DETAILED ACTION
The present application is a Continuation (CON) of PCT/JP2023/007030.
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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Should applicant desire to obtain the benefit of foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) prior to declaration of an interference, a certified English translation of the foreign application must be submitted in reply to this action. 37 CFR 41.154(b) and 41.202(e).
Failure to provide a certified translation may result in no benefit being accorded for the non-English application.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because there is a typographical error in line 1. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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 1-6 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 1 recites the limitation “a distillation unit configured to distill hydrocarbons, wherein hydrocarbons are distilled in the distillation unit by reaction heat generated by generating hydrocarbons in the reaction unit, and carbon dioxide absorbed or adsorbed in the carbon dioxide collection unit is separated by a low-temperature heat medium that has a temperature lower than a high-temperature heat medium being a heat medium introduced to the distillation unit, as a result of consuming part of the reaction heat in the distillation unit” in lines 6-11.
The term “heat medium” renders the claim indefinite, because it is unclear what structural and/or chemical requirements are necessary to meet the claimed invention, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
The phrase “low-temperature heat medium” in Claim 1 contains a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “low” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
The phrase “high-temperature heat medium” in Claim 1 contains a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim Interpretation - 35 USC § 112(f)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “heat medium” in Claim 1.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “a distillation unit configured to distill hydrocarbons, wherein hydrocarbons are distilled in the distillation unit by reaction heat generated by generating hydrocarbons in the reaction unit, and carbon dioxide absorbed or adsorbed in the carbon dioxide collection unit is separated by a low-temperature heat medium that has a temperature lower than a high-temperature heat medium being a heat medium introduced to the distillation unit, as a result of consuming part of the reaction heat in the distillation unit” in lines 6-11. This recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Based on the original disclosure, the term “heat medium” is interpreted to be steam and/or oil (See Applicant’s Specification, filed 06/10/2024: [0045]).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamata et al. (JP 2021187773 A) in view of Shah et al. (US 2007/0232706).
Claim 1. Kamata discloses A reaction system (Abstract; [0014]), comprising:
a carbon dioxide collection unit (recovery section 30, capture unit 80) configured to collect carbon dioxide by an absorption process (absorption tower 31) or an adsorption process ([0016]; [0017]; [0022]);
a reaction unit (reactor 60) configured to generate hydrocarbons from a raw material containing hydrogen and carbon dioxide ([0014]; [0028] – [0031]); and
a distillation unit (separation device 70 comprising separation towers 71, 72) configured to distill hydrocarbons, wherein hydrocarbons are distilled in the distillation unit (70) by reaction heat generated by generating hydrocarbons in the reaction unit (70), and carbon dioxide absorbed or adsorbed in the carbon dioxide collection unit (30) is separated by a low-temperature heat medium (low-temperature side separation tower 72) that has a temperature lower than a high-temperature heat medium (high-temperature side separation tower 71) being a heat medium introduced to the distillation unit (70), as a result of consuming part of the reaction heat in the distillation unit ([0032] – [0035]).
Kamata discloses a hydrocarbon production system and method (Abstract; [0014] – [0042]); wherein the system comprises:
a recovery section (30) that recovers carbon dioxide from gas containing carbon dioxide ([0014]; [0016] – [0024]), wherein the recovery unit includes: an absorption tower (31) that absorbs carbon dioxide with an alkaline solution, and a steam-type heater (40) that heats the alkaline solution through a circulation pipe (39) such that carbon dioxide is dissipated from the alkaline solution at the bottom or the dissipating tank (36) ([0016]; [0017]; [0022]);
a reactor (60) that produces hydrocarbons from a raw material containing carbon dioxide recovered by the recovery unit (30), carbon dioxide captured by a capture unit (80), and hydrogen ([0014]; [0028] – [0031]);
a separation device (70) that includes a high-temperature side separation tower (71) and a low-temperature side separation tower (72), configured to separate hydrocarbons and water from the exhaust gas discharged from the reactor (60) ([0032] – [0035]); and
a capture unit (80) that captures unreacted carbon dioxide discharged from the reactor (60) ([0036] – [0038]).
Although Kamata does not expressly disclose the terminology (distillation unit) as instantly claimed, Kamata discloses that the separation towers (which is a genus of a distillation tower) are capable of separating the hydrocarbons based on carbon content and molecular structure ([0032] – [0035]). The Examiner notes that a distillation tower can separate hydrocarbon components based on carbon atoms based on their differing boiling points or relative volatilities due to their carbon atoms and molecular structure. Moreover, Shah teaches a method for producing carbon dioxide from a synthesis gas stream via an adsorption process and a distillation process ([00042]; [0055] – [0056]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the separation device in Kamata with a distillation tower, as taught by Shah, in order to separate hydrocarbons with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim 2. Kamata in view of Shah teach The reaction system according to claim 1. Kamata discloses wherein the distillation unit (70) distills hydrocarbons being generated in the reaction unit (60) ([0032] – [0035]).
Claim 3. Kamata in view of Shah teach The reaction system according to claim 1. Kamata discloses wherein carbon dioxide contained in the raw material includes carbon dioxide being collected in the carbon dioxide collection unit (30, 80) ([0028]; [0032] – [0035]).
Claim 4. Kamata in view of Shah teach The reaction system according to claim 1. Kamata discloses wherein the carbon dioxide collection unit (30, 80) includes: an absorption unit (absorption tower 31) configured to absorb carbon dioxide into an absorption solution (alkaline solution) ([0016]; [0017]; [0022]); and a separation unit (separation device 70) configured to separate, from the absorption solution, carbon dioxide being absorbed into the absorption solution, and the separation unit (70) separates carbon dioxide by the low-temperature heat medium (72) ([0032] – [0035]).
Claim 5. Kamata in view of Shah teach The reaction system according to claim 1. Regarding the limitation: wherein the reaction unit includes a fixed bed reactor, Kamata discloses that any known reactor can be used ([0030]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to utilize a well-known reactor, such as a fixed bed reactor, in Kamata to produce hydrocarbons with a reasonable expectation of success.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6 is 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 (including any corrections and/or rebuttals required by 35 U.S.C. § 112(b)).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Crystal J. Lee whose telephone number is (571)272-6242. The examiner can normally be reached M-F from 9:00am - 5:00pm.
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, Sally Merkling can be reached at (571) 272-6297. 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.
/CRYSTAL J LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1738
Prosecution Insights