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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, and, further, Species C (a spark ignition engine) in the reply filed on April 15, 2026 is acknowledged. The elected invention reads on claims 1, 2, 4, 7, 13, 15, 17, 19-21, 23-25, 27, 29, 30, 63, 66, 67, 69, 71-73, 77-85, 87-91, and 93.
While applicant did not identify claims 65 and 86 as “withdrawn”, the claims have been withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner because the claims are directed to a non-elected species (claim 65 reads on a variable compression engine, and claim 86 reads on a gas turbine assembly). Accordingly, claims 5, 6, 8, 9, 26, 64, 65, 75, 76, 86, 92, and 94 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claim Objections
Claims 25, 67, 71, 83-85, 90, and 91 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 25, “for” (a line 9) should be deleted.
In claim 67, the phrase “in situ” (at line 3) should be italicized.
In claim 71, the phrase “in situ” (at line 3) should be italicized.
In claim 83, “for” (at line 10) should be deleted.
In claim 84, “for” (at line 10) should be deleted.
In claim 85, “for” (at line 9) should be deleted.
In claim 90, “stager” (at line 2) should be changed to --stage--.
In claim 91, “in” (at line 5) should be deleted.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 63, 66, 71-73, 80-82, 90, and 93 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 63, the recitation of “mixture” (at line 11) lacks proper positive antecedent basis.
Regarding claims 80-82, “the predetermined reformer temperature” was duplicated in each claim. Also, the relationship between “the predetermined reformer temperature” and “a predetermined partial oxidation temperature” set forth in claim 1 (under d) is unclear.
Regarding claim 93, the recitation of “mixture” (at line 14) lacks proper positive antecedent basis.
The remaining claims are also rejected because they depend from a rejected base claim.
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.
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, 2, 4, 7, 13, 15, 17, 19-21, 23-25, 27, 29, 30, 63, 66, 73, 77-85, 89, 91, and 93 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carpenter et al. (US 2020/0232406 A1) in view of Paravathikar et al. (US 2024/0051824 A1), Bromberg, III et al. (US 2014/0144397 A1), and Ludeman (US 2,800,402 A).
The instant “system” claims are considered apparatus claims.
Regarding claim 1, Carpenter et al. discloses a system 400 (see FIG. 4) for converting flare gas into an end product, comprising:
a reformer stage (i.e., a gas reformer system including an internal combustion engine 100 operable under fuel-rich conditions, so as to function as a chemical reactor (reformer) to produce synthesis gas (syngas); see paragraph [0036]),
wherein the reformer stage comprises:
an intake for receiving a flow of a flare gas (i.e., an inlet for receiving a fuel, such as associated gas from oil wells, waste gas streams that would typically be flared, biogas streams, etc.; see paragraphs [0029], [0051]);
an intake for receiving a flow of air (i.e., an inlet for receiving an oxidizer, such as air; see paragraph [0037]);
a mixer 240 for combining the flows of air and flare gas, wherein the mixer is configured to provide a mixture having a rich fuel/air equivalence ratio (i.e., the mixer mixes oxidizer and fuel in a desired ratio to form a charge fed to the engine 100, where the charge has a rich fuel-air equivalence ratio; see paragraphs [0013], [0036]-[0037]);
an air breathing reformer (i.e., the engine 100; see FIG. 1, paragraph [0034]) configured to operate under rich fuel/air conditions; wherein the reformer is configured to operate in a partial oxidation combustion window to convert the mixture into a syngas (i.e., the engine 100 is configured to partially oxidized the fuel to produce an exhaust stream comprising synthesis gas; see paragraphs [0036]-[0037]); and
a line for flowing the syngas to a conversion system (see FIG. 4).
With respect to the conversion system, Carpenter et al. (at paragraph [0029]) discloses that the reformer stage “may be used in conjunction with methanol production, as well as other chemical production processes”. Carpenter et al., however, does not further describe a synthesis stage for the conversion system.
