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, see Page 3 of remarks, filed on 08/15/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Rabinovich (US 20140021035) in view of AI-Shaiji (US 20220373176), further in view of Sun (CN 113083296 A) (the attached machine translation is referenced below), as evidenced by Iannuzzi ("Environmentally assisted cracking (EAC) in oil and gas production", 2011) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Claim(s) 1 and 5-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rabinovich (US 20140021035), further in view of Sun (CN 113083296 A) (the attached machine translation is referenced below) as evidenced by Katz (US 3916993).
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 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.
Claim(s) 1 and 5-7 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rabinovich (US 20140021035), further in view of Sun (CN 113083296 A) (the attached machine translation is referenced below) as evidenced by Katz (US 3916993).
With respect to Claim 1, this claim recites in the preamble “[a] method of treating sour natural gas.” Rabinovich teaches feedstocks for treatment, including natural gas. (Rabinovich 4: [0039]). Rabinovich teaches the presence of hydrogen sulfide, which is interpreted as sour natural gas. (Rabinovich 4: [0039]).
Claim 1 further requires “producing natural gas from a subterranean formation through a wellbore to a wellhead.” While teaching natural gas, Rabinovich does not state that the natural gas comes from a wellbore/wellhead. This is well known, but to the extent evidence is need, the Katz document is provided. See e.g. (Katz 1: 50 et seq.: “it is an object of this invention to render mobile, immobilized natural gas in a subterranean formation and produce the natural gas to the surface…”). The combination reflects application of a method that calls for natural gas (i.e. that of Rabinovich) to a well-known source of natural gas (i.e. subterranean formation) to achieve predictable results. This does not impart patentability. MPEP 2143; KSR
Claim 1 further requires “discharging the natural gas from the wellhead via an inlet conduit to a nonthermal plasma (NTP) unit comprising a NTP reactor and a catalyst.” Rabinovich does not explicitly teach discharging the natural gas from the wellhead to an inlet conduit to a NTP reactor and a catalyst. However, Sun teaches an analogous method of using nonthermal plasma with catalyst. (Sun 3, [0020])
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have, in the method of Rabinovich, to insert a catalyst in a NTP reactor, as Sun teaches improved selectivity and energy utilization efficiency (Sun 2, [0018]).
Claim 1 further requires “converting, via the NTP unit, carbon dioxide (CO2) in the natural gas into carbon monoxide (CO).” Rabinovich teaches converting carbon dioxide (CO2) into carbon monoxide (CO) using nonthermal plasma. (Rabinovich, [0046]).
Claim 1 further requires “converting, via the NTP unit, hydrogen sulfide (H2S) in the natural gas into elemental sulfur (S) and hydrogen (H2).” Rabinovich teaches converting, via the NTP unit, hydrogen sulfide (H2S) in the natural gas into elemental sulfur (S) and Hydrogen (H2) (Rabinovich, [0046]).
Claim 1 further requires “removing the elemental sulfur as liquid elemental sulfur to give treated natural gas; and discharging the treated natural gas from the NTP unit via an outlet conduit.” Rabinovich teaches converting, via the NTP unit, hydrogen sulfide (H2S) in the natural gas into elemental sulfur (S) and Hydrogen (H2) to treat the sour natural gas (Rabinovich, [0046]).
Regarding claim 5, modified Rabinovich renders the method of claim 1 obvious as discussed above, and teaches wherein the NTP reactor comprises a dielectric barrier discharge (DBD) comprising two electrodes, wherein voltage between the two electrodes is greater than breakdown voltage of the natural gas flowing between the two electrodes, (Rabinovich 4, [0033])
claim 5 further requires “wherein at least a portion of the catalyst is disposed between the two electrodes.” Modified Rabinovich does not teach wherein at least a portion of the catalyst is disposed between the two electrodes. However, Sun teaches a method where a catalyst is deposited in gap between a high voltage electrode and a ground electrode (Sun 3, [003]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have deposited, by the method of Rabinovich, a catalyst between a high voltage electrode and ground electrode. As Sun teaches, having a catalyst disposed between two electrodes increases selectivity and energy utilization efficiency (Sun 2, [00018]).
