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 .
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.
Specification
The specification and drawings have been reviewed and no clear informalities or objections have been noted.
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.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cohn (WO2022/187399) in view of Small (US 2023/0257838) and McFarland (CA 3082819 A1) and Midrex (US 2016/0208351).
Regarding claim 1, Cohn discloses a method comprising:
exposing a hydrocarbon feed stream (such as methane, CH4, as depicted in Fig. 1a) comprising a hydrocarbon to heat in an absence of oxygen (see paragraph 22 which discloses the pyrolyzer can be operated in an oxygen free environment) to convert the hydrocarbon feed stream into a solids stream and a gas stream (see paragraph 23 which discloses that the pyrolyzer produces elemental carbon, which is a solid, and hydrogen gas), the solids stream comprising carbon, the gas stream comprising hydrogen;
separating the gas stream into an exhaust gas stream and a first hydrogen stream comprising at least a portion of the hydrogen from the gas stream (see paragraph 33 which discloses separating the hydrogen containing gas into a CO2 stream and a hydrogen stream);
separating the carbon from the solids stream to produce a carbon stream (see Fig. 1a which discloses that the solid stream is separated into 2 streams, one being solid carbon);
performing electrolysis on a water stream comprising water (in electrolyzer 130) to produce an oxygen stream and a second hydrogen stream (as depicted in Fig. 1a), the oxygen stream comprising oxygen, the second hydrogen stream comprising hydrogen; and
combining at least a portion of the oxygen of the oxygen stream and at least a portion of the carbon of the carbon stream to generate power and a carbon dioxide stream comprising carbon dioxide (see paragraph 25 which discloses sending the produced oxygen and carbon to a direct carbon fuel cell which produces electricity and carbon dioxide), wherein at least a portion of the generated power is used to perform electrolysis on the water stream (see paragraph 25 which disclose that the electricity from the DCFC can be used to power the electrolyzer).
Cohn teaches the generation of electricity and hydrogen and teaches downstream use of the electricity, but does not go into all the possibilities for produced hydrogen or produced electricity. More specifically, Cohn does not teach:
reducing an iron ore by flowing at least one of A) at least a portion of the first hydrogen stream or B) at least a portion of the second hydrogen stream across the iron ore to produce iron; combining the iron and a first portion of the carbon of the carbon stream to produce steel; and
a second portion of the generated power is used to reduce the iron ore, and a third portion of the generated power is used to produce the steel.
Small also discloses a thermal decomposition of methane (see abstract).
Small teaches thermally decomposing methane to produce carbon (carbon black) and hydrogen (see Fig. 1 which illustrates carbon and hydrogen exiting reactor 102). Small goes on to teach that with these products, steel manufacturing can be facilitated. This steel fabrication includes:
reducing an iron ore by flowing the produced hydrogen across the iron ore to produce iron (in HDRI reactor 106, see paragraph 19);
combining the iron and a first portion of the carbon of the carbon stream to produce steel (in EIF reactor 108, see paragraph 21 and Fig. 1 which illustrates carbon from the methane decomposition reactor 102 being sent to the EIF 108 to produce steel). Small teaches such a process to produce a steel product (as disclosed in the abstract).
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to add the steel production system of Small to the methane decomposition system of Cohn in order to produce steel from the available hydrogen and carbon in Cohn.
As mentioned above, Cohn does not teach sending a portion of the generated power to both the reduction of iron ore and the production of steel. Cohn does, however, disclose a power source from a DCFC (as mentioned above).
In addition, Small teaches that the steel production reactor (108) requires energy (approx. 575 kWh) as well as the iron ore reduction reactor (approx. 140kWh).
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to utilize the produced electricity of Cohn in any/all of the energy consuming processes of modified Cohn (such as the steel production reactor and the ore reduction reactor of Small). Such a modification is nothing more than choosing from a known number of electricity users to utilize the produced electricity and would yield entirely predictable results.
Cohn, as modified above, teaches an exhaust gas stream from the pyrolyzer (see embodiment of Fig. 1b in which the exhaust gas from the pyrolyzer and shifter is hydrogen and carbon dioxide (paragraph 32).
Cohn, however, does not teach recycling a portion of the exhaust gas to the hydrocarbon feed stream.
McFarland also discloses a hydrocarbon pyrolysis system (see abstract).
McFarland teaches a pyrolyzing system and discloses that that downstream of the pyrolyzer, a separator is utilized to separate the gas stream into the products along with unreacted or incompletely reacted and then sending these unreacted materials back to the reactor with the feed stream (paragraph 68). Such a system allows for more complete conversion of the hydrocarbon feed stream by utilizing a recycled stream.
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention is to add the recycle line of McFarland to the process of modified Cohn in order to more completely convert the incoming hydrocarbon stream into products. Such a modification will produce more products (hydrogen and carbon) from a given amount of feed.
Furthermore, Cohn, as modified above, teaches the generation of steel utilizing the carbon from the pyrolyzer in the EIF (electric induction furnace), but stops short of disclosing the addition of oxygen to the iron and carbon.
