 1-7, 10, and 15-17 are currently pending and have been fully considered.
Claims 8-9, and 11-14 have 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) 1-6, 10, 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SCHROER et al. (USPGPUB 2010/0056648) in view of SCHUNK (USPGPUB 2010/0305221).
SCHROER et al. teach a process and system for production of liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) through direct reaction of synthesis gas (syngas).
Regarding claim 1, SCHROER et al. teach in Fig 1 and paragraphs 62-66 and Table 1A an overall system configuration in which a carbon containing source, and oxygen are fed to a reformer 102 to form an output stream 1 comprising CO and CO2.
Stream 6 comprising carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, and light ends (carbon dioxide-containing gas) are also fed into reformer 102. Output stream 1 from reformer is taught in Table 1A to comprise CO and H2. (dry reforming step of generating a first gas containing carbon monoxide and hydrogen)
Output stream 1 is mixed with hydrogen to produce feed stream 2 and fed into a LPG reactor 104 to produce an output stream 5 which comprises LPG. (a liquefied petroleum gas generating step of generating a second gas containing a liquefied petroleum gas from the carbon monoxide and the hydrogen contained in the first gas)
Output stream 5 is sent to separation system 106 where LPG is separated from steam 5 to produce the LPG product comprising a mixture of primarily propane and butane. Stream 6 comprising carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, and light ends are derived from separating from steam 5 and recycled into reformer 102. (a recycling step of separating the carbon dioxide-containing gas from the second gas, and supplying the carbon dioxide-containing gas to the dry reforming step)
One example of the carbon containing source in SCHROER et al. is listed as natural gas.
SCHUNK provides the teaching that a carbon containing source used in dry reforming to form synthesis gases includes not just natural gas but also biogas.
SCHUNK teaches in paragraphs 1-2 and reference claims 1-3 that synthesis gas can be produced from dry reforming, steam reforming as well as partial oxidation of natural gas, methane or another methane containing gas.
It would be well within one of ordinary skill in the art to either use biogas as the carbon containing source or to use a combination of biogas and natural gas in the process that SCHROER et al. Biogas is recognized as comprising primarily methane and carbon dioxide. (biogas comprising methane-containing hydrocarbon and carbon dioxide)
Employing biogas would allow for different starting materials to produce the synthesis gas that is further processed downstream in the process that SCHROER et al. teach. Biogas may be available when natural gas is not available during certain times. Biogas may also be economically more beneficial than natural gas during certain times.
Regarding claim 15, SCHROER et al. teach in Fig 1 and paragraphs 62-66 and paragraphs 136-137 an overall system configuration that employs the process detailed above. The system comprises a reformer 102 (dry reforming unit), a LPG reactor 104 (a liquefied petroleum gas generating unit), and a separation system 106 (recycling unit).
Regarding claim 2, SCHROER et al. teach in paragraph 15 that carbon oxides are recycled to the reformer unit to selectively control the H2 to CO ratio produced. Furthermore, SCHROER et al. teach that the reaction of dry reforming is CH4+CO2→2CO+2H2 which is understood to be 1 mole of methane to 1 mole of carbon dioxide. The carbon dioxide recycled would be expected to be based on the reaction above.
Regarding claim 3, SCHROER et al. teach in table 1A that stream 6 which comprises carbon dioxide that is recycled back into the reformer 102 comprises 268.6 of a total of 364.03. (CO2 concentration is 50% or more)
Regarding claim 4, SCHROER et al. teach in paragraph 15 that hydrogen is recycled to the feed stream of the LPG reactor.
Regarding claims 5 and 6, SCHROER et al. teach I paragraph 15 that the hydrogen recycled selectively controls the H2 to CO ratio produced.
Regarding claim 10, SCHROER et al. teach in Table 1A that C1-C2 hydrocarbons is also present in the carbon dioxide containing gas.
Regarding claim 16, SCHROER et al. teach in paragraphs 135-136 the overall reaction for dry reforming is
CH4+CO2→2CO+2H2 (ΔH298K=+59.1 kcal/mol)
A molar ratio of CH4 to CO2 of 1:1 would be obvious given the overall reaction presented by SCHROER et al. takes one mole of CH4 and one mole of CO2.
A molar ratio of close to 1:1 would be an optimized process that does not leave excessive unreacted components.
Regarding claim 17, SCHROER et al. teach in paragraph 121 that other methods of reforming may be used to produce the synthesis gas.
Mixed reforming is taught which comprises multiple different known reforming processes such as steam reforming and dry reforming.
Steam reforming employs using steam as an oxygen and hydrogen source.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art how to modify the process taught in paragraphs 60-66 of SCHROER et al. to employ mixed reforming with steam reforming. SCHROER et al. contemplates in reference claim 7 and 13 a general teaching that does not exclude steam in reforming.
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.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable SCHROER et al. (USPGPUB 20100056648) in view of SCHUNK (USPGPUB 20100305221) as applied to claims 1-6, 10, 15-17 above, and further in view of the machine translation of ITO (JPH0762356A).
The above discussion of SCHROER et al. is incorporated herein by reference.
SCHROER et al. teach recycling carbon dioxide from the separation device into the reformer. SCHROER et al. further teach in paragraph 63 a furnace for generating flue gas from some lighter ends.
ITO is relied on to teach that it is known to generate carbon dioxide for recycle by combustion.
ITO teach in page 5 that of the machine translation of ITO in paragraphs 34-35 that carbon dioxide may be generated by combustion gas of a boiler.
Flue gas is known to comprise carbon dioxide and it would be obvious to recycle carbon dioxide from the flue gas back in the reformer in SCHROER et al.
The motivation to do so is found in page 5 of ITO. ITO teaches the combustion can be used to generate carbon dioxide that meets potential deficits of carbon dioxide needed in the reformer.
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 amendments to state a “biogas” along with their respective arguments, have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the previous rejections of claims 1-6, 10, and 15-17 in view of SCHROER et al. (USPGPUB 20100056648) as well as SCHROER et al. further in view of the machine translation of ITO (JPH0762356A) have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of SCHROER et al. (USPGPUB 20100056648) in view of SCHUNK (USPGPUB 20100305221) and further in view of the machine translation of ITO (JPH0762356A).
SCHROER et al. teach a process that comprises a carbon containing material along with oxygen and a recycled stream comprising carbon dioxide to be all fed into a reformer.
SCHUNK teaches that dry reforming to produce synthesis gas may be done with natural gas, as well as biogas.
It would be well within one of ordinary skill in the art to use biogas as the carbon containing material or to use a combination of natural gas and biogas.
Employing biogas would allow for different starting materials to produce the synthesis gas that is further processed downstream in the process that SCHROER et al. teach. Biogas may be available when natural gas is not available during certain times. Biogas may also be economically more beneficial than natural gas during certain times.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
D’SOUZA (USPGPUB 2017/0001176) teaches a catalyst for the dry reforming of methane. Carbon dioxide is used in dry reforming that is recycled from the process.
ASAMI (WO2005037962A1) teach in the abstract forming LPG from syngas.
ASAMI (JP2006143752A) teach forming LPG from syngas.
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