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 .
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 6-8 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 6 recites the limitation "said CO2 removal unit" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "said CO2 removal unit" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "said CO2 removal unit" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ravikumar et al. US 2013/0079426, in view of Iyer et al. US 20090263316 (newly cited).
Regarding claims 1-2, Ravikumar teaches a plant that produces a synthesis gas comprising H2 from natural gas. See [0019]. The plant comprises a section comprising a reformer (reforming section) for conversion of the natural gas into a raw product gas ((320) in Figure 3), a burner ((220) in Figure 2) which is a fired device that produces heat, a fuel line ((333) in Figure 3) directed to the burner, and a purification section ((350) in Figure 3). The configuration of the reference is considered to read on the claimed language of a primary reformer without a second reformer. Ravikumar teaches a gasifier (gasification section) fed with solid biomass (carbonaceous feedstock), the product of which is used solely as fuel for burners heating the reformer. See Figures 2 and 3, [0011]-[0012], and [0019]-[0022]. Further considering that the reference teaches the primary reaction of steam reformation of methane (“CH4+H2O→CO+3H2” Para [0006]) and that the natural gas reformer 320 uses steam (Para [0024]).
The Ravikumar reference does not teach splitting the natural gas feed into a process gas fraction and a fuel fraction for a fired device.
Iyer et al. teaches hydrogen production from syngas via gasification with water gas shift for CO2 removal and sorbent regeneration (Abstract). The reference teaches using natural gas as fuel and a reforming step with CO2 with dry reforming (Para [0015]). The reference highlights that conventionally natural gas is split into two parts (a) for feed to the reformer and (b) fuel for the reformer and steam generator (Para [0263]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary level of skill in the art to split the natural gas feed of Ravikumar into a process gas fraction and a fuel fraction. The Ravikumar reference already teaches using a fuel gas for the burners that is produced from biomass gasification ([0011]). Splitting the natural gas stream from the feedstock would be applying a known technique to improve a known method to yield the predictable result of, minimizing external feed lines for a common raw material.
Regarding claims 3-4, Ravikumar teaches using a fluidized bed gasifier with the addition of limestone to remove sulfur which is a particles-agglomerating gasifier which provides ash/carbon (the solid byproduct (335) in Figure 3 contains this in Ravikumar) and a stream of raw synthesis gas ((333) in Figure 3) which is partially desulfurized. See [0022] and Figures 2-3 with associated text.
Regarding claim 5, Ravikumar teaches limestone which adsorbs sulfur. See [0022]. The limitation, “wherein an amount of sulfur present in said carbonaceous feedstock is absorbed by the sorbent in the form of calcium sulfide,” does not contribute any structural limitations to the plant claimed and is not being given patentable weight. Also, while Ravikumar mentions the formation of calcium sulfite, at least some calcium sulfide would also be produced because both the instant invention and that of Ravikumar use limestone for desulfurizing in a gasifier and thus the limestone in Ravikumar would, when treating a sulfur-containing feed, produce the same products as the instant invention. It has been held that where claimed and prior art products are produced by identical or substantially similar methods, a prima facie case of anticipation or obviousness has been established. MPEP 2112.01, citing In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). In other words, since the prior art teaches or at least suggests the claims' positive method steps, it matters not whether the prior art also teaches or suggests the features of the intended result of performing said steps- it would not be reasonable to expect different results when performing identical or at least substantially similar steps. Accord, MPEP 2145 II, citing, e.g., In re Baxter Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d 388, 392 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (stating that “Mere recognition of latent properties in the prior art does not render nonobvious an otherwise known invention”). See also In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (stating the “general rule that merely discovering and claiming a new benefit of an old process cannot render the [old] process again patentable”) (emphasis in original).
