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
The election is noted. The proposed scheme is noted, and precludes the additional inputs of claim 9-12, 14 and 15. However, the search has been extended to cover (only) the embodiments of these claims.
Claims 16-22, 24-30 are withdrawn.
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, 3-15 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.
In claim 1 line 8, ‘output stream of the first chamber to a second input stream’ is unclear and without antecedent as to what the second stream is. There is no first input stream to the second reactor. The claim should say ‘… chamber as’ an input stream because it is the only input stream. Further, ‘the’ second chamber (lines 8-9) has no antecedent. Similarly, line 14 should also say ‘… dioxide as an input stream’. Claim 1 as written requires 4 streams (unidentified first input stream, unidentified second input stream, 1st chamber output stream, oxygen/CO2) when there are actually only 2. The claim as written is unclear since two streams are not identified. Note also the elected scheme is impossible in claim 1 because applicant elected an embodiment where the output of the RWGS reactor is not added to another stream. The claims would be proper if the above changes were made, however. Clarification is requested.
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.
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, 3-8, 13, 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DeSarkar 20220081289.
DeSarkar teaches, especially in paras 22-27, 48-51 and 80-82, a two-stage reactor having RWGS and ATR (which can be POX) stages where the initial feed is H2 along with CO2 and a small amount of hydrocarbons. Since the RWGS reaction forms steam and methane is present, the converting of claim 1 lines 12-13 takes place in situ. The output of the RWGS is fed into a POX reactor, along with CO2 and optionally oxygen. The product gas is exhausted from the POX reactor, inherently meeting the last 3 lines of claim 1, due to LeChatlier principle (removing products drives the equilibrium to make more of them). See also para 65. It is important to note that when a reactor is given a name (POX, methanation, ATR, etc) many different reactions can occur within it, based upon temperature, pressure, gas ratios, catalysts, etc. This differs in not requiring the methane of the first step nor oxygen of the second reactor, however they are taught as options and thus obvious.
For claims 3 and 4, the reagents are controlled. See para 27.
For claim 5, para 48 teaches a POX reactor.
For claim 6, see para 154. It is obvious to capture heat by exchange and save energy costs.
For claim 7, using electrolysis to provide H2 and O2 is taught; see para 6.
For claim 8, quench of the second reactor effluent is taught in para 58.
For claim 13, see fig. 3B, which shows a recycle arrow within the box marked A and para 154.
For claim 14, para 58 teaches recycling the effluent back to the reactor.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-12, 15 are allowed since the prior art does not teach or suggest the additional CO2 as recited in the claim 9.
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