Paravathikar et al. discloses a system (see FIG. 1-2; paragraph [0010]) for converting flare gas into an end product, comprising:
a reformer stage (i.e., an upstream stage for producing syngas) and a synthesis stage (i.e., a downstream stage for producing an end product from the syngas);
wherein the reformer stage comprises:
an intake for receiving a flow of a flare gas (i.e., an inlet for a gaseous hydrocarbon stream such as associated gas from oil wells, waste gas stream, biogas from anaerobic digestion, biogas from landfills, etc.; see paragraph [0016]);
an intake for receiving a flow of air (i.e., an inlet for oxygen-enriched air);
an air breathing reformer (i.e., an internal combustion engine-based syngas generator) for converting the flare gas and air into a syngas via partial oxidation combustion; and
a line (shown) for flowing the syngas to the synthesis stage; and
wherein, specifically, the synthesis stage comprises:
a line (shown) for receiving a flow of syngas from the reformer stage; and
a synthesis unit configured to receive the syngas and convert the syngas into an end product (i.e., in FIG. 1, a methanol synthesis unit converts the syngas into methanol, or a methanol synthesis unit and a DME synthesis unit converts the syngas into DME, or a one-step DME synthesis unit converts the syngas into DME; alternatively, in FIG. 2, a FT synthesis unit converts the syngas into FT liquid).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the claimed synthesis stage for the conversion system in the system of Carpenter et al. because the synthesis stage would have been considered a suitable means for enabling the methanol production, as well as the production of other chemical products, such as DME or FT liquids, from the syngas that was derived from the partial oxidation combustion of flare gas in the air breathing reformer, as taught by Paravathikar et al.
Carpenter et al. also discloses that the system comprises a control system (i.e., a central processing unit (not shown); see paragraph [0038]), wherein:
“The central processing unit may be in communication with and capable of activating and controlling one or more of the individual components of the process 200. The central processing unit may be capable of storing and executing computer code to initiate operation of the process 200 in response to monitored operating conditions of the engine 100 and analysis of the syngas produced by the engine 100. For example, the ratio of H2 to CO in the exhaust stream of the engine 100 may be monitored, and the central processing unit may adjust one or more of the individual components of the process 200 in response to the monitored H2 to CO ratio. Additionally, the central processing unit may adjust one or more of the individual components of the process 200 in response to monitored parameters of the engine 100, such as combustion temperature in one or more cylinders 105, inlet pressure, exhaust pressure, and the like.” (with emphasis added).
Thus, the control system is configured to operate the reformer stage at a predetermined partial oxidation temperature and a predetermined partial oxidation pressure.
Carpenter et al., however, does not specifically disclose that the control system is also configured to operate the synthesis stage at a predetermined synthesis temperature and a predetermined synthesis pressure.
Bromberg et al. discloses a system for converting flare gas into an end product (i.e., a fuel manufacturing plant 10; see FIG. 13, paragraphs [0038]-[0039]), comprising:
a reformer stage (i.e., an upstream stage including an engine-based reformer 20 for producing synthesis gas 40) and a synthesis stage (i.e., a downstream stage including a chemical reactor 50 for converting the synthesis gas 40 into a liquid fuel as an end product);
wherein the reformer stage comprises:
an intake for receiving a flow of a flare gas (i.e., an inlet for receiving a gaseous hydrocarbon fuel 21, such as natural gas from shale production, natural gas generated from off-shore drilling rigs, stranded natural gas, biogas from landfills and digesters, etc.; see paragraphs [0004], [0100], [0151]);
an intake for receiving a flow of air (i.e., an inlet for receiving an oxidant 22, such as air; see paragraph [0038]);
a mixer for combining the flow of air and the flow of the flare gas (i.e., a mixer for pre-mixing the fuel 21 and oxidant 22 upstream of the engine-based reformer 20; see paragraph [0038],[0041]);
an air breathing reformer (i.e., the engine-based reformer 20) configured to operate under rich fuel/air conditions, wherein the reformer is configured to operate in a partial oxidation combustion window (see paragraphs [0035]-[0036]); whereby the reformer 20 is configured to convert the mixture into a syngas 40; and
a line (shown) for flowing the syngas 40 to the synthesis stage 50; and
wherein the synthesis stage comprises:
a line (shown) for receiving a flow of syngas 40 from the reformer stage; and
a synthesis unit (i.e., the chemical reactor 50) configured to receive the syngas and convert the syngas into an end product (i.e., the liquid fuel, such as methanol, FT fuels, or DME; see paragraphs [0039], [0116]).
