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 .
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.
Specification
The specification and drawings have been reviewed and no clear informalities or objections have been noted.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I and Species A in the reply filed on 7/10/2026 is acknowledged. In the reply, Applicant has not stated which claims read on the elected species (Fig. 1). Upon review of the claims, claims 3, 4 are directed to a different species where the first and second separator zones are combined, as they are in Species B (Fig. 2) and are therefore withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Claims 24 and 26 are objected to because of the following informalities: These claims are dependent from a cancelled claim (claim 23). As best understood, it appears that these claims were intended to be dependent upon claim 22 and will be examined as such. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2-7, 9, 10, 15, 17, 19 and 26-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In claim 2, Applicant recites “a fifth stream” in line 5. It is not clear if this “a fifth stream” is the same as “a fifth stream” of claim 1 (line 8) and renders the claim indefinite. Clarification is required. Likewise, in claim 1, Applicant claims “a fourth stream” in lines 7-8 and again recites “a fourth stream” in line 2 of claim 2. This renders the claim indefinite as it is not clear how to define the “fourth stream”.
Claims 9 and 10 recite “the CO2 selective solvent” in line 2. There is a lack of antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Clarification is required.
Claim 19 recites “the carbonaceous material”, there is a lack of antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. As best understood, this is attempting to refer back to “a carbonaceous feedstocks” of claim 18 and will be examined as such.
Claims 26 recites “the RWGS unit” in line 2. There is a lack of antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Clarification is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Claxton (US 2023/0295517).
Regarding claim 1, Claxton discloses a process for increasing production of carbon monoxide (CO) and recycling carbon dioxide when treating synthesis gas comprising the steps of:
passing a first synthesis gas stream comprising hydrogen, carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide through a first separation zone (synthesis gas is created in unit 12, see paragraph 4 which discloses the contents of the syngas stream, which are sent to a CO2 removal unit 20), thereby separating said first synthesis gas stream into a second stream comprising hydrogen and carbon monoxide (stream 30), and a third-stream comprising carbon dioxide (stream 22, see paragraph 54);
feeding said third stream to a carbon dioxide-to-carbon monoxide conversion unit (RWGS reactor 24, see paragraph 54), producing a fourth stream comprising carbon monoxide (line 28, see paragraph 57), and a fifth stream comprising oxygen (the water of stream 52 comprises oxygen, see paragraph 63);
mixing said second stream and the fourth stream producing a syngas product stream (stream 28/fourth stream is combined with stream 30/second stream to produce a syngas product stream, or stream 32, see Fig. 1); and
feeding the syngas product stream into a product synthesis unit (stream 32 is fed to FT synthesis unit 38).
Regarding claim 2, Claxton further discloses:
combining said third stream with a hydrogen stream generating a fourth stream comprising carbon dioxide and hydrogen (hydrogen via line 26 is combined with hydrogen to produce a fourth stream inside the RWGS reactor 24);
feeding said fourth stream into the carbon dioxide-to-carbon monoxide conversion unit consisting of a Reverse Water Gas Shift (RWGS) reactor (reactor 24, see paragraph 54) to produce a fifth stream comprising carbon monoxide, hydrogen and unreacted carbon dioxide (stream 28 coming out of RWGS reactor in Fig. 1);
passing said fifth stream to a second separation zone for removing the unreacted carbon dioxide and producing a CO2 depleted syngas stream (see paragraph 38 which teaches taking the unreacted carbon dioxide in the RWGS effluent stream and separating it out into a carbon dioxide stream), wherein the unreacted carbon dioxide is recycled back into the third stream for combining with the hydrogen stream and feeding into the RWGS reactor (see paragraph 55 which discloses recycling the carbon dioxide separated from the effluent gas stream back to the RWGS reactor); and
combining the H2 and CO from the second stream and H2 and CO from the CO2 depleted syngas stream producing a syngas product stream (see paragraph 57 which discloses combining the RWGS derived gas in line 28 with purified H2/CO from unit 20 in line 30).
Regarding claim 5, Claxton further discloses mixing the syngas product stream (stream 32) with additional hydrogen (supplied from electrolysis unit 16 via conduit 34) for adjusting the stochiometric ratio requirement of the product synthesis unit.
Regarding claim 6, Claxton further discloses the product synthesis unit is a Fischer Tropsch reactor (see abstract).
Regarding claim 7, Claxton further discloses said first and second separation zone comprises a CO2 selective solvent (such as amine, see paragraph 12), a CO2 adsorption step (paragraph 12) and a solvent regeneration step to produce the desired carbon dioxide streams (see paragraph 12 which discloses regenerating the amine to produce a CO2 rich stream).
