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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 08 May 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment filed on 08 May 2026 has been considered. It is acknowledged that Applicant amended claim 14 to depend on claim 1 instead of cancelled claim 2, which is how it was interpreted in the previous office action. Accordingly, the U.S.C. 112 rejection of claim 14 is withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08 May 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The respective arguments are addressed below.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the steam reforming reactor and autothermal reformer being operated concurrently and the electrical heating unit being integrated into the reactor) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The claim requires that the reformer comprises a pressure shell which houses the electrical heating unit. It does not require that the electrical heating unit be integrated into the reactor.
Applicant further attacks Devriendt regarding limitations of the electric heater in which Devriendt was not relied upon to reject. Applicant further argues that the coils of Singh do not provide electrical heating. Examiner respectfully disagrees. As explained in the claim 1 rejection, Singh discloses that the coils are heating coils (see [0013] and [0016]) and that the system (of paragraph [0016]) can be electrically powered (see [0112]). Additionally, Devriendt explicitly discloses an electric heater as well, which was cited in the claim 1 rejection. So even if Examiner were to concede that Singh does not disclose electrical heating, this would still not overcome the rejection as Devriendt was also cited as supply and electric heater. Yet still, Singh discloses electrical heating. Applicant also argues that the macroscopic structure does not support catalyst. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claim does not require direct support or support by contact. In the case of Singh, the reformer is a macroscopic structure formed of electrically heated heating coils that structurally supports the catalyst tube assembly. The catalyst tube houses the ceramic-supported catalyst. Accordingly, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the reformer supports the ceramic coating, albeit indirectly through the catalyst tube, because the ceramic coating is maintained in its operative position by the reformer-supported tube assembly.
Applicant argues that heating the catalyst to at least 450oC imposes real structural requirements. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In reAller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Applicant argues that the art teaches against simultaneous operation of steam reforming and CPOX and therefore teaches away from the pending claims. Examiner respectfully disagrees, and also reminds Applicant that simultaneous operation is not a limitation recited in the claims.
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.
Claims 1, 6, and 8-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Devriendt (GB-2448089-A) in view of Singh (US-20110042620-A1) and Finnerty (US-20150137044-A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Devriendt discloses a chemical plant comprising: - a reforming section (steam reformer; see Pg. 7 Line 32) arranged to receive a feed gas comprising hydrocarbons (supplied with hydrocarbon fuel; see Pg. 8 Line 8) and provide an output synthesis gas (The reformate, a gas containing hydrogen; see Pg. 8 Line 16), wherein said reforming section comprises: an electrically heated reforming reactor ( means of heating the SR 20 is required, in this embodiment in the form of an electric cartridge heater; see Pg. 8 Lines 12-14) housing a first catalyst (SR 20 fitted with a precious metal catalyst; see Pg. 8 Line 8), said electrically heated reforming reactor being arranged for receiving said feed gas (supplied with hydrocarbon fuel; see Pg. 8 Line 8) and generating a first synthesis gas (The reformate, a gas containing hydrogen; see Pg. 8 Line 16), an autothermal reforming reactor downstream said electrically heated reforming reactor (steam reformer 20 is upstream of the CPOX reformer (which, supplied with water, acts as an ATR reformer); see Pg. 12 Lines 22-23), said autothermal reforming reactor housing a second catalyst (The CPOX reformer 30 catalyst; see Pg. 12 Line 26), said autothermal reforming reactor being arranged for receiving said first synthesis gas and outputting a second synthesis gas (see Fig. 5a, Parts 22, 20, and 30), wherein said reforming section is arranged to output said output synthesis gas comprising said second synthesis gas (this is the natural consequence of feeding a synthesis, or a reformate gas containing hydrogen, to an ATR), wherein said electrically heated reforming reactor comprises an electrical heating unit arranged to heat said first catalyst (electric cartridge heater to bring the SR catalyst up to operating CPOX reaction temperature; see Pg. 8 Lines 13-15), where said first catalyst is operable to catalyzing steam reforming of said feed gas (steam reformer catalyst; see Pg. 8 Line 1), and at least two conductors electrically connected to said electrical heating unit and to an electrical power supply (By design, electric cartridge heaters necessarily comprise at least two conductors electrically connected to an electrical power supply.), wherein said electrical heating unit comprises a macroscopic structure of electrically conductive material (an electric cartridge heater, as taught by Devriendt, by design, comprises a macroscopic structure of electrically conductive material).
