DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
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 .
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.
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 1-3, 5-6, and 11-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sundaram et al. US 2014/0010753 (hereafter Sundaram) and further in view of Roesch et al. US 2018/0258019 (hereafter Roesch).
Regarding claim 1, Sundaram teaches a plant (Fig 2) for providing an H2-rich gas stream (254) from a hydrocarbon feed (205), said plant comprising:
a reformer section (210) arranged to receive said hydrocarbon feed (205) and reform said hydrocarbon feed in at least one reforming step conducted at a first pressure (10 barg, ¶27) to provide a synthesis gas stream (215);
a CO2 removal stage (230), arranged to receive the synthesis gas stream from said reformer section and separate CO2 from the synthesis gas stream, so as to provide a CO2-rich stream (232) and a CO2-poor stream (227) comprising hydrogen and gaseous impurities (¶92);
a swing adsorption stage (240), said SA stage comprising an adsorption material (adsorbent, ¶10) and a first purge stream with a pressure equal to or higher than the first pressure (145 psig, ¶40, where 145 psig is equal to 10 barg); and being arranged to receive the CO2-poor stream (127) from the CO2 removal stage;
wherein the SA stage is a temperature swing adsorption stage (¶61, ¶35) comprises a first state (feed step, ¶36) and a second state (purge step, ¶36), wherein;
in said first state, the CO2-poor stream is arranged to contact the adsorption material so that:
at least a portion of the gaseous impurities from said CO2-poor stream, and
a portion of the hydrogen form said CO2-poor stream are adsorbed onto said adsorption material, thus providing an H2-rich stream (¶37, contaminant stream to be separated from the desired component(s) that are adsorbed where hydrogen is a desired component);
in said second state, the first purge stream is arranged to contact the adsorption material so that at least a portion of the gaseous impurities adsorbed onto said adsorption material and a least a portion of said hydrogen adsorbed onto said adsorption material are released from said adsorption material and into the first purge stream (¶40); thereby providing a first recycle stream (245) comprising said first purge stream, hydrogen and said gaseous impurities.
Sundaram does not teach said plant being arranged to recycle said first recycle stream to the reformer section as feed for the reforming step.
Roesch teaches a plant (Fig 3) comprising a reformer section (103, ¶56) and hydrogen separation (107) where said plant being arranged to recycle said first recycle stream (125) to the reformer section as feed for the reforming step in order to use the hydrogen in the reforming step (¶60).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the plant (Fig 2) of Sundaram by recycling the hydrogen (125 in Roesch, 245 in Sundaram) as feed for the reforming step in order to use the hydrogen in the reforming step (Roesch ¶60).
Regarding claim 2, Sundaram in view of Roesch teaches all the limitations of claim 1. Sundaram further teaches wherein the SA stage is arranged to alternate between said first and second states (¶36).
Regarding claim 3, Sundaram in view of Roesch teaches all the limitations of claim 1. Sundaram further teaches wherein the temperature of the SA stage in the second state is higher than in said first state (¶35-36, ¶61).
Regarding claim 5, Sundaram in view of Roesch teaches all the limitations of claim 1. Sundaram further teaches wherein the SA stage comprising a second purge stream and comprises a third state, in which the second purge stream is arranged to purge the adsorption material subsequent to purging with the first purge recycle stream so that at least a portion of the gaseous impurities are released from said adsorption material; thereby providing a second recycle stream which is recycled upstream the reforming step of said reforming section (¶36).
Regarding claim 6, Sundaram in view of Roesch teaches all the limitations of claim 1. Sundaram further teaches wherein the adsorption material is selected from a zeolite, active carbon or metal organic framework, or mixtures thereof (¶36).
Regarding claim 11, Sundaram in view of Roesch teaches all the limitations of claim 1. Sundaram further teaches wherein said reformer section comprises one or more primary reformer units (210).
Regarding claim 12, Sundaram in view of Roesch teaches all the limitations of claim 11. Sundaram further teaches wherein said one or more primary reformer units (210) are a steam methane reforming reactor (SMR) (¶91).
