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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/18/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Nicholas reference still applies but the Okamoto reference is no longer used. The arguments pertaining to Okamoto are therefore moot. New rejections and objections are present resultant from amendment.
Applicant makes one argument to Nicholas specifically that does not involve Okamoto. Applicant asserts at the bottom of 8 to the top of page 9 that “there is no teaching or suggestion to combine the purified CO2 stream and cold box off-gas into a single carbon-rich recycle stream prior to compression and return to the reformer.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As cited in the rejection, Nicholas is explicit: “The removed CO2 together with the hydrogen purge gas is discharged into line 134, compressed and recycled to the reformer feed” (column 5, lines 13-15).
Claim Objections
Applicant is advised that should claim 10 be found allowable, claim 18 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).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 9-13, 15, and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nicholas (US 4,732,596) in view of McKeigue (US 2010/0074811 A1).
Regarding claims 9, 10, and 18, Nicholas discloses an apparatus comprising: a steam reformer 106 capable of reforming fuel to produce reformate comprising H2, CO, CO2, CH4, and H2O (column 4, lines 48-68); a cooling section 103 capable of cooling the reformate and condensing the water (column 5, lines 1-5); a PSA 230 downstream of the reformer 106 capable of producing purified CO2 stream 134 and CO2 scrubbed stream 136 (column 5, lines 5-15); a cold box 118 downstream of PSA 230 capable of receiving stream 136 and producing off-gas 137, H2-rich stream 138, and high-purity CO stream 133 (column 5, lines 19-22); a mixing unit arranged to receive streams 134 and 137 for recycling to the reformer 106 (column 5, lines 13-15); and a H2-rich recycle loop 145 capable of providing stream 138 to reformer 106 (column 5, lines 29-33). Nicholas discloses a compressor arranged to compress purified CO2 stream 134 from the PSA 230 (see Figure 2) but not that it arranged to compressed the combination of 134 and 137. Mere rearrangement of parts is not grounds for patentability, however. See MPEP 2144.04 VI C. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to move the compressor of Nicholas downstream of the mixing unit of Nicholas so that both the off-gas 137, too, would receive the benefits of compression afforded purified CO2 stream 134 since they are to be combined and sent to the same location.
Nicholas discloses a recycle loop 145 for providing effluent from cold box 118 to the reformer 106 but not that hydrogen can be provided to the burner of the reformer. McKeigue—in an invention for a steam reformer system with CO2 separation means—discloses utilizing hydrogen produced by the reformer for the burner of the reformer in to utilize system outputs as inputs (paragraph 66). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to provide a means by which produced hydrogen in Nicholas can be used to replace or supplement burner fuel to increase process efficiency as suggested by McKeigue.
Regarding claims 11 and 15, Nicholas discloses ATR (claim 5).
Regarding claim 12, Nicholas discloses that the cold box uses a TSA system (column 13, lines 26-58).
Regarding claim 13, Nicholas discloses a second mixing unit capable of mixing the compressed carbon-rich stream 104 with process gas 100 (column 4, lines 55-59).
Regarding claim 17, Nicholas discloses a CO purity of 99.5% (column 4, lines 11-16).
Regarding claim 19, Nicholas discloses a H2 purity of 99.9+% (column 4, lines 17-20).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IMRAN AKRAM whose telephone number is (571)270-3241. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9a-5p.
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, Basia Ridley can be reached at 571-272-1453. 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.
/IMRAN AKRAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725