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 .
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 15-20 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.
Claim 15 (i) is unclear as to what an ‘interface’ is. Is it merely when a liquid phase contacts a gas phase (above it)?
Claim 15 (ii) line 1 is ungrammatical.
Claim 17 is unclear as to what is ‘further’ required because the reaction already occurs.
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, 4, 6, 10-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Hiza et al. 20120275987.
Hiza teaches, especially in para 5 and fig. 1, sorbing syngas in a reactive aqueous solution and forming a precipitate.
For claim 4, see para 33.
For claim 6, fig. 1 shows the H2 generating synthetic fuel, see para 37.
For claim 10, ‘blue hydrogen’ is not an intrinsic property of the hydrogen, but rather a characterization of the process, especially in how the CO2 is treated. Since CCS is taught, the hydrogen is by definition blue.
For claim 11, a building material is taught in para 5.
For claim 12, aggregates are taught in para 5.
Claims 13 and 14 merely recite a property; hydrocarbons are known reducing agents and are chemicals.
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.
Claims 2, 3, 5, 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiza et al. 20120275987.
Hiza teaches, especially in para 5 and fig. 1, sorbing syngas in a reactive aqueous solution and forming a precipitate.
Hiza does not explicitly teach the reactor which makes the syngas (claim 15), nor the particulars of the dependent claims as noted below:
For claim 2, paragraph 32 implies a high yield of syngas, rendering the claim obvious.
For claim 3, para 43 teaches 30% CO2 in the syngas.
For claim 5, para 33 teaches optional ammonia sorbent, thus making an ammonium salt in water. Using it is obvious as an option for better CCS.
Claim 15 is an apparatus which tracks the features already discussed, noting that an apparatus is not limited to the (intended) process of use. Incorporating the ATR or SMR reactor to the process is obvious to treat the gas as it is produced.
For claim 16, para 30 teaches ATR and SMR reactions.
Claim 17 is taught in para 5.
Claim 19, in so far as it actually requires something, amine sorption is noted above (para 33).
Claim 7, 8 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiza as applied to claims 1 and 15 above, and further in view of Okada et al. 20160176784.
For claim 7, Hiza does not teach multiple CO2 absorbers, however Okada teaches, especially in para 87, making H2 and CO2, sorbing the CO2 in amine solvent. Fig. 1 teaches multiple CO2 treatment units.
For claim 8, amine compounds are taught in Hiza para 33.
For claim 20, para 55 teaches PSA to purify H2.
Using these in the process of Hiza is obvious to make purified gases.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiza/Okada as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Ravikumar 20170204335.
The above do not teach PSA to remove CO2, however unit 300 is recovery and not sequestration. Using PSA is thus obvious to make a purified CO2 stream for recycle; see paras 49, 55, 112-113 and 124.
Additionally, para 61 teaches PSA to separate H2.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STUART L HENDRICKSON whose telephone number is (571)272-1351. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 9 to 5. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Anthony Zimmer, can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/STUART L HENDRICKSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1736
Prosecution Insights