Midrex also discloses a process for steel making (see abstract).
Midrex teaches that oxygen can be added to the furnace with iron and carbon in order to at least partially assist in the thermal requirements of the reactor (paragraph 8) and limit the need of electric energy.
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to add the oxygen of Midrex to the EIF reactor of modified Cohn in order to assist in the thermal requirement of the EIF reactor and reduce electricity consumption.
Regarding claim 21, Cohn teaches a carbon dioxide stream, as described in the rejection of claim 1, but does not teach a CO2 concentration above 99vol% as claimed. Cohn, however, does teach a range that overlaps the claimed range by stating that the CO2 stream is “essentially pure” which includes greater than 95% (see paragraph 26). As such, arriving at the claimed range would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP §2144.05(I)).
Claim(s) 2 and 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cohn (WO2022/187399) and Small (US 2023/0257838) and McFarland (CA 3082819 A1) in view of Muradov (US 6,653,005).
Regarding claim 2, Cohn discloses a process of converting the methane in a natural gas via pyrolysis but stops short of explicitly disclose any other hydrocarbons other than methane.
Muradov also discloses pyrolysis process to convert a hydrocarbon into hydrogen and a solid carbon (see abstract).
Muradov teaches a process in which many different hydrocarbons can be fed to the reactor to produce hydrogen and solid carbon (col. 5 lines 34-38).
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to add the process of Muradov to the system of Cohn in order to allow for the ability to process more types of hydrocarbons than just methane while still produce solid carbon and hydrogen.
Regarding claim 3, Cohn further discloses the hydrocarbon feed stream comprises hydrogen (due to the inclusion of hydrogen in a hydrocarbon).
Claim(s) 4-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cohn (WO2022/187399) and Small (US 2023/0257838) and McFarland (CA 3082819 A1) in view of Muradov (US 6,653,005) as applied to claim 3 above and further in view of Ennis (US 2011/0120137) and (US 2011/0014526).
Regarding claim 4, Cohn discloses the use of a DCFC to produce power from oxygen and carbon, but stops short of disclosing the operation of the DCFC. More specifically, Cohn does not teach a solid oxide or the temperature of operation of the DCFC.
Ennis also discloses a DCFC system (see abstract).
Ennis teaches a DCFC that receives a carbon and hydrogen stream from a pyrolytic reactor (similar to Cohn) and teaches that the DCFC operates at a range which overlaps the claimed range (see paragraph 27).
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to add the DCFC operational parameters of Ennis to the DCFC of Cohn in order to produce electricity in a DCFC.
Furthermore, Cohn, as modified above, does not explicitly disclose a DCFC comprising a solid oxide.
Gur also disclose a DCFC system (see abstract).
Gur teaches the use of a solid oxide in a DCFC due to its exceptional performance in transporting oxygen ions (paragraph 25).
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to add the solid oxide electrolyte of Gur to the process of modified Cohn in order to facilitate transport of oxygen ions across the membrane.
Regarding claims 5-9, Cohn fails to teach the claimed limitations regarding heat integration of the DCFC system. More specifically, Cohn fails to teach:
transferring, by a first waste heat recovery heat exchanger, heat from the gas stream to a buffer fluid.
transferring, by a second waste heat recovery heat exchanger, heat from the buffer fluid to the hydrocarbon feed stream prior to exposing the hydrocarbon feed stream to heat in the absence of oxygen.
generating power by a Rankine cycle using the heat transferred from the gas stream to the buffer stream, wherein generating power by the Rankine cycle comprises: transferring heat from the buffer fluid to a working fluid in a boiler to vaporize the working fluid into a vaporized working fluid; flowing and expanding the vaporized working fluid through a turbine to generate power; condensing the vaporized working fluid into a condensed working fluid; and circulating the condensed working fluid to the boiler.
transferring, by a first waste heat recovery heat exchanger, heat from the carbon dioxide stream to a buffer fluid;
transferring, by a second waste heat recovery heat exchanger, heat from the buffer fluid to the hydrocarbon feed stream prior to exposing the hydrocarbon feed stream to heat in the absence of oxygen.
Ennis goes on to teach:
transferring, by a first waste heat recovery heat exchanger, heat from the gas stream to the hydrocarbon feed stream prior to exposing the hydrocarbon feed stream to heat in the absence of oxygen (see heat exchanger 404 which transfers heat from the effluent of the pyrolysis reactor 406 to the inlet of the pyrolysis reactor); and
generating power by a Rankine cycle using the heat transferred from the gas stream to the buffer stream, wherein generating power by the Rankine cycle comprises: transferring heat from the buffer fluid to a working fluid in a boiler to vaporize the working fluid into a vaporized working fluid; flowing and expanding the vaporized working fluid through a turbine to generate power; condensing the vaporized working fluid into a condensed working fluid; and circulating the condensed working fluid to the boiler (see Fig. 4 of Ennis which discloses transferring heat from the gas stream in heat exchanger 408 to a BFW stream which is then transferred to turbine 424 to generate power); and
transferring heat by a first waste heat recovery heat exchanger, heat from the carbon dioxide stream to a buffer fluid (see heat exchanger 428 which transfers heat from a CO2 product to the BFW).