Specifically, Bromberg III, et al. discloses that the system comprises a control system (i.e., a controller 90; see paragraph [0039]), wherein the controller:
“… may be in communication with the chemical reactor 50, the engine 20 and the mechanical power plant 60 to control the overall operation of the system 10.” (with emphasis added).
In addition, Ludeman discloses a system (see Figure) comprising:
a reformer stage (i.e., an upstream stage including a conversion zone 4 for producing a synthesis gas) and a synthesis stage (i.e., a downstream stage including a synthesis zone 32 for converting the synthesis gas to an end product);
wherein the reformer stage comprises:
an intake for receiving a flow of fuel gas (i.e., methane through line 1);
an intake for receiving a flow of oxidant (i.e., oxygen through line 2);
an air-breathing reformer configured to convert the fuel gas and oxidant into a syngas (i.e., a conversion zone 4, such as internal combustion reciprocating engine, for converting the methane and oxygen into a synthesis gas via partial oxidation combustion; see column 3, lines 35-48); and
a line 22 for flowing the syngas to the synthesis stage; and
wherein the synthesis stage comprises:
a line 27 for receiving a flow of syngas from the reformer stage; and
a synthesis unit (i.e., the synthesis zone 32 comprising a catalytic converter) configured to receive the syngas and convert the syngas into an end product (i.e., hydrocarbons or oxygenated hydrocarbons; see column 4, lines 39-50).
Specifically, Ludeman discloses that the reformer stage requires operation at a predetermined partial oxidation temperature and a predetermined partial oxidation pressure (see column 3, lines 35-48), and the synthesis stage requires operation at a predetermined synthesis temperature and a predetermined synthesis pressure (see column 4, lines 39-50).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the control system in the modified system of Carpenter et al. to control the operations of both the reformer stage and the synthesis stage, including a predetermined partial oxidation temperature, a predetermined partial oxidation pressure, a predetermined synthesis temperature, and a predetermined synthesis pressure, because the operations of the entire system could then be automatically controlled by the control system, as taught by Bromberg, III et al., including the operating temperatures and pressures that would be required of the partial oxidation combustion reaction conducted in the reforming stage and the synthesis reaction conducted in the synthesis stage, as taught by Ludeman.
Regarding claim 2, Paravathikar et al. discloses that the reformer stage and the synthesis stage are integral (i.e., an integrated system; see FIG. 1-2). Bromberg, III et al. also discloses that the reformer stage and the synthesis stage are integral (i.e., system 10 integrates the components of the reformer stage and the synthesis stage, and the system can be designed such that the entire system fits on a skid, see paragraph [0006], [0147]).
Regarding claim 4, Carpenter et al. discloses that the air breathing reformer comprises a rich-burn, air-breathing reciprocating engine (i.e., the internal combustion engine 100 operates under fuel-rich conditions, see paragraph [0036]; also, the engine 100 comprises a reciprocating engine including a piston 115 that reciprocates (moves up and down) within a cylinder 105 of the engine, see FIG. 1 and paragraph [0031]).
Regarding claim 7, Carpenter et al. discloses that the engine 100 is a spark ignition engine (i.e., ignition is by a spark generated by a spark plug 155, see FIG. 1).