Regarding Claim 6, modified Rabinovich renders the method of claim 1 obvious, as discussed above, and teaches wherein converting the H2S into elemental sulfur comprises converting, via the NTP unit, H2S into elemental sulfur and hydrogen (H2) gas by dissociation reaction H2S = H2 + S (Rabinovich 5, [0046]). Rabinovich further teaches converting the CO2 in the natural gas, via the NTP unit, into CO and oxygen (02) gas by disassociation reaction 2CO2 2CO + O2. (Rabinovich 5, [0046]).
Regarding Claim 7, modified Rabinovich renders the method of claim 6 as discussed above.
Claim 7 further requires “wherein converting the CO2 comprises “converting, via the NTP unit, CO2 in the natural gas into CO and water (H20) by hydrogenation reaction CO2+ H2 - CO + H20, wherein a source of H2 for the hydrogenation reaction comprises H2 formed in the dissociation reaction of H2S. ” Rabinovich does not teach wherein converting the CO2 comprises converting, via the NTP unit, CO2 in the natural gas into CO and water (H2O) by hydrogenation reaction CO2+ H2CO+ H2O, wherein a source of H2 for the hydrogenation reaction comprises H2 formed in the dissociation reaction of H2S. However, Sun teaches a method of carbon dioxide hydrogenation via Nonthermal plasma and a catalyst. (Sun 3, [00022]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have combine, in the method of Rabinovich, the hydrogenation reaction of CO2 using NTP, as Sun teaches higher conversion rates (Sun 7, [00063]).
With respect to claim 16, Rabinovich teaches A method of treating natural gas (Rabinovich 1, [0007]), comprising:
Claim 16 further requires “A NTP reactor, converting, via the NTP system, carbon dioxide (CO2) in the natural gas into carbon monoxide (CO) and oxygen (02).” Rabinovich teaches a NTP reactor, converting, via the NTP system, carbon dioxide (CO2) in the natural gas into carbon monoxide (CO) and oxygen (02) (Rabinovich, [0046]);
Claim 16 further requires “converting, via the NTP system, hydrogen sulfide (H2S) in the natural gas into elemental sulfur (S) and hydrogen (H2).” Rabinovich teaches converting, via the NTP system, hydrogen sulfide (H2S) in the natural gas into elemental sulfur (S) and hydrogen (H2) (Rabinovich, [0046]);
Claim 16 further requires “discharging the treated natural gas from the NTP system via a discharge conduit to a user” Rabinovich teaches discharging the treated natural gas from the NTP system via a discharge conduit to a user (Rabinovich 5, [0040]) (Rabinovich 6, [0054]).”
Claim 16 further requires “that the natural gas is sour natural gas.“ Rabinovich teaches feedstocks for treatment, including natural gas. (Rabinovich 4: [0039]). Rabinovich teaches the presence of hydrogen sulfide, which is interpreted as sour natural gas. (Rabinovich 4: [0039]).
Claim 16 further requires “producing natural gas from a subterranean formation.” While teaching natural gas, Rabinovich does not state that the natural gas comes from a wellbore/wellhead. This is well known, but to the extent evidence is need, the Katz document is provided. See e.g. (Katz 1: 50 et seq.: “it is an object of this invention to render mobile, immobilized natural gas in a subterranean formation and produce the natural gas to the surface…”). The combination reflects application of a method that calls for natural gas (i.e. that of Rabinovich) to a well-known source of natural gas (i.e. subterranean formation) to achieve predictable results. This does not impart patentability. MPEP 2143; KSR.
Claim 16 further requires “catalyst with nonthermal plasma.” Rabinovich does not explicitly teach a catalyst with nonthermal plasma. However, Sun teaches an analogous method of using nonthermal plasma with catalyst. (Sun 3, [0032])
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have, in the method of Rabinovich, to insert a catalyst in a NTP reactor, as Sun teaches improved selectivity and energy utilization efficiency (Sun 2, [006]).
Claims 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Rabinovich (US 20140021035), Sun (CN 113083296 A) (the attached machine translation is referenced below) and as evidenced by Katz (US 3916993), as applied to claims 1, and 5-7 and 16 above, further in view of Fridman (US 2018/0171249 Al) and in further view of Perera (US 20150008368).
Regarding Claim 2, modified Rabinovich renders the method of claim 1 obvious, as discussed above.