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to add the heat integration of Ennis to the process of modified Cohn in order to minimize external heating inputs and reducing energy costs.
Furthermore, modified Cohn, above, does not explicitly disclose transferring, by a second waste heat recovery heat exchanger, heat from the buffer fluid to the hydrocarbon feed stream prior to exposing the hydrocarbon feed stream to heat in the absence of oxygen. However, re-arranging the heat integration of modified Cohn such that the heat from the hot gases of the pyrolytic reactor is transferred, via BFW (aka buffer fluid) to the hydrocarbon feed supply instead of the hydrogen stream heating the hydrocarbon feed supply (as is the case in Ennis) would have been an obvious modification to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. Such a modification is nothing more than re-arranging the heat integration to yield predictable results and would have been an obvious engineering choice of one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cohn (WO2022/187399) and Small (US 2023/0257838) and McFarland (CA 3082819 A1) in view of Muradov (US 6,653,005) as applied to claim 3 above and further in view of Ennis (US 2011/0120137) and (US 2011/0014526) and further in view of Steinberg (US 2004/0265651).
Regarding claim 10, Cohn teaches producing a CO2 stream, but does not explicitly disclose pumping the CO2 into a subterranean formation.
Steinberg also discloses producing a CO2 stream from a DCFC (see abstract).
Steinberg teaches sending the CO2 stream into a depleted oil well in order to prevent it from being released to the atmosphere (paragraph 12).
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to add the sequestration step of Steinberg to the process of modified Cohn in order to prevent CO2 release into the atmosphere.
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cohn (WO2022/187399) in view of Small (US 2023/0257838) and McFarland (CA 3082819 A1) and Midrex (US 2016/0208351) and further in view of Constantz (US 2011/0067603).
Regarding claim 22, Cohn teaches the generation of a carbon dioxide stream (as discussed in the rejection of claim 1 above), but does not teach utilizing the carbon dioxide in a cement production process.
Constantz also discloses a process that produces a CO2 stream (see Source of CO2 30 in Fig. 1).
Constantz goes on to teach that the CO2 stream from the CO2 source is utilized to produce cement (see paragraph 311 which discloses the production of cement from the CO2 slurry that is produced with the CO2 sources).
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to utilize the CO2 stream of Cohn in the process of Constantz in order to make cement.
Claim(s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cohn (WO2022/187399) in view of Small (US 2023/0257838) and McFarland (CA 3082819 A1) and Midrex (US 2016/0208351) and further in view of Reid (US 2018/0221947).
Regarding claim 23, Cohn, as modified above, teaches to reduction of iron ore, but does not expressly state what the composition of the iron ore is. More specifically, Cohn does not teach the iron ore comprises magnetite (Fe3O4), hematite (Fe2O3), goethite (FeO(OH)), limonite (FeO(OH)-n(H2O)), or siderite (FeCO3).
Reid also discloses an iron ore reduction process (see abstract).
Reid teaches that common types of iron ore to be reduced via hydrogen reduction are magnetite or hematite (paragraphs 21 and 71).
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to utilize the iron ore species of Reid in the process of modified Cohn as these species are well known in the industry to effectively produce reduced iron via hydrogen reduction.
Relevant Prior Art
US 2006/0024538 – Discloses a DCFC system which utilizes an electrolyzer.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/9/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. On page 10, Applicant argues that the combination of Cohn, Small, McFarland and Midrex is improper because Small teaches an electric induction furnace and Midrex describes an electric arc furnace. The Office respectfully disagrees with this argument. The rejection combines the teachings of these references, rather than physically combining two different furnaces as Applicant appears to be arguing. Small supplies the teaching of using methane-derived hydrogen to reduce iron ore and methane-derived carbon to produce steel. Midrex supplies an additional teaching that utilizing oxygen into a furnace containing iron and carbon generates heat through carbon oxidation, reducing the required energy input from electricity. The modification merely combines the oxygen-assisted heating of Midrex rather than replacing the entire furnace structure of modified Cohn, as Applicant appears to be arguing.
Applicant also argues on page 10 that neither reference (Small nor Midrex) teaches combining hydrogen produced by pyrolysis to reduce iron ore to yield iron. The Office respectfully disagrees with this argument. This is precisely what Small teaches. See paragraph 19 of Small which expressly states that the hydrocarbon decomposition/pyrolysis produces hydrogen which is utilized for iron ore reduction.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it considers only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). In this instance, the rejection identifies reasons to combine that are sourced from the references themselves, as described in the rejection above, not from the instant invention, as Applicant contends.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW J MERKLING whose telephone number is (571)272-9813. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8am-6pm.
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.
/MATTHEW J MERKLING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725