Regarding claim 13, Carpenter et al. discloses that the engine 100 can comprise a 2-stroke engine or a 4-stroke engine (see paragraphs [0033]-[0034]).
Regarding claims 15 and 17, Carpenter et al. (at paragraph [0055]) discloses,
“Under essentially steady-state operating conditions, FIG. 8 illustrates the expected ratio of H2 to CO in the exhaust gas for a given fuel-air equivalence ratio. Thus, the engine 100 may be tuned to produce a desired H2 to CO ratio as needed for downstream processes ... According to various embodiments, FIG. 8 may be used to determine the fuel-air equivalence ratio needed to produce a desired H2 to CO ratio…” (with emphasis added).
As shown by FIG. 8, there is a predictable, direct relationship between the fuel-air equivalence ratio (ɸ) of the mixture supplied to the reformer 100 and the ratio of H2 to CO in the syngas produced by the reformer 100. For instance, when the equivalence ratio (ɸ) equals 2, the H2/CO ratio in the syngas equals 1.5. The equivalence ratio (ɸ) needed to produce other, increased H2/CO ratios can be further extrapolated from the data.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further configure the control system to maintain a predetermined H2/CO ratio in the syngas in the modified system of Carpenter et al. because the operation of the reformer stage could then be automatically tuned to produce the desired H2/CO ratio in the syngas as needed for the processes in the downstream synthesis stage.
Furthermore, the specific H2/CO ratio in the syngas, e.g., from about 2 to about 3, or from about 1.1 to about 2.5, is not considered to confer patentability to the claim since the precise H2/CO ratio would be dependent on the intended products to be formed by downstream synthesis stage. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the control system in the modified system of Carpenter to maintain an optimal H2/CO ratio in the syngas for a given end product to by synthesized in the downstream synthesis stage, for instance, the optimal H2/CO ratio for the synthesis methanol, methanol/DME, or F-T liquids. The examiner further takes Official notice that the H2/CO ratios suited for the synthesis of these products would have been well-known to one of ordinary skill in the chemical engineering art.
Regarding claim 19, Ludeman further discloses that partial oxidation combustion can be conducted at: (i) a temperature of from about 700 °C to about 1200 °C (i.e., a temperature of at least about 1600 °F (871 °C); see column 3, lines 37-40 and ref. claim 1); and (ii) a pressure from about 1 bar to about 70 bar (i.e., a pressure varying from atmospheric to 300 pounds per square inch (about 1 bar to about 21 bar); see column 3, lines 35-40). Ludeman also discloses that the conversion of syngas into hydrocarbons or oxygenated hydrocarbons can be conducted at: (iii) a temperature from about 200 °C to about 300 °C (i.e., a temperature from 280 °F to 650 °F (138°C to 343 °C), with the exact temperature selected being dependent on the type of operation, the catalyst, and the products desired; see column 4, lines 5-48); and (iv) a pressure from about 30 bar to about 100 bar (i.e., a pressure from about atmospheric to 1500 pounds per square inch (about 1 bar to 103 bar); see column 4, lines 48-50).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the control system in the modified system of Carpenter et al. to operate under one or more of the claimed conditions (i)-(iv), depending on the composition of the flare gas and the end product to be synthesized, because the conditions would have been considered suitable for carrying out the partial oxidation combustion reaction in the reformer stage and the synthesis reaction in the synthesis stage, as taught by Ludeman, and where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 20, Carpenter et al. discloses that the reformer comprises an internal combustion engine 100 (see FIG. 1; paragraph [0031]).
Regarding claim 21, Carpenter et al. discloses that the controller is configured to maintain a fuel/air equivalence ratio of from about 1.5 to about 2.5 (i.e., a fuel-air equivalence ratio (ɸ) of about 1.6 to 2.4; see paragraphs [0010], [0013]).