Claim 2 further requires “converting, via the NTP unit, methane (CH4) in the natural gas into hydrogen (H2) and hydrocarbons having at least two carbon atoms” Rabinovich does not explicitly teach converting, via the NTP unit, methane (CH4) in the natural gas into hydrogen (H2) and hydrocarbons having at least two carbon atoms. However, Fridman teaches NTP conversion of methane from the natural gas into hydrogen and hydrocarbon products with at least two carbon atoms (Fridman 4, [0043]), which overlaps with the claimed range of at least at least two carbon atoms.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have obtained, by the method of Rabinovich, the product of hydrogen and hydrocarbons with at least two carbon atoms. The selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960), Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. lnterchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945}, and M PEP§ 2144.07. In the instant case, it is known from Fridman that such products come from NTP conversion of methane in natural gas.
Claim 2 further requires “converting, via the NTP unit, the CH4, the H2S and the CO2 occurs at less than 250 °C, and wherein less than half of the CH4 in the natural gas is converted.” Rabinovich does not teach wherein converting, via the NTP unit, the CH4, the H2S and the CO2 occurs at less than 250 °C, and wherein less than half of the CH4 in the natural gas is converted. However, Perera teaches an operating temperature in the reactor at less than 250 °C wherein less than half of CH4 is converted. (Perera 22, line 17, temperature), (Perera 13, line 6, CH4).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the method of Rabinovich by incorporating the composition of hydrocarbon, reactor temperature, and the composition of the CH4 converted in natural gas, as Perera teaches that this ensures a high-quality product (Perera 22, line 19).
Regarding Claim 3, modified Rabinovich renders the method of claim 1 obvious, as discussed above and teaches use of a “gliding arc” non-thermal plasma (Rabinovich, [0025]) .
Claim 3 further requires “wherein the natural gas comprises at least 5 vol% of H2S.” Rabinovich does not explicitly teach wherein the natural gas comprises at least 5 vol% of H2S. However, Perera teaches a natural gas stream with a composition range of 1-10 vol% hydrogen sulfide (Perera 11, line 8), which overlaps with the claimed range of at least 5 vol%.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have selected, in the method of Rabinovich, a natural gas stream with a composition range of 1-10 vol% of H2S. The selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960), Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. lnterchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945}, and M PEP§ 2144.07. In the instant case, it is known from Perera that such a composition is suitable for the purpose of removing impurities from natural gas in order to obtain a treated gas (Perera 11, line 8).
Regarding claim 4, modified Rabinovich renders the method of claim 1 obvious, as discussed above.
Claim 4 further requires “wherein the catalyst is disposed in the NTP reactor or in a conduit downstream of the NTP reactor, or both, wherein the catalyst is metal-based, metal oxide-based, metal sulfide-based, or zeolite-based, or any combinations thereof. ”Rabinovich does not explicitly teach wherein the catalyst is disposed in the NTP reactor or in a conduit downstream of the NTP reactor, or both, wherein the catalyst is metal-based, metal oxide- based, metal sulfide-based, or zeolite-based, or any combinations thereof. However, Sun teaches analogous method of using a metal oxide-based catalyst disposed in a NTP reactor (Sun 1, [001]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the method of Rabinovich by incorporating an any type of catalyst as claimed above inside the NTP reactor, as Sun teaches improved selectivity and energy utilization efficiency (Sun 1, [0001]).
Claim 4 further requires “wherein the natural gas comprises at least 20 vol% of acid gas comprising H2S and carbon dioxide (CO2).” Rabinovich does not teach wherein the natural gas comprises at least 20 vol% of acid gases comprising of hydrogen sulfide (H2S) and carbon dioxide (CO2). However, Perera teaches a natural gas with a composition of having 1-20% of CO2 and 1-10% of H2S (Perera 11, line 7), which overlaps the claimed range of at 20% of natural acid comprising of hydrogen sulfide (H2S) and carbon dioxide (CO2). (Perera 11, line 8).
Claims 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Rabinovich (US 20140021035), Sun (CN 113083296 A) (the attached machine translation is referenced below) and as evidenced by Katz (US 3916993) as applied to claims 1-7 and 16 above, further in view of Mahya Nezhadfard ("Power generation as a useful option for flare gas recovery: enviro-nomic evaluation of different scenarios," 2020).
Regarding claim 8, Rabinovich renders the method of claim 1 obvious as discussed above.