Regarding claim 13, Sundaram in view of Roesch teaches all the limitations of claim 1. Sundaram further teaches a shift section (220) arranged in said synthesis gas stream between said reformer section (210) and said CO2 removal stage (230).
Regarding claim 14, Sundaram teaches a method for providing an H2rich gas stream (245) from a hydrocarbon feed (205) said method comprising:
providing plant (Fig 2) according to claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection above);
feeding the hydrocarbon feed (205) the reformer section (210) and reforming said hydrocarbon feed in at least one reforming step (205) conducted at a first pressure (10 barg, ¶27) to provide a synthesis gas stream (215);
feeding the synthesis gas stream from said reformer section to the CO2 removal stage (230), and separating CO2 from the synthesis gas stream, so as to provide a CO2-rich stream (232) and a CO2-poor stream (227) comprising hydrogen and gaseous impurities (¶92);
feeding the CO2-poor stream (227) from the CO2 removal stage (230) to the swing adsorption stage (240) comprising an adsorption material (adsorbent, ¶10) and a first purge stream with a pressure equal to or higher than the first pressure (145 psig, ¶40, where 145 psig is equal to 10 barg), wherein said SA stage is a temperature swing adsorption stage (¶61, ¶35), and comprises a first state (feed step, ¶36) and a second state (purge step, ¶36), wherein;
in said first state, the CO2-poor stream is arranged to contact the adsorption material so that:
at least a portion of the gaseous impurities from said CO2-poor stream, and
a portion of the hydrogen form said CO2-poor stream are adsorbed onto said adsorption material, thus providing an H2-rich stream (¶37, contaminant stream to be separated from the desired component(s) that are adsorbed where hydrogen is a desired component);
in said second state, the first purge stream is arranged to contact the adsorption material so that at least a portion of the gaseous impurities adsorbed onto said adsorption material and a least a portion of said hydrogen adsorbed onto said adsorption material are released from said adsorption material and into the first purge stream (¶40); thereby providing a first recycle stream (245) comprising said first purge stream, hydrogen and said gaseous impurities.
Sundaram does not teach said plant being arranged to recycle said first recycle stream to the reformer section as feed for the reforming step.
Roesch teaches a plant (Fig 3) comprising a reformer section (103, ¶56) and hydrogen separation (107) where said plant being arranged to recycle said first recycle stream (125) to the reformer section as feed for the reforming step in order to use the hydrogen in the reforming step (¶60).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the plant (Fig 2) of Sundaram by recycling the hydrogen (125 in Roesch, 245 in Sundaram) as feed for the reforming step in order to use the hydrogen in the reforming step (Roesch ¶60).
Regarding claim 15, Sundaram in view of Roesch teaches all the limitations of claim 14. Sundaram further teaches wherein the SA stage is initially in said first state and then alternates between said first and second states (¶35-36, ¶61).
Regarding claim 16, Sundaram in view of Roesch teaches all the limitations of claim 14. Sundaram further teaches wherein the temperature of the SA stage in the second state is higher than in said first state (¶35-36, ¶61).
Regarding claim 17, Sundaram in view of Roesch teaches all the limitations of claim 1. Sundaram further teaches wherein the plant is free from any compressor, downstream of the TSA stage, configured to recycle hydrogen to the reformer section (¶91, where the compression is optional),
Regarding claim 18, Sundaram in view of Roesch teaches all the limitations of claim 14. Sundaram further teaches wherein the plant is free from any compressor, downstream of the TSA stage, configured to recycle hydrogen to the reformer section (¶91, where the compression is optional),
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sundaram in view of Roesch as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Jadhav US 2014/0186255 (hereafter Jadhav).
Regarding claim 4, Sundaram in view of Roesch teaches all the limitations of claim 1.
Sundaram does not teach wherein the SA stage has several parallel adsorption reactions being in different states (A, B) at a given time.