Carpenter et al. (at paragraph [0038]) further discloses:
“The central processing unit may be in communication with and capable of activating and controlling one or more of the individual components of the process 200. The central processing unit may be capable of storing and executing computer code to initiate operation of the process 200 in response to monitored operating conditions of the engine 100 and analysis of the syngas produced by the engine 100. For example, the ratio of H2 to CO in the exhaust stream of the engine 100 may be monitored, and the central processing unit may adjust one or more of the individual components of the process 200 in response to the monitored H2 to CO ratio. Additionally, the central processing unit may adjust one or more of the individual components of the process 200 in response to monitored parameters of the engine 100, such as combustion temperature in one or more cylinders 105, inlet pressure, exhaust pressure, and the like.” (with emphasis added).
Therefore, Carpenter et al. discloses that the controller is configured to control the operation of the reformer stage by adjusting one or more of the individual components of the reformer stage, based on a monitored H2/CO ratio in the synthesis gas, in order to maintain a set H2/CO ratio in the synthesis gas. As such, the controller in the modified system of Carpenter et al. would be configured such that a variation in a composition of the flare gas does not change a H2/CO ratio of the synthesis gas from the reformer stage, and, accordingly, a variation in a composition of the flare gas would not change a composition of the end product produced from the syngas (having an unchanged H2/CO ratio) received from the reformer stage.
Regarding claim 23, Carpenter et al. (at paragraph [0038]) discloses:
“The central processing unit may be in communication with and capable of activating and controlling one or more of the individual components of the process 200. The central processing unit may be capable of storing and executing computer code to initiate operation of the process 200 in response to monitored operating conditions of the engine 100 and analysis of the syngas produced by the engine 100. For example, the ratio of H2 to CO in the exhaust stream of the engine 100 may be monitored, and the central processing unit may adjust one or more of the individual components of the process 200 in response to the monitored H2 to CO ratio. Additionally, the central processing unit may adjust one or more of the individual components of the process 200 in response to monitored parameters of the engine 100, such as combustion temperature in one or more cylinders 105, inlet pressure, exhaust pressure, and the like.” (with emphasis added).
Therefore, Carpenter et al. discloses that the controller is configured to control the operation of the reformer stage by adjusting one or more of the individual components of the reformer stage, based on a monitored H2/CO ratio in the synthesis gas, in order to maintain a set H2/CO ratio in the synthesis gas. As such, the controller in the modified system of Carpenter et al. would be configured such that a variation in a composition of the flare gas does not change a H2/CO ratio of the synthesis gas from the reformer stage, and, accordingly, a variation in a composition of the flare gas would not change a composition of the end product produced from the syngas (having an unchanged H2/CO ratio) received from the reformer stage, and a variation in a composition of the flare gas would not require a change in two or more of the predetermined synthesis temperature, the predetermined synthesis pressure, the predetermined reformer temperature, and/or the predetermined reformer pressure.
Regarding claim 24, Carpenter et al. (at paragraph [0050]) discloses,
“… humidified air or steam addition to the gas feed may be used. Increasing the humidity or adding additional steam increases the water vapor concentration in the cylinder enabling higher hydrogen yields through steam reforming reactions.”
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further provide a water and/or steam inlet for introducing water and/or steam into the reformer in the modified system of Carpenter et al. because the water and/or steam would increase the water vapor concentration in the reformer (engine), thereby enabling higher hydrogen yields through steam reforming reactions.
Regarding claim 25, Carpenter et al. discloses that the reformer is a reciprocating engine (i.e., an engine 100 including a piston 115 that reciprocates (moves up and down) within a cylinder 105 of the engine; see FIG. 1, paragraph [0031]). Carpenter et al. further discloses that the reciprocating engine 100 is capable of operating with an inlet manifold air temperature of 200 °C (see paragraph [0047]); an inlet manifold air pressure between approximately ambident to 2 bar absolute (see paragraph [0053]); and an engine speed of 1500 RPM (see paragraph [0056]) or up to 2000 RPM (see paragraph [0048]).