Claim 8 further requires “wherein discharging the treated natural gas comprises discharging the treated natural gas from the NTP unit via the outlet conduit to a furnace to combust the treated natural gas for power generation, or to a flare system comprising a flare to combust the treated natural gas for disposal of the treated natural gas, or to a natural gas processing plant comprising a vessel to process the treated natural gas for provision of natural gas as product” Rabinovich does not explicitly teach process as claimed. However, Nezhadfard teaches discharging treated gas via an outlet conduit for power generation and to a flare system for disposal. (Nezhadfard, [1. Introduction]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have discharged, by the method of Rabinovich, a treated natural gas via an outlet conduit for combustion via flare system or power generation as Nezhadfard teaches the use of a waste product. (Nezhadfard, [1. Introduction]).
Claims 9 and 14 rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Rabinovich (US 20140021035), Sun (CN 113083296 A) (the attached machine translation is referenced below) as evidenced by Katz (US 3916993) are applied to claims 1-8 and 16 above, further in view of Nezhadfard ("Power generation as a useful option for flare gas recovery: enviro-nomic evaluation of different scenarios," 2020), and further in view of Perera (US 20150008368).
With respect to claim 9, modified Rabinovich renders the method of claim 1 obvious, as discussed above.
Claim 9 requires “wherein at least half of the H2S in the natural gas is converted via the NTP unit into elemental sulfur.” Rabinovich but does not explicitly teach wherein at least half of the H2S in the natural gas is converted via the NTP unit into elemental sulfur. However, Perera teaches 36% degradation of H2S using gliding arc discharge (Perera 8, line 6).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have obtained, by the method of Rabinovich, the amount of H2S in natural gas by NTP, as Perera teaches that NTP is more advantageous in the decomposition of H2S (Perera 8, line 1).
Claim 9 further requires “discharging the treated natural gas comprises discharging the treated natural gas from the NTP unit via the outlet conduit to a furnace to combust the treated natural gas for power generation or to a flare to combust the treated natural gas for disposal of the treated natural gas.” Rabinovich does not teach wherein discharging the treated natural gas comprises discharging the treated natural gas from the NTP unit to a furnace to combust the treated natural gas for power generation or to a flare to combust the treated natural gas for disposal of the treated natural gas. However, Nezhadfard teaches discharging treated gas via an outlet conduit to a flare system for disposal. (Nezhadfard, [1. Introduction]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have discharged, by the method of Rabinovich, a treated natural gas via an outlet conduit for combustion via flare system or power generation as Nezhadfard teaches the use of a waste product (Nezhadfard, [1. Introduction]).
Regarding claim 14, modified Rabinovich renders the method of claim 11 obvious as discussed above.
Claim 14 further requires “discharging the treated natural gas from the NTP catalytic unit through a discharge conduit to a flare system comprising a flare.” Rabinovich but not explicitly teach discharging the treated natural gas from the NTP catalytic unit through a discharge conduit to a flare system comprising a flare. However, Nezhadfard teaches discharging treated gas via an outlet conduit to a flare system for disposal. (Nezhadfard, [1. Introduction]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have discharged, by the method of Rabinovich, a treated natural gas via an outlet conduit for combustion via flare system or power generation as Nezhadfard teaches the use of a waste product (Nezhadfard, [1. Introduction]).
Claim 14 further requires “wherein the treated natural gas comprises less than 100 ppmv of H2S.”
Modified Rabinovich does not teach, wherein the treated natural gas comprises less than 100 ppmv of H2S. However, Perera teaches composition of treated gas comprising of less than 4 ppm of H2S (Perera 13, line 6), which is within the range of the claimed range.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Rabinovich (US 20140021035), Sun (CN 113083296 A) (the attached machine translation is referenced below) and as evidenced by Katz (US 3916993) as applied to claim 1-9, 14 and 16 above, in further view of Perera (US 20150008368).
Regarding claim 10, Rabinovich renders the method of claim 1 obvious, as discussed above.
Claim 10 further requires “less than 80% of the H2S in the in the natural gas is converted via NTP unit into elemental sulfur.” but does not specifically teach wherein less than 80% of the H2S in the in the natural gas is converted via NTP unit into elemental sulfur. However, Perera teaches 36% degradation of H2S using gliding arc discharge (Perera 8, line 6).