Regarding claim 15, Claxton further discloses the RWGS reactor is a heated catalytic multitube reactor design, an autothermal catalytic reactor, a fixed bed adiabatic catalytic reactor, or a combination thereof (see paragraph 33 which discloses that the RWGS reactor is an autothermal fixed bed reactor).
Regarding claim 17, Claxton further discloses the RWGS reactor is a high temperature autothermal POX type reactor (the RWGS reactor of Claxton is a vessel that can withstand elevated temperatures and therefore qualifies as a “POX type reactor”, with no catalyst (see paragraph 40 which discloses a partial combustion reactor that may be non-catalytic).
Regarding claim 18, Claxton further discloses said first synthesis gas stream is produced from partial oxidation, gasification and/or reforming of a carbonaceous feedstocks (paragraph 52 which discloses gasification).
Regarding claim 19, Claxton further discloses the carbonaceous material comprises a municipal solid waste (paragraph 52).
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.
Claim(s) 22, 24 and 26-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Claxton (US 2023/0295517).
Regarding claim 22, Claxton does not disclose the addition of an addition source of CO2 to the CO2 stream exiting the CO2 separator (stream 22).
However, Claxton teaches feeding recovered CO2 and hydrogen to a RWGS reactor to produce additional carbon monoxide, thereby increasing the carbon available for the FT process and increasing hydrocarbon yield. Claxton therefore recognizes that the amount of carbon dioxide fed to the RWGS reactor affects the amount of carbon monoxide produced. CO2 feed rate was therefore recognized as a result-effective variable.
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to add additional CO2 to the RWGS feed stream in the interest of producing more CO and subsequently more FT hydrocarbon.
Claims 24, 26, 27 and 28 are all directed toward an alternative limitation in claim 22 that is not required (adding a reformed carbon rich stream). As such, these claims do not further limit the alternative of claim 22 that recites admixing an external input of CO2.
Claim(s) 9 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Claxton (US 2023/0295517) in view of Kishimoto (US 2021/0016226).
Regarding claim 9 and 10, Claxton teaches regenerating a solvent that removes carbon dioxide in the carbon dioxide separator (see paragraph 12), but Claxton does not teach that hydrogen is utilized to strip the carbon dioxide from the solvent.
Kishimoto also discloses a process for removing carbon dioxide from a gas stream (see abstract).
Kishimoto, like Claxton, teaches removing carbon dioxide in an absorber utilizing an amine compound as the solvent (see paragraph 34). Kishimoto, also like Claxton, teaches that the amine solvent can be regenerated (see abstract). Kishimoto teaches that the regenerator utilizes a stripping gas that includes hydrogen as it is insoluble in the solvent(paragraph 32). Kishimoto teaches such a process as well-known technique to remove carbon dioxide from an amine solvent (paragraph 34).
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to utilize a hydrogen stripping gas, as taught by Kishimoto, in the regeneration step of modified Claxton as such a modification would allow for the removal of carbon dioxide from the amine solvent.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Claxton (US 2023/0295517) in view of Chen (US 2018/0086984).
Regarding claim 14, Claxton teaches a RWGS reactor in order to convert the CO2 to CO and does not teach a CO2 electrolysis unit.
Chen also discloses a process for converting CO2 to CO (see abstract).
Chen, like Claxton, teaches producing carbon monoxide from carbon dioxide and then sending the produced carbon monoxide downstream to a Fischer Tropsch system to generate hydrocarbon (paragraph 34). Chen, however, teaches a different mechanism to generate CO from CO2 which utilizes a CO2/H2O electrolysis unit that produces a RWGS reaction on the cathode size (see paragraph 34).
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to utilize the CO2/H2O electrolysis unit of Chen in the process of modified Claxton in order to produce CO for hydrocarbon synthesis. Such a modification is nothing more than a simple substitution of one known CO2 to CO process for another to yield entirely predictable results.
Relevant Prior Art
US 2017/0197829 – Discloses a syngas stream comprising carbon dioxide where the CO2 is removed and sent to a RWGS reactor to produce CO, similar to the instant invention.
US 2008/0283411 – Discloses a CO2 electrolysis unit that produces CO from a CO2 containing stream and sends the CO to a downstream hydrocarbon producing process, similar to the claimed invention.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW J MERKLING whose telephone number is (571)272-9813. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8am-6pm.
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, Basia Ridley can be reached at 571-272-1453. 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.
/MATTHEW J MERKLING/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725
Prosecution Insights