Regarding claim 27, Carpenter et al. (at paragraph [0051]) discloses,
“The addition of hydrogen to the fuel stream may also provide benefit in some embodiments with various fuel compositions. This hydrogen could be obtained from outside sources or recycled from the engine operation or downstream processes. One embodiment would be to either recycle hydrogen selectively removed from the engine exhaust gas or recycle a fraction of the engine exhaust.”
Paravathikar et al. further discloses a hydrogen separation unit to provide a stream of recovered hydrogen (i.e., a selective membrane or a pressure swing adsorber for separating a H2-rich stream from a tail gas of the synthesis reactor; see FIG. 1-2; paragraphs [0038], [0042]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a hydrogen separation unit for recovering a hydrogen stream in the modified system of Carpenter et al. because the hydrogen stream could be recycled to provide benefit in some embodiments with various fuel compositions, as disclosed by Carpenter et al., and furthermore, recycling the hydrogen stream into the engine feed would increase the calorific value of the feed gas for flame stabilization, and, also, recycling the hydrogen stream into the syngas would increase the H2/CO ratio of the syngas being fed to the synthesis stage, as taught by Paravathikar et al. (see paragraphs [0038], [0044]).
Regarding claim 29, Carpenter et al. fails to disclose a hydrogen separation unit to provide a stream of recovered hydrogen for mixing with the syngas.
Paravathikar et al., however, further discloses a hydrogen separation unit (i.e., a selective membrane or a pressure swing adsorber for separating a H2-rich stream from a tail gas of the synthesis reactor; see FIG. 1-2; paragraphs [0038], [0042]) to provide a stream of a recovered hydrogen for mixing with the syngas (i.e., the recovered H2-rich stream can be recycled to the syngas between the engine and the synthesis reactor; see paragraph [0044]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a hydrogen separation unit for recovering a stream of hydrogen for mixing with the syngas in the modified system of Carpenter et al. because the hydrogen stream could be used to increase the H2/CO ratio of the syngas being fed to the synthesis stage, as taught by Paravathikar et al. (see paragraph [0044]).
In addition, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further configure the control system to control the mixing of the recovered hydrogen with the syngas in the modified system of Carpenter et al. because the H2/CO ratio of the synthesis gas could then be automatically increased by the mixing to the ratio required by the downstream synthesis stage. It is further noted that the automation of a manual activity was held to be obvious. See MPEP § 2144.04 III.
Regarding claim 30, both Carpenter et al. (paragraph [0029]) and Paravathikar et al. (FIG. 1) disclose that the end product can comprise methanol. Additionally, Paravathikar et al. discloses that the end product can comprise dimethyl-ether (FIG. 1) and F-T liquids (FIG. 2).
Regarding claim 63, Carpenter et al. discloses a system 400 (see FIG. 4) for converting flare gas into an end product, the system comprising:
a reformer stage (i.e., a gas reformer system including an internal combustion engine 100 operable under fuel-rich conditions, so as to function as a chemical reactor (reformer) to produce synthesis gas (syngas); see paragraph [0036]),
wherein the reformer stage comprises:
an intake for receiving a flow of a flare gas (i.e., an inlet for receiving a fuel, such as associated gas from oil wells, waste gas streams that would typically be flared, biogas streams, etc.; see paragraphs [0029], [0051]);
an intake for receiving a flow of air (i.e., an inlet for receiving an oxidizer, such as air; see paragraph [0037]);
an air breathing reformer (i.e., the internal combustion engine 100; see FIG. 1, paragraph [0034]) configured to operate under rich fuel/air conditions; wherein the reformer is configured to operate in a partial oxidation combustion window to convert a mixture of the flare gas and air (i.e., produced by a mixer 240) into a syngas (i.e., the engine 100 is configured to partially oxidized the fuel to produce an exhaust stream comprising synthesis gas; see paragraphs [0036]-[0037]); and
a line for flowing the syngas to a conversion system (see FIG. 4).