Rabinovich does not specifically teach discharging the treated gas from NTP unit to gas sweeting unit through an outlet conduit. However, Perera teaches discharging treated natural gas to gas sweetening unit (Perera, Fig 1).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have discharged, by the method of Rabinovich, the treated natural gas into a sweeting unit through an outlet conduit, as Perera teaches that it is necessary in order to obtain a synthetic gas in way that prevents environmental pollution (Perera 8, line 13).
Claims 11, 15 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Rabinovich (US 20140021035) and Sun (CN 113083296 A) (the attached machine translation is referenced below) as evidenced by Katz (US 3916993), as applied to claims 1-10, 14 and 16 above, further in view of Perera (US 20150008368) and Bosetti (US 20090238750 Al).
With respect to claim 11, “[a] method of treating sour natural gas.” Rabinovich teaches feedstocks for treatment, including natural gas. (Rabinovich 4: [0039]). Rabinovich teaches the presence of hydrogen sulfide, which is interpreted as sour natural gas. (Rabinovich 4: [0039]).
Claim 11 further requires “producing natural gas from a subterranean formation.” While teaching natural gas, Rabinovich does not state that the natural gas comes from a wellbore/wellhead. This is well known, but to the extent evidence is need, the Katz document is provided. See e.g. (Katz 1: 50 et seq.: “it is an object of this invention to render mobile, immobilized natural gas in a subterranean formation and produce the natural gas to the surface…”). The combination reflects application of a method that calls for natural gas (i.e. that of Rabinovich) to a well-known source of natural gas (i.e. subterranean formation) to achieve predictable results. This does not impart patentability. MPEP 2143; KSR.
Claim 11 further requires “converting, by the NTP catalytic unit, CO2 in the natural gas by dissociation reaction of CO2 into carbon monoxide (CO) and oxygen (O2). However, Sun teaches dissociation of CO2 into CO and 02 in presence of a catalyst.”
Rabinovich does not teach converting, by the NTP catalytic unit, CO2 in the natural gas by dissociation reaction of CO2 into carbon monoxide (CO) and oxygen (O2). However, Sun teaches dissociation of CO2 into CO and O2 in presence of a catalyst.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have use the dissociation reaction of CO2, by the method of Rabinovich, with a catalyst to dissociate CO2 into CO and 02, as Sun teaches improved selectivity and energy utilization efficiency (Sun 2, [006]).
Claim 11 further requires “converting, by the NTP catalytic unit, H2S in the natural gas by dissociation reaction of H2S into elemental sulfur (S) and hydrogen (H2).”
Rabinovich does not teach converting, by the NTP catalytic unit, H2S in the natural gas by dissociation reaction of H2S into elemental sulfur (S) and hydrogen (H2). However, Bosetti teaches an analogous method of H2S conversion using a catalytic reactor (Bosetti 2, [0018]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have use the dissociation reaction of H2S, by the method of Rabinovich, with a catalyst to dissociate H2S into hydrogen and sulfur, as Bosetti teaches improved selectivity and energy utilization efficiency (Sun 2, [006]).
Claim 11 further requires “wherein the natural gas comprises at least 20 volume percent of acid gas.” Rabinovich does not teach wherein the natural gas comprises at least 20 volume percent of acid gas. However, Perera teaches a natural gas with a composition of having 1%-20% of CO2 and 1% to 10% of H2S (Perera 11, line 7), which overlaps with the claimed range of at least 20 vol%.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have selected, in the method of Rabinovich, a natural gas stream with a composition range of 20 vol% of acid gas. The selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960), Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. lnterchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945}, and M PEP§ 2144.07. In the instant case, it is known from Perera that such a composition is suitable for the purpose of removing impurities from natural gas in order to obtain a treated gas (Perera 11, line 8).
Regarding claim 15, modified Rabinovich renders the method of claim 11 obvious, as discussed above and teaches comprising: exciting molecules in the natural gas via the NTP reactor, wherein the NTP reactor comprises dielectric barrier discharge, corona discharge, pulsed corona discharge, gliding arc discharge, or arc discharge (Rabinovich, [0004]) and discharging the treated natural gas from the NTP unit through a discharge conduit (Rabinovich 5, [0040]).