Regarding claims 7 and 8 the Ravikumar reference teaches a CO2 removal unit 350 for removing CO2. This can be a solvent based CO2 removal or membrane filtration (See Para [0021]). Solvent based removal is considered to read on washing. Additionally any CO2 capture is considered to read on “sequestration”. The reference teaches capturing CO2 and recycling it back to another part of the process (Para [0021]).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ravikumar et al. US 2013/0079426, in view of Iyer et al. US 20090263316 as applied to claims 1-5, 7 and 8 above, and further in view of Romiti US 20070287863.
Regarding claim 6, Ravikumar et al. does not teach an ammonia-urea integrated plant where the CO2 removal unit is connected to the ammonia-urea plant for producing urea.
Romiti teaches a system and process for urea production comprising first reforming natural gas and then urea production from ammonia and carbon dioxide produced in the first step (Abstract). The Romiti reference teaches that steam reforming of desulphurized natural gas and secondary reforming with air produced a stream of hydrogen, nitrogen and carbon dioxide (Para [0018] and [0019]). The reference further teaches a carbon dioxide recovery step from the produced stream in unit 9 (Para [0026]). The captured carbon dioxide is converted to urea in a urea synthesis unit (Para [0028] and [0032]).
At the time of filing it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary level of skill in the art to utilize carbon dioxide captured from the modified Ravikumar reference to make urea, as taught by Romiti. One would be motivated to do so because this would reduce the carbon dioxide discharged from the system and converted to a useful fertilizer material (See Romiti Para [0004]). The connection of the CO2 removal unit to the ammonia-urea integrated plant is given weight. The intended use language of “for producing urea” does not limit the claim directed to an apparatus. The manner of operating the device does not differentiate apparatus claim from the prior art (MPEP §2114 II). Intended-use language within the body of a claim likewise raises a question/doubt as to the limiting effect thereof. See MPEP 2103 I. C.
Absent structural differences between a claim and a prior art material or article, a recitation of the claimed material or article' s intended use cannot alone patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. See MPEP 2114 I-II, citing, e.g., Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (BPAI 1987); MPEP 2111.02 II, citing Rowe v. Dror, 112, F.3d 473, 478 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (stating that “where a patentee defines a structurally complete invention in the claim body and uses the preamble only to state a purpose or intended use for the invention, the preamble is not a claim limitation”). See also In re Zierden, 411 F.2d 1325, 1328 (CCPA 1969) (stating that “a mere statement of a new use for an otherwise old or obvious composition cannot render a claim to the composition patentable”). Thus, if the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, as the removal unit of Snyder’s is, it meets the claim. See MPEP 2111.02 II, citing In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (citing, inter alia, In re Zierden).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ravikumar et al. US 2013/0079426, in view of Iyer et al. US 20090263316 as applied to claims 1-5, 7 and 8 above, and further in view of Snyder et al. US 20080279763
Regarding claim 9, The Ravikumar reference does not teach removing CO2 from the gasification effluent.
Snyder et al. teaches a hydrogen production method with a steam reformer and a gasifier. The reference teaches that the gasification effluent has CO2 and detrimental sulfur which needs to be removed (Para [0008]). The reference teaches using an acid gas removal unit for removal or sulfur and carbon dioxide. The syngas generated from the gasification (See syngas generation Para [0006]) is treated for carbon dioxide capture in an acid gas removal unit (Para [0008] and [0009]).
At the time of filing it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary level of skill in the art to use the acid removal unit of Snyder et al. to treat the effluent of Ravikumar. One would be motivated to do so in an effort to capture CO2 so as to mitigate the deleterious environmental effects of the emission thereof .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/24/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the reference of Ravikumar does not teach or suggest using a split portion of natural gas feed as fuel for the burner. However, this deficiency is met by the newly cited Iyer reference.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SYED TAHA IQBAL whose telephone number is (571)270-5857. The examiner can normally be reached M-F; 7-5.
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, Anthony Zimmer can be reached at (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 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.
/SYED T IQBAL/ Examiner, Art Unit 1736
/WAYNE A LANGEL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1736
Prosecution Insights