For the conversion system, Carpenter et al. (at paragraph [0029]) discloses that the reformer stage “… may be used in conjunction with methanol production, as well as other chemical production processes”. Carpenter et al., however, does not further describe a synthesis stage for the conversion system.
Paravathikar et al. discloses a system (see FIG. 1-2; paragraph [0010]) for converting flare gas into an end product, comprising:
a reformer stage (i.e., an upstream stage for producing syngas) and a synthesis stage (i.e., a downstream stage for producing an end product from the syngas);
wherein the reformer stage comprises:
an intake for receiving a flow of a flare gas (i.e., an inlet for a gaseous hydrocarbon stream such as associated gas from oil wells, waste gas stream, biogas from anaerobic digestion, biogas from landfills, etc.; see paragraph [0016]);
an intake for receiving a flow of air (i.e., an inlet for oxygen-enriched air);
an air breathing reformer (i.e., an internal combustion engine-based syngas generator) for converting the flare gas and air into a syngas via partial oxidation combustion; and
a line (shown) for flowing the syngas to the synthesis stage; and
specifically, wherein the synthesis stage comprises:
a line (shown) for receiving a flow of syngas from the reformer stage; and
a synthesis unit configured to receive the syngas and convert the syngas into an end product (i.e., in FIG. 1, a methanol synthesis unit converts the syngas into methanol, or a methanol synthesis unit and a DME synthesis unit converts the syngas into DME, or a one-step DME synthesis unit converts the syngas into DME; alternatively, in FIG. 2, a FT synthesis unit converts the syngas into FT liquid).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the claimed synthesis stage for the conversion system in the system of Carpenter et al. because the synthesis stage would have been considered a suitable means for enabling the methanol production, as well as the production of other chemical products such as DME or FT liquids, using the syngas derived from the partial oxidation combustion of flare gas in the air breathing reformer, as taught by Paravathikar et al.
Carpenter et al. further discloses that the system comprises a control system (i.e., a central processing unit (not shown); see paragraph [0038]), wherein:
“The central processing unit may be in communication with and capable of activating and controlling one or more of the individual components of the process 200. The central processing unit may be capable of storing and executing computer code to initiate operation of the process 200 in response to monitored operating conditions of the engine 100 and analysis of the syngas produced by the engine 100. For example, the ratio of H2 to CO in the exhaust stream of the engine 100 may be monitored, and the central processing unit may adjust one or more of the individual components of the process 200 in response to the monitored H2 to CO ratio. Additionally, the central processing unit may adjust one or more of the individual components of the process 200 in response to monitored parameters of the engine 100, such as combustion temperature in one or more cylinders 105, inlet pressure, exhaust pressure, and the like.” (with emphasis added).
Thus, Carpenter et al. discloses that the control system is configured to operate the reformer stage (i.e., the gas reformer system) at a predetermined partial oxidation temperature and a predetermined partial oxidation pressure.
Carpenter et al., however, does not specifically disclose that the control system is also configured to operate the synthesis stage at a predetermined synthesis temperature and a predetermined synthesis pressure.