Claim 15 further requires “natural gas processing plant comprising a gas sweetening unit comprising an amine absorber column to scrub acid gas from the treated natural gas.” Rabinovich does not explicitly teach a natural gas processing plant comprising a gas sweetening unit comprising an amine absorber column to scrub acid gas from the treated natural gas. However, Bosetti teaches a step of washing a stream with amine (Bosetti 2, [0040]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have used, by the method of Rabinovich, use an amine absorber column, as Bosetti teaches in order to separate the no reacted hydrogen (Bosetti 2, [0037])
Claim 15 further requires “wherein the treated natural gas entering the gas sweetening unit comprises at least 1 vol% of acid gas.” Rabinovich does not teach wherein the treated natural gas entering the gas sweetening unit comprises at least 1 vol% of acid gas. However, Perera teaches a treated gas composition of 20% acid gas (Perera 13, line 6), which is within the claimed range of at least 1 vol% of acid gas.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have composition of the treated gas, by the method of Rabinovich, of at least 1% vol% gas entering the gas sweeting unit as Perera teaches the prevention of environmental contamination.
With respect to claim 19, Rabinovich teaches A method of treating natural gas (Rabinovich 1, [0007]), comprising:
Claim 19 further requires “A NTP reactor, converting, via the NTP system, carbon dioxide (CO2) in the natural gas into carbon monoxide (CO) and oxygen (02).” Rabinovich teaches a NTP reactor, converting, via the NTP system, carbon dioxide (CO2) in the natural gas into carbon monoxide (CO) and oxygen (02) (Rabinovich, [0046]);
Claim 19 further requires “converting, via the NTP system, hydrogen sulfide (H2S) in the natural gas into elemental sulfur (S) and hydrogen (H2).” Rabinovich teaches converting, via the NTP system, hydrogen sulfide (H2S) in the natural gas into elemental sulfur (S) and hydrogen (H2) (Rabinovich, [0046]);
Claim 19 further requires “discharging the treated natural gas from the NTP system via a discharge conduit to a user” Rabinovich teaches discharging the treated natural gas from the NTP system via a discharge conduit to a user (Rabinovich 5, [0040]) (Rabinovich 6, [0054]).”
Claim 19 further requires “that the natural gas is sour natural gas.“ Rabinovich teaches feedstocks for treatment, including natural gas. (Rabinovich 4: [0039]). Rabinovich teaches the presence of hydrogen sulfide, which is interpreted as sour natural gas. (Rabinovich 4: [0039]).
Claim 19 further requires “producing natural gas from a subterranean formation.” While teaching natural gas, Rabinovich does not state that the natural gas comes from a wellbore/wellhead. This is well known, but to the extent evidence is need, the Katz document is provided. See e.g. (Katz 1: 50 et seq.: “it is an object of this invention to render mobile, immobilized natural gas in a subterranean formation and produce the natural gas to the surface…”). The combination reflects application of a method that calls for natural gas (i.e. that of Rabinovich) to a well-known source of natural gas (i.e. subterranean formation) to achieve predictable results. This does not impart patentability. MPEP 2143; KSR.
Claim 19 further requires “teach wherein the natural gas comprises at least 20 volume percent (vol%) of acid gas.” Rabinovich does not explicitly teach wherein the natural gas comprises at least 20 volume percent (vol%) of acid gas. However, Perera teaches a natural gas with a composition of having 1-20% of CO2 and 1-10% of H2S (Perera 11, line 7), which overlaps the claimed range of at 20% of natural acid comprising of hydrogen sulfide (H2S) and carbon dioxide (CO2). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have selected, in the method of Rabinovich, a natural gas stream with a composition range of 1-10 vol% of H2S. The selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960), Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. lnterchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945}, and MPEP § 2144.07. In the instant case, it is known from Perera that such a composition is suitable for the purpose of removing impurities from natural gas in order to obtain a treated gas (Perera 11, line 8).
Claim 19 further requires “catalysis in fluid communication with the wellhead system and continuous operation.” Rabinovich does not explicitly teach catalysis in fluid communication with the wellhead system and continuous operation. However, the claimed continuous operation would have been obvious in light of the batch process of the prior art. See In reDilnot, 319 F.2d 188, 138 USPQ 248 (CCPA 1963}, and MPEP § 2144.04.
Claim 19 further requires “teach NTP catalysis of carbon dioxide into carbon monoxide and oxygen.” Rabinovich does not explicitly teach NTP catalysis of carbon dioxide into carbon monoxide and oxygen. However, Sun teaches conversion of carbon dioxide into carbon monoxide and oxygen using NTP in presence of a catalyst.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have use the dissociation reaction of CO2, by the method of Rabinovich, with a catalyst to dissociate CO2 into CO and 02, as Sun teaches improved selectivity and energy utilization efficiency (Sun 2, [00018]).
