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
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, including species including claims 1, 9-12 in the reply filed on09/30/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that Applicant respectfully traverses the applicability of the Begeal reference. This is not found persuasive because Begeal is not used to reject any claim, but to demonstrate how the special feature is known in the art, and it is used as evidence.
Furthermore examination is not limited to search. In addition to the search, much of the examination is devoted to determining patentability of claims. Said determination requires the formulation of rejection and responding to applicant’s arguments with regard to the same. The additional search and the determination of patentablility for multiple, patentability distinct species would place serious burden on the examiner.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Information Disclosure Statement
The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters "30" and "22" have both been used to designate tubular on Fig. 1, however, on Figs. 2 and 3, “22” is not present only “30” and “30”. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description:”10 “ or “100”. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract is not a concise explanation of the invention. 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 Objections
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 10 recites catalyst “…sulfided CoMo, CoMo-ZSM-5, Co-ZSM-5, Ga-ZSM-5, NiW, “ that should be spelled out. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the steps” and "the one or more chemical products" in lines 3 and 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
All the claims dependent of claim 1 are also rejected.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the step of reacting” and “the step of contacting” " in lines 2 and 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
All the claims dependent of claim 9 are also rejected.
Claim 11 recites the limitation " the step of reducing pressure " in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the step of separating" and “the hydrogen” in lines 1 and 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 is 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. It is unclear if the step of separating occurs in in the well or at the surface since the gas stream produced comprising the hydrogen and a liquid product stream that includes the carbon disulfide. The claim is going to be examined as best understood by the examiner.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) as being anticipated by Nevison (US 2018/0265769 A1) (“Nevison” herein)
(Claims contain only selected species)
Claim 1
Nevison discloses, as best understood based on the indefinites above, a method for the in-situ production of one or more chemical products in a well that extends into a subterranean formation that produces natural gas, the method comprising
the steps of: [0034-0040]
admitting the natural gas into the well from the subterranean formation; [0014-0018 ]
directing the natural gas into a downhole reactor in the well; [0034-0040]
reacting the natural gas within the downhole reactor to produce an intermediate product stream that includes the one or more chemical products; [0042-0043,0064] and
withdrawing the intermediate product stream and the one or more chemical products from the downhole reactor. [0043, 0064]
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nevison, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Srinivas et al. (US 2003/0194366 A1) (“Snirivas” herein)
Claim 9
Nevison discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the natural gas includes methane and hydrogen sulfide [0016].
Nevison however does not explicitly disclose the step of reacting the natural gas within the downhole reactor further comprises the step of contacting the methane and hydrogen sulfide with a catalyst within the downhole reactor to oxidize the methane to produce the one or more chemical products that include hydrogen and carbon disulfide.
Snirivas teaches the above limitation (See paragraphs 0042, 0089, & 0105 → Snirivas teaches this limitation in that the catalysts of this invention have been operated for the oxidation of H.sub.2S into SO.sub.2 using dry feed, humidified feed, and feed containing hydrocarbons (saturated and aromatic). Methane and other alkanes are inert during H.sub.2S oxidation over these catalysts under the conditions employed, and consequently, H.sub.2S can be oxidized into SO.sub.2 in-situ in natural gas streams. The catalysts of this invention which have been found to exhibit the listed properties are mixed metal oxides comprising a low oxidation activity metal oxide selected from the group of titania, zirconia, silica, alumina or mixtures thereof in combination with one, two, three, four or more metal oxides having a higher oxidation activity compared to the low oxidation activity metal oxide. The higher oxidation activity metal oxides can be transition metal oxides, lanthanide metal oxides or both selected from oxides of V, Cr, Mn, Fe, Co, Ni, Cu, Nb, Mo, Tc, Ru, Rh, Pd, Hf, Ta, W, Re, Os, Ir, Pt, Au, La, Ce, Pr, Nd, Pm, Sm, Eu, Gd, Tb, Dy, Ho, Er, Tm, Yb, Lu, or mixtures thereof. Preferred high oxidation activity transition metal oxides are those that are oxides of V, Cr, Mn, Fe, Co, Ni, Cu, Nb, Mo, W, and mixtures thereof. Preferred high oxidation activity lanthanide metal oxide is that of La. More preferred higher oxidation activity metal oxides are oxides of V, Cr, Mn, Fe, Co, Ni, Cu, Nb, Mo, or mixtures thereof. Yet more preferred higher oxidation activity metal oxides are oxides of Nb, Mo, Cr, Mn, Fe, Co or Cu. Preferred mixed oxide catalysts of this invention comprise two, three or four high oxidation activity metal oxides. the inventive process can be operated downstream of a chemical or catalytic process in which various sulfur-containing species in a gas stream are converted to H.sub.2S. More specifically, the H.sub.2S oxidization methods herein can be combined with known methods (e.g., hydrogenation/hydrolysis process) for converting other sulfur containing species, such as SO.sub.2, COS, CS.sub.2 and/or mercaptans (e.g, RSH, R is aliphatic) to H.sub.2S.) for the purpose of addition to natural gas streams and synthesis gas, the processes herein are also specifically applicable to removal of H.sub.2S from refinery fuel gas, from gas streams of CO.sub.2 floods, from gases of geothermal sources, and from gases generated during waste water treatment. [0117]
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Nevison, with the above limitation, as a taught by Srinivas, in order to remove H.sub.2S.