Regarding the limitations claiming “electrical power supply is dimensioned to heat at least part of said first catalyst to a temperature of at least 450°C by passing an electrical current through said electrical heating unit”, the feed gas “including methane” and the synthesis gas being formed “by a steam methane reaction”, these are functional limitations that do not further limit the structure of the apparatus, but merely sets forth a manner of operating the apparatus. The Courts have held that apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art in terms of structure, not function. See In re Danley, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959); and Hewlett-Packard Co. V. Bausch and Lomb, Inc., 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (see MPEP §§ 2114 and 2173.05(g)). The manner of operating an apparatus does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art, if the prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim. See Ex Parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (BPAI 1987). Functional limitations that do not limit the structure need not be given further due consideration in determining patentability of an apparatus.
Devriendt does not explicitly teach a reformer housing. However, Singh discloses the reformer having a pressure shell housing (see e.g. Singh [0015]) wherein said pressure shell has a design pressure of between 5 and 90 bar (see e.g. Singh [0015]). While Singh does not explicitly disclose a pressure shell housing, it is stated that the pressure of the hydrocarbon stream entering the reformer and exiting the reformer can range from about 700kPa to 6000kPa (see e.g. [0015] and [0022]) which is equal to a range of 7 bar to 60 bar, which is between 5 and 90 bar. Because the pressure range of the reactant and product streams are clearly stated, it would have been necessary to design a reformer with a pressure rating capable of handling the expected pressure of the reactants/reaction. In fact, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the reformer taught by Singh necessarily contains a shell with a design pressure of up to 60bar. Additionally, because the reformer in the prior art is designed to handle pressures of up to 60bar, the housing for said reformer is necessarily a pressure shell housing as a pressure shell is any component that contains fluid under pressure and is designed to withstand internal or external pressure.
Devriendt and Singh are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of steam reforming. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Devriendt by incorporating the teachings of Singh and providing a shell with a design pressure of 60bar. Doing so would be routine experimentation for one of ordinary skill in the art. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Devriendt does not explicitly teach insulation. However, Finnerty discloses a heat insulation layer adjacent to at least part of the inside of said pressure shell (reformer of the present teachings can include thermal insulation; see [0146]).
Devriendt and Finnerty are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of catalytic reformers. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Devriendt by incorporating the teachings of Finnerty and providing insulation. Doing so would reduce heat loss from the reactor (see Finnerty [0146]).
Devriendt does not explicitly teach a ceramic support. However, Singh teaches a heater with a macroscopic structure of electrically conductive material (preheating hydrocarbon in the coils 131; see [0016] and “system according to any of paragraphs 16… further comprising a facility… that supplies at least a portion of… an electricity requirement; see [0112]), an electrical power supply placed outside said pressure shell (facility located outside the system that supplies at least a portion of… an electricity requirement; see [0112]), where said macroscopic structure supports a ceramic coating (see e.g. Fig. 1 Parts 131, 130, and 133 catalyst tubes which contain catalyst that are supported by ceramic coating) and said ceramic coating supports said first catalyst (catalysts can be supported by one or more support materials. The one or more support materials can include… calcium aluminate; see [0041]). This would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because it would enable manipulation of the catalyst shape as appropriate (see e.g. Singh [0041]).
Regarding Claim 6, Devriendt, Singh, and Finnerty together disclose the chemical plant according to claim 1. Devriendt further discloses a post processing unit downstream the reforming section, where said post processing unit is arranged to receive said output synthesis gas and provide a post processed synthesis gas (the gas containing hydrogen gas… passes directly from the CPOX reformer 30 to a separate WGS reactor; see Pg. 11 Lines 30-32).
Regarding Claim 8, Devriendt, Singh, and Finnerty together disclose the chemical plant according to claim 6, wherein said post processing unit is a water gas shift unit (WGS (water gas shift) reactor; see PG. 11 Line 32) arranged to carry out the water gas shift reaction, thereby providing a post processed synthesis gas (This is what water gas shift reactors are necessarily designed to do).