Claim 19 further requires ”NTP catalysis of hydrogen sulfide into hydrogen and sulfur.” Rabinovich does not explicitly teach NTP catalysis of hydrogen sulfide into hydrogen and sulfur.
However, Bosetti teaches conversion of hydrogen sulfide into hydrogen and sulfur using NTP and a catalyst (Bosetti 1, [0007]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have use the conversion of hydrogen sulfide into hydrogen and sulfur, by the method of Rabinovich, using a catalyst. As Bosetti teaches increased yield of hydrogen and sulfur (Bosetti 1, [0016]).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Rabinovich (US 20140021035) and Sun (CN 113083296 A) (the attached machine translation is referenced below), Perera (US 20150008368), Bosetti (US 20090238750 Al) as evidenced by Katz (US 3916993) as applied to claims 11, 15 and 19 above, further in view of Nezhadfard ("Power generation as a useful option for flare gas recovery: enviro-nomic evaluation of different scenarios," 2020) and Bosetti (US 20090238750 Al).
Regarding claim 12, modified Rabinovich renders the method of claim 11 obvious.
Claim 12 further requires “discharging the treated natural gas from the NTP catalytic unit through a discharge conduit to a flare system for disposal, a furnace for power generation, or a natural gas processing plant.” Rabinovich does not explicitly teach discharging the treated natural gas from the NTP catalytic unit through a discharge conduit to a flare system for disposal, a furnace for power generation, or a natural gas processing plant. However, Nezhadfard teaches discharging treated gas via an outlet conduit to a flare system for disposal. (Nezhadfard, [1. Introduction]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have discharged, by the method of Rabinovich, a treated natural gas via an outlet conduit for combustion via flare system or power generation as Nezhadfard teaches the use of a waste product (Nezhadfard, [1. Introduction]).
Claim 12 further requires “wherein removing the elemental sulfur comprises condensing elemental sulfur gas in a condenser heat exchanger in the NTP catalytic unit downstream of the NTP reactor.” Rabinovich does not teach wherein removing the elemental sulfur comprises condensing elemental sulfur gas in a condenser heat exchanger in the NTP catalytic unit downstream of the NTP reactor. However, Bosetti teaches the separation and cooling of sulfur downstream from NTP catalytic unit (Bosetti 2, [0032]- [0039]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have, in the method of Rabinovich, remove elemental sulfur downstream from the NTP reactor, as Bosetti teaches that removal of sulfur is necessary to achieve a purified product (Bosetti 1, [0009]).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Rabinovich (US 20140021035), Sun (CN 113083296 A) (the attached machine translation is referenced below), Perera (US 20150008368), and Bosetti (US 20090238750 Al) as applied to claims 11-12, 14-15 above and 19, and further in view of Beer ("Progress in Energy and Combustion Science 26", 2000).
Regarding claim 13, modified Rabinovich renders the method of claim 11 obvious, as discussed above.
Claim 13 further requires “discharging the treated natural gas from the NTP catalytic unit through a discharge conduit to a boiler comprising a furnace” Rabinovich does not teach discharging the treated natural gas from the NTP catalytic unit through a discharge conduit to a boiler comprising a furnace. However, Beer teaches combustion of natural gas in boilers for power generation (Beer 302, [1. introduction]).
Claim 13 further requires “wherein the treated natural gas comprises less than 100 part per million by volume (ppmv) of H2S.” Rabinovich does not teach wherein the treated natural gas comprises less than 100 part per million by volume (ppmv) of H2S. However, Perera teaches treated a gas with less than 4 ppm of H2S (Perera 13, line 6), which overlaps with the claimed range.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have, in the method of Rabinovich, a treated natural gas stream with a composition range of less than 100 ppm of H2S. The selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960), Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. lnterchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945}, and M PEP§ 2144.07. In the instant case, it is known from Perera that such a composition is suitable for the purpose of disposing to a user (Perera 13, line 12).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable Rabinovich (US 20140021035), Sun (CN 113083296 A), Perera (US 20150008368) and Bosetti (US 20090238750 Al) as evidenced by Katz (US 3916993), as applied to claims 1-16 and 18 above, and further in view of Novoselov (WO 2013/134093).
