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 allowance or after an Office action under Ex Parte Quayle, 25 USPQ 74, 453 O.G. 213 (Comm'r Pat. 1935). 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, prosecution in this application has been reopened pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 4 June 2026 has been entered.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 4 June 2026 was filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the Office.
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.
Claims 10-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Doty et al. (WO 2008115933, hereinafter referred to as “Doty”) in view of Mamedov et al. (US 2018/0093888, from the IDS filed 4 June 2026, hereinafter referred to as “Mamedov”).
As to Claim 10 and 16: Doty teaches a method for producing syngas using a catalytic reverse water gas shift reaction (Abstract). Wherein the method includes a feed stream comprising at least hydrogen and carbon dioxide (Fig. 5, box 401), heating the feed stream (Fig. 5, box 403), introducing the feed stream into the RWGS reactor to obtain a syngas stream comprising a catalyst bed (Fig 5, box 406) with high temperatures and pressures and a low CH4 (Pg. 36, Lines 10-20), cooling the syngas in the heat exchanger against the feed stream (Fig. 5), cooling the syngas a second time (Fig. 5), separating the second cooled syngas stream to obtain a water rich and water depleted syngas stream (fig. 5), separating the water-depleted syngas stream in a CO2 removal unit to obtain a CO2 rich and CO2 depleted stream (Fig. 5) wherein the CO2 depleted stream has a H2toCO ratio of about 1:1 (Pg. 33, Lines 15-20) and combining the CO2 enriched stream with the feed stream (Fig. 5).
Doty does not teach that the catalyst is a non-methanation catalyst.
Mamedov teaches that a catalyst for syngas preparation can be cerium oxide or zirconium oxide [0030]. Mamedov and Doty are analogous art in that the are from the same field of endeavor, namely syngas production methods. At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to use the catalyst of Mamedov in the method of Doty because Mamedov teaches that cerium oxide and zirconium oxide can be used as catalysts [0030].
As to Claims 11-13: Doty and Mamedov renders obvious the method of claim 10 (supra). Doty further teaches that the feed ratio of H2/CO2 can be 1.04 (Pg. 27, Table 1).
As to Claims 14 and 15: Doty and Mamedov renders obvious the method of claim 10 (supra). Doty further teaches that the RWGS has a multi-tubular, fixed bed system comprising molten salt as the liquid (Doty, Claim 60) and the flow can be counter-current.
As to Claim 17: Doty and Mamedov renders obvious the method of claim 10 (supra). Doty further teaches that the feed can have a methane amount of 0.1% (Pg. 27, Table 1).
As to Claims 18-20: Doty and Mamedov renders obvious the method of claim 10 (supra). Doty further teaches that the temperature can be above 550K (Doty, Claim 19).
As to Claims 21-23: Doty and Mamedov renders obvious the method of claim 10 (supra). Doty further teaches that the dry mixture has a CO2 amount of less than 0.1 molar fraction (Pg. 33, Lines 10-20)
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW J OYER whose telephone number is (571)270-0347. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-6PM EST M-F.
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, Mark Eashoo can be reached at (571)272-1197. 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.
/Andrew J. Oyer/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1767
Prosecution Insights