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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicants’ election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-16, in the reply filed on 09/03/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 17-32 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 09/03/2026.
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.
(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, 2, 4– 8, 10, 12– 14, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Abatzoglou US 2005/0220695 (Abatzoglou).
Regarding claim 1, Abatzoglou discloses a carbon sequestration and dry reforming process for the production of synthesis gas and sequestered carbon from carbon dioxide and organic material (Abatzoglou, Abstract, Title) (i.e. a hydrogen production method),
wherein, a reactant gas (i.e. a source gas) comprises organic material and carbon dioxide undergo a carbon sequestration and dry reforming process (Abatzoglou, [0014]– [0016]). Dry reforming with CO2 is also a known process to produce or refine synthesis gas (Abatzoglou, [0007], equation 1) (i.e. performing a dry reforming reaction to obtain synthesis gas comprising carbon monoxide and hydrogen). Wherein, organic material is a hydrocarbon, e.g. methane, oxygenated organic molecules, bio-oils, or bio-fuels (Abatzoglou, [0071], [0079]). Wherein, at least one catalyst is provided for dry reforming (i.e. a dry reforming catalyst) the reactant gas mixture (Abatzoglou, [0014]),
wherein, Abatzoglou provides a class of catalysts that is capable of reforming organic gases to carbon monoxide and hydrogen while generating carbon deposits (i.e. solid carbon) (Abatzoglou, [0012]). Carbon deposits are produced from the Boudouard reaction for CO disproportionation i.e. 2 CO(g) ➔ CO2(g) + C(s), the dry reforming of methane CH4 + CO2 ➔ CO(g) + H2(g) + H2O(g) + C(s), the Bosch reaction i.e. CO(g) + H2(g) ➔ H2O(g) + C(s), (Abatzoglou, [0007]– [0012], [0079] and [0107], equations 2, and 5– 7) (i.e. performing a solid carbon capture reaction by reacting the synthesis gas in the presence of a catalyst for capturing solid carbon to generate solid carbon.) The reactant gas mixture is at least partly reformed into a product gas mixture (i.e. a processed gas) (Abatzoglou, [0014]),
wherein, the product gas mixture 142 enters a cyclone 128 for solid-gas separation, wherein the syngas is used as an energy vector, and is used in other fuel cells after a step of hydrogen purification (i.e. to obtain hydrogen) (Abatzoglou, [0106]), wherein the product gas mixture would necessarily comprise an amount of carbon dioxide by converting an amount of CO during the Boudouard reaction (Abatzoglou, [0008], [0107]) and hydrogen, before the step of hydrogen purification (Abatzoglou, [0106], Figure 5) (i.e. separating the processed gas into an emission gas).
wherein, the dry reforming of methane was performed at 730 °C (i.e. T1) and in the same reactor, the Boudouard and CO reduction reactions took place at a temperature of 500 °C (i.e. T2). The product gas contained 16.2 CO and 29.2 CO2 mol%, (Abatzoglou, [0124], table 6). 16.2/29.2 = 0.555, inputting (CO/CO2) = 0.555 and T1 = 730 °C into the equation of claim 1: 750– 300/(1+e^(Inflection – (CO/CO2)/Gradient) or 750– 300(1+e^((1.587 – 0.555) / 2.610); 750– (300/2.49) = 629.3. The value 629.3, gives a range of temperatures that satisfy equation 1: 450< T2 <629.3. Abatzoglou performs the solid carbon capture reaction at a temperature of 500 °C (Abatzoglou, [0124], table 6). Therefore, the process of Abatzoglou necessarily satisfies the equation of claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, Abatzoglou discloses wherein the Boudouard and CO reduction reactions took place at a temperature of 500 °C (Abatzoglou, [0124]), because carbon deposition occurs, T2 must necessarily be equal to or higher than the activity onset of the catalyst for capturing solid carbon.
Regarding claim 4, Abatzoglou discloses the minimum temperature of dry reforming methane is about 627 °C and at 800 °C the conversion of methane and carbon dioxide is 98 and 97 mol% respectively (Abatzoglou, [0078]– [0080]), because the dry reforming of methane is occurring, T1 must necessarily be equal to or higher than the activity onset temperature of the dry reforming catalyst.