Regarding Claim 9, Devriendt, Singh, and Finnerty together disclose the chemical plant according to claim 1.
Devriendt does not explicitly teach a separation unit. However, Singh discloses a separation unit arranged to separate said output synthesis gas or post processed synthesis gas into a water condensate and an intermediate synthesis gas (selectively separate carbon dioxide from the cooled shift converted syngas to produce a carbon dioxide lean syngas and carbon dioxide… convert at least a portion of any carbon monoxide and/or carbon dioxide to methane and water; see [0050]). Doing so would further purify the synthesis gas stream (see e.g. Singh [0049]).
Regarding Claim 10, Devriendt, Singh, and Finnerty together disclose the chemical plant according to claim 9. Singh further discloses a downstream section arranged to receive the intermediate synthesis gas and to process the intermediate synthesis gas to a chemical product and an off-gas (syngas lean in carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide can also be introduced to the one or more optional driers to provide a syngas having a reduced amount of water; see [0051]). This modification would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because doing so would provide a dried syngas (see e.g. Singh [0051]).
Regarding Claim 11, Devriendt, Singh, and Finnerty together disclose the chemical plant according to claim 10. Singh further discloses a fired heater unit upstream said electrically heated reforming reactor (the first reformer 130 can be revamped… can include top-fired furnaces; see [0038]), the fired heater unit being arranged to preheat the said feed gas (the first reformer 130 to provide a preheated hydrocarbon; see [0013]), and at least one connection for recycling at least part of said off-gas from said downstream section as fuel to the fired heater unit (Any portion of the purge gas in line 191 can be recycled to the first hydrocarbon in line 106; see [0064]). This modification would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art because doing so would provide low grade fuel to the first reformer (see e.g. Singh [0064]).
Regarding Claim 12, Devriendt, Singh, and Finnerty together disclose the chemical plant according to claim 11. Singh further discloses said downstream section comprising gas separation unit(s) arranged to separate a stream of substantially pure CO2, H2, and/or CO from said intermediate synthesis gas, thereby providing a refined synthesis gas (selectively separate carbon dioxide from the cooled shift gas converted syngas to produce a carbon dioxide lean syngas and carbon dioxide; see e.g. Singh [0050]). This modification would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because doing so would further purify the synthesis gas stream (see e.g. Singh [0049]).
Regarding Claim 13, Devriendt, Singh, and Finnerty together disclose the chemical plant according to claim 1. Singh further discloses a downstream section comprising an ammonia reactor to convert said intermediate synthesis gas or said refined synthesis gas to ammonia (compressed syngas via line 176 can be introduced to the ammonia synthesis unit 180 to provide an ammonia product via line 181; see e.g. Singh [0057]). Incorporating an ammonia reactor would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because it would enable to production of an ammonia product (see e.g. Singh [0057]).
Regarding Claim 14, Devriendt, Singh, and Finnerty together disclose the chemical plant according to claim 1.
Regarding the limitation claiming, “wherein the electrical power supply and the electrical heating unit within the pressure shell are dimensioned so that at least part of the electrical heating unit reaches a temperature of 450°C-850°C”, this is a functional limitation that does not further limit the structure of the apparatus, but merely sets forth a manner of operating the apparatus. The Courts have held that apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art in terms of structure, not function. See In re Danley, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959); and Hewlett-Packard Co. V. Bausch and Lomb, Inc., 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (see MPEP §§ 2114 and 2173.05(g)). The manner of operating an apparatus does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art, if the prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim. See Ex Parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (BPAI 1987). Functional limitations that do not limit the structure need not be given further due consideration in determining patentability of an apparatus.
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Devriendt (GB-2448089-A) in view of Singh (US-20110042620-A1), Finnerty (US-20150137044-A1), and Jensen (US-20150175416-A1).
Regarding Claim 4, Devriendt, Singh, and Finnerty together disclose the chemical plant according to claim 1.