Jadhav teaches a plant (Figs 1-2) comprising a reformer section (14) and a swing adsorption stage (28) wherein the SA stage has several parallel adsorption reactions being in different states (A, B) at a given time in order to operate in a continuous manner (¶18).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the SA stage (240) of Sundaram by incorporating the several parallel adsorption reactions (¶18) of Jadhav in order to operate in a continuous manner (¶18).
Claims 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sundaram in view of Roesch as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gaffney et al. US 5,917,136 (hereafter Gaffney).
Regarding claim 7, Sundaram in view of Roesch teaches all the limitations of claim 1.
Sundaram further teaches a purge gas (¶20, ¶37, ¶46)
Sundaram does not teach wherein the first purge stream is a stream of superheated steam.
Gaffney teaches wherein the first purge stream is a stream of steam where steam is weakly adsorbing (col lines 10-23).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the SA stage (240) of Sundaram by incorporating the steam purge gas (col lines 10-23) of Gaffney because where steam is weakly adsorbing (col lines 10-23). Further, it would have been obvious to use superheated steam to avoid water condensing.
Regarding claim 8, Sundaram in view of Roesch and Gaffney teaches all the limitations of claim 7.
Sundaram does not teach wherein the stream of superheated steam is arranged to provide at least a part of the temperature increase of the SA stage from the first state to the second state.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the SA stage (240) of Sundaram by incorporating the wherein the stream of superheated steam is arranged to provide at least a part of the temperature increase of the SA stage from the first state to the second state because steam Sundaram teaches increasing the SA stage temperature and where steam is a well known means of increasing temperature/adding energy to a system.
Regarding claim 9, Sundaram in view of Roesch teaches all the limitations of claim 1.
Sundaram further teaches a purge gas (¶20, ¶37, ¶46)
Sundaram does not teach wherein the first purge stream is a fraction of the hydrocarbon feed, in the form of natural gas.
Gaffney teaches wherein the first purge stream is in the form of natural gas where methane is weakly adsorbing (col lines 10-23).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the SA stage (240) of Sundaram by incorporating the methane purge gas (col lines 10-23) of Gaffney because where steam is weakly adsorbing (col lines 10-23). Further, it would have been obvious to use a fraction of the hydrocarbon feed as the methane feed because it is readily available in the system.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sundaram in view of Roesch as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gaffney et al. US 5,917,136 (hereafter Gaffney).
Regarding claim 10, Sundaram in view of Roesch teaches all the limitations of claim 5.
Sundaram further teaches a purge gas (¶20, ¶37, ¶46)
Sundaram does not teach wherein the first and/or second purge streams are stream(s) of hydrogen
Gaffney teaches wherein the first purge stream is hydrogen where hydrogen is weakly adsorbing (col lines 10-23).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the SA stage (240) of Sundaram by incorporating the methane purge gas (col lines 10-23) of Gaffney because where steam is weakly adsorbing (col lines 10-23). Further, it would have been obvious to use a fraction of the hydrocarbon feed as the methane feed because it is readily available in the system.
Response to Arguments
The following is a response to Applicant’s arguments filed 22 Aug. 2025:
Applicant argues that the 112b rejections are overcome by amendment.
Examiner agrees and the rejections are withdrawn.
Applicant argues that Sundaram does not teach temperature swing adsorption.
Examiner disagrees. Sundaram teaches temperature swing adsorption in ¶35 and ¶61.
Applicant argues that Sundaram does not teach the first purge stream with a pressure equal to or higher than the first pressure.
Examiner disagrees. Sundaram teaches the first pressure of 10 barg (¶27) and the first purge stream at an equal pressure (¶40).
Applicant argues that Sundaram does not teach no compressor.
Examiner disagrees. Sundaram teaches no compressor (¶91, where the compression is optional).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 STEPHEN HOBSON whose telephone number is (571)272-9914. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-5pm.
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, Jennifer Dieterle can be reached at 571-270-7872. 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.
/STEPHEN HOBSON/Examiner, Art Unit 1776