Regarding claim 5, Abatzoglou discloses the reactant gas mixture is preferably preheated to a temperature ranging between 700– 750 °C for dry reforming (i.e. the reaction temperature of T1 is 600 °C or higher
Regarding claim 6, Abatzoglou discloses the product gas mixture 342 resulting from the reactor line operating in carbon sequestration and gas reforming mode is recovered and sent to the first heat exchanger 320 for pre-heating the biogas 318 which enters the dry reforming reactors 324 and 326 (Abatzoglou, [0140]– [0143], Figure 12) (i.e. recovering heat from the emission gas and using the heat for dry reforming reaction).
Regarding claim 7, Abatzoglou discloses syngas is used as an energy vector. It can be also used directly in solid oxide fuel cells (Abatzoglou, [0106]) (i.e. wherein the recovering is performed by introducing the emission gas into a fuel cell).
Regarding claim 8, Abatzoglou discloses syngas is used as an energy vector. It can be burned in a burner (i.e. combusting the emission gas) 144 as a fuel source (Abatzoglou, [0106]).
Regarding claim 10, Abatzoglou discloses a carbon sequestration and dry reforming reactor and apparatus for the catalytic conversion of organic gases to carbon monoxide and hydrogen while generating carbon deposits (Abatzoglou, [0012], [0023]) (i.e. a hydrogen production system)
wherein, a dry reforming reactor has an input of a reactant gas mixture (i.e. a source gas) composed of an organic material, e.g. methane (Abatzoglou, [0071]), and carbon dioxide to carbon monoxide and hydrogen while generating carbon deposits (Abatzoglou, [0012], [0023]), wherein the reactor has at least one catalyst (i.e. a dry reforming catalyst) (Abatzoglou, [0020]– [0025]) (i.e. a dry reforming reactor that performs a dry reforming reaction to obtain a synthesis gas),
wherein, a class of catalysts that is capable of reforming organic gases to carbon monoxide and hydrogen while generating carbon deposits (Abatzoglou, [0012]) (i.e. performs a solid carbon capture reaction by reacting synthesis gas in the presence of a catalyst). Wherein, the reactant gas mixture, e.g. methane and carbon dioxide, is reformed into a product gas mixture (i.e. obtaining a processed gas) comprising synthesis gas and solid carbon particles (i.e. obtaining solid carbon) (Abatzoglou, [0014]),
wherein, the product gas mixture undergoes a step of hydrogen purification (Abatzoglou, [0106]),
wherein, thermocouple 44 and pressure gages 46 monitor and control the process (Abatzoglou, [0076], Figure 1),
wherein, a thermocouple 244, which takes the temperature at ten (10) points along the reactor, including in the catalyst bed where carbon deposition occurs, was disposed in the center of the reactor 220, and a second thermocouple 224 at the bottom of the reactor allows for an accurate monitoring of the temperature profile (Abatzoglou, [0118], Figure 6 and 7),
wherein, the organic material and the carbon dioxide in the reactant gas mixture (i.e. a source gas) are in a molar ratio ranging between 0.3 and 3 (Abatzoglou, [0077], claim 5), which necessarily means the composition of the reactant gas mixture are controlled,
wherein, the dry reforming of methane was performed at 730 °C (i.e. T1) and in the same reactor, the Boudouard and CO reduction reactions took place at a temperature of 500 °C (i.e. T2). The product gas contained 16.2 CO and 29.2 CO2 mol%, (Abatzoglou, [0124], table 6). 16.2/29.2 = 0.555, inputting (CO/CO2) = 0.555 and T1 = 730 °C into the equation of claim 10: 750– 300/(1+e^(Inflection – (CO/CO2)/Gradient) or 750– 300(1+e^((1.587 – 0.555) / 2.610); 750– (300/2.49) = 629.3. The value 629.3, gives a range of temperatures that satisfy equation 2: 450< T2 <629.3. Abatzoglou performs the solid carbon capture reaction at a temperature of 500 °C (Abatzoglou, [0124], table 6). Therefore, the process of Abatzoglou necessarily satisfies the equation of claim 10.