Devriendt does not explicitly teach a prereformer. However, Jensen discloses a prereformer upstream said electrically heated reforming reactor (HTER is taken downstream the prereformer; see [0031]).
Devriendt and Jensen are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of catalytic reformers. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Devriendt by incorporating the teachings of Jensen and including a prereformer. Doing so would keep the feed composition to the reformer relatively constant (see e.g. Jensen [0031]).
Regarding Claim 5, Devriendt, Singh, and Finnerty together disclose the chemical plant according to claim 1.
Devriendt does not explicitly teach a gas heated steam methane reformer in parallel to the electrically heated reformer. However, Jensen discloses said reforming section furthermore comprising a gas heated steam methane reforming reactor in parallel to said electrically heated reforming reactor and said autothermal reforming reactor (The gas heated steam reformer may be located either in series with the main reformer or in parallel with the main reformer; see [0007]), wherein said gas heated steam methane reforming reactor comprises a third catalyst (HTER-p consists of a tube bundles with double tubes. Catalyst is loaded inside; see [0015]) and being operable to receive a second feed gas comprising hydrocarbons (feed composition (at a constant steam to carbon ratio) to the HTER-p is relatively constant, irrespectively of the variation in feedstock type (NG, RFG, LPG, or naphtha); see [0031]) and to utilize at least part of said second synthesis gas as heating medium in heat exchange within said gas heated steam methane reforming reactor (HTER-p consists of a tube bundle… In the outer annular flow, the heating gas from the main reformer flows upward; see [0014] and “heat exchanging with the gas flowing in the catalyst beds; see [0015]), said gas heated steam methane reforming reactor being arranged for generating a third synthesis gas (feed gas flows downwards through a catalyst bed, wherefrom it exits and turns into the central tube and flow upwards to the outlet chamber, where the cooled reformed gas is mixed with the cooled heating gas from the outer annulus; see [0014]). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Devriendt by incorporating the teachings of Jensen and including a gas heated steam methane reformer in parallel to the electrically heated steam reformer. Doing so would lower the overall pressure drop (see e.g. Jensen [0007]).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Devriendt (GB-2448089-A) in view of Singh (US-20110042620-A1), Finnerty (US-20150137044-A1) and Dahl (WO-2013013895-A1).
Regarding Claim 7, Devriendt, Singh, and Finnerty together disclose the chemical plant according to claim 6. Devriendt further discloses wherein said post processing unit is a post conversion unit having a housing a fourth catalyst (see e.g. Devriendt Pg. 11 Lines 32). Devriendt discloses a water gas shift reactor as a post processing unit. A catalyst is necessary for the water gas shift reaction to proceed at industrially relevant rates. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art that the water gas shift reactor taught by Devriendt necessarily houses a catalyst.
Devriendt does not explicitly teach a catalyst capable of catalyzing steam methane reforming, methanation, and reverse water gas shift. However, Singh discloses the use of a post processing unit including one or more methanators (see e.g. Singh [0054]) which house catalysts such as nickel, a rare earth promoted nickel, derivatives thereof, or combinations thereof, which is active for catalyzing steam methane reforming, methanation, and reverse water gas shift. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use these catalysts because they are suitable for the conversion of carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide to methane (see e.g. Singh [0054]).
Devriendt does not explicitly teach the addition of carbon dioxide prior to the post conversion unit. However, Dahl discloses allowing addition of heated carbon dioxide to said output synthesis gas upstream the post conversion unit (see e.g. Dahl, Claim 7). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to do so because it allows control of the molar ratios (see Dahl Pg. 10 Lines 27-31).
Conclusion
All claims are identical to or patentably indistinct from, or have unity of invention with claims in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 (that is, restriction (including a lack of unity of invention) would not be proper) and all claims could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to entry under 37 CFR 1.114. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action after the filing of a request for continued examination and the submission under 37 CFR 1.114. See MPEP § 706.07(b). 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 ALYSSA LEE KUYKENDALL whose telephone number is (571)270-3806. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday 9:00am-5:00pm.
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, Claire Wang can be reached at 571-270-1051. 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.
/A.L.K./Examiner, Art Unit 1774
/JELITZA M PEREZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1774
Prosecution Insights