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 .
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.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-4 and 7 are currently under examination. Claims 5-6 have been cancelled. Claims 1 -4 are amended. Claim 7 is newly added.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 01/12/2026 has been entered.
Previous Grounds of Rejection
In the light of the amendments, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Khurram et al. (US 2016/0107963 A1, applicants submitted in IDS), and in view of Alhammad et al. (CN 105189343 A) with respect to claims 1-4 is withdrawn.
New ground of rejection is set forth below.
New Grounds of Rejections
Claim Objections
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities:
There are multiple grammatical errors. However, the examiner is not addressing these grammar errors with possible correction because the examiner does not want to possibly change the interpretation of the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
In this case, claim 7 contains subject matter “wherein the hydrogenator remains sulfurized without any addition of sulfur to the hydrogenator separate from the flow of fresh natural gas feed.” which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Appropriated corrections are 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.
Claims 1-4 and 7 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.
The limitation of “a flow of fresh natural gas feed…to a hydrogenator” and “the hydrogenator catalyst” are unclear and confused. Claim 1 recites the limitation "the hydrogenator catalyst" in line 13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The precede claimed process does not recite a hydrogenator and a hydrogenator catalyst.
It is unclear where the hydrogenator is located in the claimed process and why a desulfurization contains a hydrogenator catalyst.
Clarifications and appropriation corrections are required.
All other claims depend directly or indirectly from the rejected claims and are, therefore, also rejected under 35 USC § 112(b) for the reasons set forth above.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the desulfurizing section" in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. An appropriated correction is required.
Applicant is advised that should claim 3 be found allowable, claim 4 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m). An appropriated correction is required.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the hydrogenator separate" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. An appropriated correction is required. The limitation of “the hydrogenator remains sulfurized” is unclear and confused. The limitation 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. Appropriated corrections are required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained through the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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 under 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
Claims 1-4 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Khurram et al. (US 2016/0107963 A1, applicants submitted in IDS).
Regarding claim 1, Khurram et al. discloses a method for recycling natural gas during a steam reformer startup in a methanol plant is provided. The method
comprises suctioning natural gas by a suction drum, boosting natural gas by a natural gas booster downstream of the suction drum, heating a steam reformer (i.e., a waste heat section in the claimed sense) to heat a reformer feed gas downstream of the natural gas booster, heating a hydrogenator downstream of the steam reformer, heating a sulfur adsorber downstream of the hydrogenator, recycling natural gas by a recirculation line downstream of the sulfur adsorber and upstream of the reformer, cooling the recycled natural gas by a heat exchanger downstream of the sulfur adsorber, and suctioning the cooled recycled natural gas into the suction drum downstream of the heat exchanger where the natural gas is recycled until the reformer feed gas reaches a desired temperature. In some aspects, the desired temperature of
the natural gas ranges from 350° C. to 380° C. In further aspects, the temperature can
be in a range derived from any two exemplary values. For example, the desired
temperature of the natural gas ranges from 355° C. to 380° C. After the desired
temperature is reached and the HDS catalyst is activated, the natural gas can feed into
the HDS reactor to remove the sulfur by preheating from the reformer to produce a clean natural gas. The clean natural gas can feed into the reforming section to be converted to syn gas, also called synthesis gas ([0031]-[0053]).
As illustrated in FIG.2, Natural gas heats the hydrogenator 8 and the hydrodesulfurization section 10 to a temperature which activates the hydrodesulfurization catalyst during startup. In another aspect, the desired temperature of the hydrogenator 8 and the hydrodesulfurization section 10 ranges from 350° C. to 380° C. In the process depicted in FIG. 2, natural gas is not vented to the flare but is instead directed by recirculation via recycle line 20 to natural gas cooler 12 from a point after the sulfur adsorber and before the natural gas saturator. At the natural gas cooler 12, the natural gas is cooled to a temperature ranging from 20° C. to 60° C.
In one aspect, the temperature of the natural gas is cooled to 40° C. at the natural gas cooler 12. After cooling, natural gas flows to the suction drum 2 via recycle line 30 to re-traverse the steps recited above. In another aspect, the recycle loop comprises recycle line 20, the natural gas cooler 12, and recycle line 30. In a further aspect, the recycle loop comprises recycle line 20 and recycle line 30. In a yet further aspect, the recycle loop comprises recycle line 20 connected to recycle line 30. The recycling process continues until the hydrogenator 8 and hydrodesulfurization section 10 have reached a temperature ranging from 350° C to 380° C. Natural gas is not sent to the flare vent but instead is recycled until the HDS catalyst in the hydrodesulfurization section is activated.
So, the process of Khurram et al. teach or suggest a portion of the recycled natural gas through line 30 is mixed with a fresh natural gas to the natural gas booster suction drum, and a part of the desulfurized natural gas stream is sent to reformer feed gas as fuel as the instant claim.
Khurram et al. do not specifically teach the use of a hydrogenator catalyst.
Regarding claim 2, although the combined reference of Khurram et al. do not specific limit sulfur content above 0.05 ppm as per applicant claim 2, the differences in concentration will not support the patentability of subject matter, this is a case of prima facie obviousness, as one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, given the general conditions taught by Khurram et al., in particular in view of the natural gas is recycled for removing sulfur content to a desired level.
Regarding claims 3-4, as discussed above, the process taught by Khurram et al. is continued and the temperature of the hydrodesulfurization section is at a temperature ranging from 350° C to 380° C which is encompassed by the instant claimed ranges. A part of desulfurized natural gas is feed to a reformer and the reforming section is started (FIG. 2, [0031]-[0053]).
Regarding claim 7, as discussed above, natural gas then passes through the hydrogenator 8, which, when activated by heating to the desired temperature, desulfurizes an organic sulfur compound to provide hydrogen sulfide mixed with natural gas. As such, the hydrogenator is sulfurized without any addition of sulfur as the instant claim ([0052]).
Response to Arguments
With regards to the previous Grounds of Rejection
Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 1-6 field on 01/12/2026 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YUN QIAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5834. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 10:00am-4:00pm.
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 A 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.
YUN . QIAN
Examiner
Art Unit 1732
/YUN QIAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1738