Claim 10
Nevison teaches the method of claim 9, wherein the step of contacting the methane and hydrogen sulfide with a catalyst further comprises contacting the methane and hydrogen sulfide with a catalyst within the downhole reactor, wherein the catalyst is selected from the group consisting of molybdenum disulfide (MoS2), sulfided CoMo, CoMo-ZSM-5, Co-ZSM-5, Ga-ZSM-5, NiW, chromium sulfide, and combinations thereof. (Same as claim 9)
Claim 11
Nevison discloses the method of claim 9, wherein the step of reacting the natural gas within the downhole reactor further comprises the step of reducing pressure in the downhole reactor. [0028, 0042-0043, 0046, 0066]
Claim 12
Nevison teaches the method of claim 9 further comprises the step of separating the intermediate product stream. [0026, 0028, 0065]. Nevison however does not explicitly disclose separating into a gas product stream that includes the hydrogen and a liquid product stream that includes the carbon disulfide. (Same as claim 9)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Elias et al. (US 2020/0031737 A1) Heavy Aromatics Conversion Processes And Catalyst Compositions Used Therein teaches Disclosed are processes for conversion of a feedstock comprising C.sub.8+ aromatic hydrocarbons to lighter aromatic products in which the feedstock and optionally hydrogen are contacted in the presence of the catalyst composition under conversion conditions effective to dealkylate and transalkylate said C.sub.8+ aromatic hydrocarbons to produce said lighter aromatic products comprising benzene, toluene and xylene. The catalyst composition comprises a zeolite, a first metal, and a second metal, and is treated with a source of sulfur and/or a source of steam, Stephenson et al. (US 2021/0071068 A1) METHANE HYDRATES IMPROVED HYDROSTATIC PRESSURE OF FOAM FRACTURING teaches Gas hydrates are formed in treatment fluid in situ within the wellbore. Foaming of the treatment fluid can occur both during the introduction of the gas treatment fluid to form hydrates and downhole near the subterranean reservoir where the heat of the reservoir will cause the gas hydrates to revert back to a gaseous state. The method involves preparing a treatment fluid comprising an aqueous base fluid, and a viscosifying agent at the surface. This treatment fluid is then introduced into the wellbore. Also, at the surface, a liquefied natural gas is pressurized and then vaporized to produce a vaporized natural gas. The vaporized natural gas is introduced into the wellbore so as to mix with the treatment fluid also being introduced. The introduction is such that gas hydrates are formed from the natural gas in the treatment fluid in situ within the wellbore, and Wallace (US 2011/0146979 A1) INTEGRATED ENHANCED OIL RECOVERY PROCESS teaches The present invention relates to an enhanced oil recovery process that is integrated with a synthesis gas generation process, such as gasification or reforming, involving capture and recycle of a sour carbon dioxide stream for EOR use.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SILVANA C RUNYAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5415. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:30.
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, Doug Hutton can be reached at 571-272-4137. 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.
/SILVANA C RUNYAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3674 02/11/2026