DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are pending and under consideration in this 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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5 and 7-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Abdulrasheed, et al. "Dry reforming of CH4 over stabilized Ni-La@ KCC-1 catalyst: Effects of La promoter and optimization studies using RSM." Journal of CO2 Utilization 37 (2020): 230-239 (“Abdulrasheed”).
Regarding claim 1, Abdulrasheed teaches a method for dry reforming of methane (see e.g. page 231, second column, first full paragraph, starting “Catalysts performance for…”). The catalyst used in Abdulrasheed is a fibrous catalyst, and can comprises either lanthanum or lanthanum ad nickel (see e.g. page 231, paragraph spanning first and second columns, starting “For all catalysts…”). An H2 containing feed gas is first fed into the reactor containing the catalyst to reduce the catalyst (see e.g. page 231, second column, first full paragraph, starting “Catalysts performance for…”). After terminating the H2 feed, a feed stream comprising methane and carbon dioxide is fed into the reactor (Id.), which is reformed to produce syngas containing hydrogen and carbon monoxide and regenerating the non-reduced catalyst (see e.g. page 235, paragraph spanning first and second columns, starting “The conversion of…”). The temperature during the reaction was 550-850 °C, which is within the claimed range (see e.g. page 235, first paragraph, starting “The catalytic activity…”).
Regarding claim 2, the Abdulrasheed teaches that the catalyst can be reduced using 10% H2, which is within the claimed range (see e.g. page 232, second full paragraph, starting “Temperature-programmed reduction…”).
Regarding claim 3, Abdulrasheed teaches that the H2-containing gas can further comprise argon (see e.g. page 232, second full paragraph, starting “Temperature-programmed reduction…”).
Regarding claim 4, Abdulrasheed teaches that the mixed feed gas can further comprise nitrogen (see e.g. page 231, second column, first full paragraph, starting “Catalysts performance for…”).
Regarding claim 5, Abdulrasheed teaches that the reactor can be a fixed bed reactor (see e.g. page 231, second column, first full paragraph, starting “Catalysts performance for…”).
Regarding claim 7, Abdulrasheed teaches reduction with the H2 containing gas at a flow rate of 20 ml/min, which is within the claimed range, and a temperature of 50-900 °C, which includes the claimed temperature (see e.g. page 232, second full paragraph, starting “Temperature-programmed reduction…”).
Regarding claim 8, Abdulrasheed teaches using a GHSV for the reaction of 10,000-50,000 mL/gh (see e.g. page 232, paragraph spanning first and second columns, starting “To study the…”). Abdulrasheed further teaches using 0.2 g catalyst, which results in a flow rate of 33 – 167 mL/min (see e.g. page 231, second column, first full paragraph, starting “Catalysts performance for…”). Examiner notes that the instant specification explicitly defines the term “about” as including up to ± 20% of the stated value (see instant specification at page 11, lines 4-13). Accordingly, the range taught by Abdulrasheed overlaps with “about 30 mL/min” as recited in claim 8.
Regarding claim 9, Abdulrasheed teaches that the residue stream has a H2 to CO ratio of 0.4 – 1.4 depending on the conditions used, the entirety of which is within the claimed range (see e.g. FIG. 6c on page 236).
Regarding claim 10, Abdulrasheed teaches a total yield of between 30-90% depending on conditions based on the amount of CH4 in the feed gas (see e.g. FIG. 6a on page 236).
Regarding claim 11, Abdulrasheed teaches a CO yield within the claimed ranges (see e.g. FIG.’s 6a-6c on page 236).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6 and 12-20 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 a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 6 recites that the method uses a specific type of fluidized bed reactor. In contrast, Abdulrasheed teaches that the method uses a fixed bed reactor (see e.g. page 231, second column, first full paragraph, starting “Catalysts performance for…”). There is no teaching or suggestion in Abdulrasheed that would lead one of ordinary skill in the art to use a fluidized bed reactor having a propeller agitator as recited in claim 6.
Claim 12 recites a specific method of making the catalyst. The claimed method uses La2O3 as the lanthanum source. This is a different method than the method taught by Abdulrasheed, which uses lanthanum nitrate that is later converted to La2O3 (see e.g. page 231, paragraph spanning first and second columns, starting “For all catalysts…”). Likewise, claim 18 recites that the Ni/FSL catalyst is made by first producing the FSL structure and then adding a nickel salt. In contrast, Abdulrasheed teaches a one-pot process where the lanthanum and nickel are added simultaneously to the silica (Id.). Abdulrasheed teaches that the method for making the catalyst is critical, as the efficiency of the reaction depends upon the surface structure of the catalyst (see e.g. page 231, first full paragraph, starting “The rate and efficiency…”). The specific synthesis route of Abdulrasheed also results in long-term stability of the catalyst due to the confinement of the metal particles in the support framework (see e.g. paragraph spanning pages 230-231, starting “From our previous study…”). Given these teachings, it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the synthesis route of Abdulrasheed to use La2O3 directly rather than the nitrate salt as recited in claim 12. Likewise, claim 18 recites that the Ni/FSL catalyst is made by first producing the FSL structure and then adding a nickel salt. Claims 13-17 and 19 depend from claims 12 or 18 and are novel and nonobvious for the same reasons.
Claim 20 recites specific amounts of lanthanum, nickel, silica, and oxygen in the catalyst. These ranges are far different than those taught by Abdulrasheed. Specifically, Abdulrasheed teaches 5% La2O3 and 5% NiO, which places the concentrations of lanthanum and nickel well outside of the claimed range (see e.g. Table 1 on page 232).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC S SHERMAN whose telephone number is (703)756-4784. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30-5:00 ET.
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, Anthony Zimmer can be reached at (571)270-3591. 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.
/E.S.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1736
/ANTHONY J ZIMMER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1736
Prosecution Insights