Regarding claim 17, modified Rabinovich renders the method of claim 16 obvious as discussed above.
claim 17 further requires “a furnace that combusts the treated natural gas for generating electricity for power generation, a flare system comprising a flare that combusts the treated natural gas for disposal of the treated natural gas, or a natural gas processing plant comprising a vessel that processes the treated natural gas.” Rabinovich not explicitly teach wherein the user comprises a furnace that combusts the treated natural gas for generating electricity for power generation, a flare system comprising a flare that combusts the treated natural gas for disposal of the treated natural gas, or a natural gas processing plant comprising a vessel that processes the treated natural gas. However, Novoselov teaches reclaimed gases can diverted to a combustion system for power production and can also be contained in vessel (Novoselov 10, [0038]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have, using the method of Rabinovich, to add the step of disposing the treated gas for combustion into electricity.
Claims 18 and 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Rabinovich (US 20140021035), Sun (CN 113083296 A) (the attached machine translation is referenced below) Perera (US 20150008368), and Bosetti (US 20090238750 Al), as evidenced by Katz (US 3916993), as applied to claims 1-17 above, further in view of Fridman (US 20180171249).
Regarding Claim 18, modified Rabinovich renders the method of claim 16 obvious as written above.
Claim 18 further requires “converting, via the NTP system, methane (CH4) in the natural gas into hydrogen (H2) and C2+ hydrocarbons, wherein the C2+ hydrocarbons are hydrocarbons having two or more carbon atoms in each molecule of the hydrocarbons.” Rabinovich but does not teach converting, via the NTP system, methane (CH4) in the natural gas into hydrogen (H2) and C2+ hydrocarbons, wherein the C2+ hydrocarbons are hydrocarbons having two or more carbon atoms in each molecule of the hydrocarbons. However, Fridman teaches NTP conversion of methane from the natural gas into hydrogen and hydrocarbon products with at least two carbon atoms (Fridman 4, [0043]), which overlaps with the claimed range of at least at least two carbon atoms.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have obtained, by the method of Rabinovich, the product of hydrogen and hydrocarbons with at least two carbon atoms. The selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960), Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. lnterchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945}, and M PEP§ 2144.07. In the instant case, it is known from Fridman that such products come from NTP conversion of methane in natural gas.
Claim 18 further requires “an operating temperature of the NTP reactor is less than 200 °C.” Rabinovich does not explicitly teach wherein an operating temperature of the NTP reactor is less than 200 °C. However, Perera teaches an overlapping operating temperature of less than 250 °C. (Perera 22, line 17, temperature).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the method of Rabinovich by incorporating the composition of hydrocarbon, reactor temperature, and the composition of the CH4 converted in natural gas, as Perera teaches that this ensures a high-quality product (Perera 22, line 19).
Regarding claim 20, modified Rabinovich renders the method of claim 19 obvious as discussed above.
Claim 20 further requires “comprising converting, via the NTP catalysis, methane in the natural gas into hydrogen and hydrocarbons having two or more carbon atoms” Rabinovich does not explicitly teach comprising converting, via the NTP catalysis, methane in the natural gas into hydrogen and hydrocarbons having two or more carbon atoms. However, Fridman teaches hydrocarbon products with at least two carbon atoms (Fridman 4, [0043]), which overlaps with the claimed range of at least at least two carbon atoms.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have obtained, by the method of Rabinovich, the product of hydrogen and hydrocarbons with at least two carbon atoms. The selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960), Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. lnterchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945}, and M PEP§ 2144.07. In the instant case, it is known from Fridman that such products come from NTP conversion of methane in natural gas.
Claim 20 further requires “wherein less than half of methane in the natural gas is converted Modified Rabinovich does not teach wherein less than half of methane in the natural gas is converted.” Rabinovich does not explicitly teach. However, Perera teaches wherein less than half of CH4 is converted (Perera 13, line 6, CH4).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the method of Rabinovich by incorporating the composition of the CH4 converted in natural gas, as Perera teaches that this ensures a high-quality product (Perera 22, line 19).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STARFARI TESHAWN MCCLAIN whose telephone number is (571)272-0169. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 AM- 5 PM.
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.
/STARFARI TESHAWN MCCLAIN/Examiner, Art Unit 1736
/DANIEL C. MCCRACKEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1736