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 7/8/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The art rejections still apply as presented previously. The cancellation of claim 18 has obviated the objection to claim 18.
Applicant asserts in section The claimed “first mixing unit” of the Remarks that Nicholas does not disclose a mixing unit. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. It is the Office’s position that junction at the convergence of flows 134 and 137 is a mixing unit. No specific definition of a mixing unit is provided and so the broadest reasonable interpretation is given. A pipeline through which two streams are input is a mixing unit since the streams would by necessity mix and a junction is a unit.
Applicant asserts in section The claimed “compressor” of the Remarks that Nicholas does not disclose compression of the combined stream of streams 134 and 137. But the Office has already recognized this. Thus, the obviousness statement for rearrangement. The rejection modifies Nicholas such that the compressor is downstream of the convergence of streams 134 and 137 and thus downstream of the mixing unit as explained in paragraph 3 above. There is not internal inconsistency since a mixing unit is present in Nicholas.
Applicant asserts in section McKeigue of the Remarks that the difference in the end products of the two plants of Nicholas and McKeigue means that difference separation methods are used in the two plants to obtain streams with different compositions. The Applicant is obfuscating the rejection. It is the Office’s position that using hydrogen as fuel for a combustor is not grounds for patentability. The purity of the hydrogen is not relevant for the motivation statement. Hydrogen is a highly combustible fuel and Nicholas is producing it and in need of fuel for combusting.
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, 17, and 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 and 10, 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
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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
Prosecution Insights