Regarding claim 12, Abatzoglou discloses that the minimum reaction temperature for the dry reforming of methane is approximately 627 °C, and that the reactant gas mixture is preferably preheated to a temperature ranging between 700– 750 °C (Abatzoglou, [0078], [0145]) (i.e. the first thermostat regulates the reaction temperature T1 to a temperature equal to or higher than an activity onset temperature of the dry reforming catalyst). Wherein, the Boudouard and CO reduction reactions took place at a temperature of 500 °C (Abatzoglou, [0124]), because carbon deposition occurs T2 must necessarily be equal to or higher than the activity onset of the catalyst for capturing solid carbon.
Regarding claim 13, Abatzoglou discloses the product gas mixture (i.e. an emission gas) 342 resulting from the reactor line operating in carbon sequestration and gas reforming mode is recovered and sent to the first heat exchanger (i.e. heat recovery module) 320 for pre-heating the biogas 318 which enters the dry reforming reactors 324 and 326 (Abatzoglou, [0140]– [0143], Figure 12)
Regarding claim 14, Abatzoglou discloses the product gas mixture 342 resulting from the reactor line operating in carbon sequestration and gas reforming mode is recovered and sent to the first heat exchanger 320 for pre-heating the biogas 318 which enters the dry reforming reactors 324 and 326 (Abatzoglou, [0140]– [0143], Figure 12) (i.e. where the heat is used for heating the dry reforming reactor)
Regarding claim 16, wherein product gas 414 is sent to solid oxide fuel cell 410 before heat exchanger 420 which heats reactant gas 440 (Abatzoglou, [0149]) (i.e. the heat recovery module comprise a fuel cell)
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.
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.
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.
Claims 3 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abatzoglou as applied to claim 1 above and would be obvious in view of Abatzoglou.
Regarding claim 3, Abatzoglou teaches that the reactant gas mixture can contain a mixture of CH4 and CO2 in a molar ratio ranging between 1/3 and 3/1, or a molar ratio of 0.3 to 3 (Abatzoglou, [0077], [0145], claim 5) (i.e. the content molar ratio CH4/CO2 of a content of the methane to a content of the carbon dioxide in the source gas is 0.5 or less).
As set forth in the MPEP 2144.05, in the case where claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2D 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 11, Abatzoglou teaches that the reactant gas mixture can contain a mixture of CH4 and CO2 in a molar ratio ranging between 1/3 and 3/1, or a molar ratio of 0.3 to 3 (Abatzoglou, [0077], [0145], claim 5) (i.e. a content molar ratio CH4/CO2 of a content of the methane to a content of the carbon dioxide in the source gas is 0.5 or less).
As set forth in the MPEP 2144.05, in the case where claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2D 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Claims 9 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abatzoglou as applied to claim 1 and 10, respectively, above, and further in view of US Patent Doshi US 4690695 A (Doshi).
Regarding claims 9 and 15, Abatzoglou does not teach wherein the separating the processed gas is performed with a hydrogen separation membrane or wherein the hydrogen separator comprises a hydrogen separation membrane.
With respect to the difference, Doshi teaches an enhanced gas separation process wherein feed streams are separated by the use of one or more permeable membranes for bulk separation and for residual product gas recovery, e.g. hydrogen from mixtures thereof with methane (Doshi, Abstract, Title).
As Doshi explicitly teaches hydrogen-methane refinery off-gas mixtures are illustrative of the types of gas mixtures suitable for treatment in the practice of the invention. A 40 mol % hydrogen in such a hydrogen-methane or hydrogen-hydrocarbon (predominantly methane) mixture is an example of the relatively low purity gas mixtures that can be advantageously processed to produce high purity product (Doshi, column 10, lines 58– line 65).
Doshi and Abatzoglou are analogous art as they are both drawn to production and purification of hydrogen gas from mixtures with hydrocarbons, e.g. methane.
In light of the motivation of using permeable membranes for the purification of hydrogen from streams comprising hydrocarbons, as taught by Doshi.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date, to substitute the hydrogen purification process of Abatzoglou for the permeable membranes of Doshi, in order to purify hydrogen from hydrocarbons, e.g. methane, and obtain the predictable result of high purity hydrogen, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, A).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ritchie E Hernandez whose telephone number is (571)270-1711. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9-4.
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, Ching-Yiu (Coris) Fung can be reached at (571)270-5713. 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.
/R.E.H./Examiner, Art Unit 1732
/KELING ZHANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1732
Prosecution Insights