Bromberg et al. discloses a system for converting flare gas into an end product (i.e., a fuel manufacturing plant 10; see FIG. 13, paragraphs [0038]-[0039]), comprising:
a reformer stage (i.e., an upstream stage including an engine-based reformer 20 for producing synthesis gas 40) and a synthesis stage (i.e., a downstream stage including a chemical reactor 50 for converting the synthesis gas 40 into a liquid fuel as an end product);
wherein the reformer stage comprises:
an intake for receiving a flow of a flare gas (i.e., an inlet for receiving a gaseous hydrocarbon fuel 21, such as natural gas from shale production, natural gas generated from off-shore drilling rigs, stranded natural gas, biogas from landfills and digesters, etc.; see paragraphs [0004], [0100], [0151]);
an intake for receiving a flow of air (i.e., an inlet for receiving an oxidant 22, such as air; see paragraph [0038]);
an air breathing reformer (i.e., the engine-based reformer 20) configured to operate under rich fuel/air conditions, wherein the reformer is configured to operate in a partial oxidation combustion window (see paragraphs [0035]-[0036]); whereby the reformer 20 is configured to convert a mixture of the flare gas and the air (i.e., produced by a mixer for pre-mixing the fuel 21 and oxidant 22 upstream of the reformer 20; see paragraph [0038],[0041]) into a syngas 40; and
a line (shown) for flowing the syngas 40 to the synthesis stage 50; and
wherein the synthesis stage comprises:
a line (shown) for receiving a flow of syngas 40 from the reformer stage; and
a synthesis unit (i.e., the chemical reactor 50) configured to receive the syngas and convert the syngas into an end product (i.e., the liquid fuel, such as methanol, FT fuels, or DME; see paragraphs [0039], [0116]).
Specifically, Bromberg III, et al. discloses that the system comprises a control system (i.e., a controller 90; see paragraph [0039]), wherein the controller:
“… may be in communication with the chemical reactor 50, the engine 20 and the mechanical power plant 60 to control the overall operation of the system 10.” (with emphasis added).
In addition, Ludeman discloses a system (see Figure) comprising:
a reformer stage (i.e., an upstream stage including a conversion zone 4 for producing a synthesis gas) and a synthesis stage (i.e., a downstream stage including a catalytic reactor in a synthesis zone 32 for converting the synthesis gas to an end product);
wherein the reformer stage comprises:
an intake for receiving a flow of fuel gas (i.e., methane through line 1);
an intake for receiving a flow of oxidant (i.e., oxygen through line 2);
an air-breathing reformer configured to convert the fuel gas and oxidant into a syngas (i.e., a conversion zone 4, such as internal combustion reciprocating engine, for converting the methane and oxygen into a synthesis gas comprising carbon monoxide and hydrogen via partial oxidation combustion; see column 3, lines 35-48); and
a line 22 for flowing the syngas to the synthesis stage; and
wherein the synthesis stage comprises:
a line 27 for receiving a flow of syngas from the reformer stage; and
a synthesis unit (i.e., the synthesis zone comprising the catalytic converter 32) configured to receive the syngas and convert the syngas into an end product (i.e., hydrocarbons or oxygenated hydrocarbons; see column 4, lines 39-50).
Specifically, Ludeman discloses that the reformer stage requires operation at a predetermined partial oxidation temperature and a predetermined partial oxidation pressure (see column 3, lines 35-48), and the synthesis stage requires operation at a predetermined synthesis temperature and a predetermined synthesis pressure (see column 4, lines 39-50).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the control system in the modified system of Carpenter et al. to control the operations of both the reformer stage and the synthesis stage, including a predetermined partial oxidation temperature and a predetermined partial oxidation pressure of the reformer stage, and a predetermined synthesis temperature and a predetermined synthesis pressure of the synthesis stage, because the operations of the entire system could then be automatically controlled by the control system, as taught by Bromberg, III et al., including the operating temperatures and pressures that would be required of the partial oxidation combustion reaction conducted in the reforming stage and the synthesis reaction conducted in the synthesis stage, as taught by Ludeman.
Regarding claim 66, Carpenter et al. fails to disclose a fuel conditioning system for providing a conditioned fuel source. Paravathikar et al. further discloses a fuel conditioning system for providing a conditioned fuel source (i.e., a biogas clean-up/processing unit for removing contaminants, e.g., sulfur, CO2, etc., from the biogas feed and providing a clean biogas stream to the engine; see FIG. 1, paragraph [0071]). It would have been obvious for ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a fuel conditioning system for providing a conditioned fuel source in the modified system of Carpenter et al. because the fuel conditioning system would have ensured that a clean fuel gas stream was supplied to the engine, as taught by Paravathikar et al.
Regarding claim 73, Carpenter et al. discloses that the reformer stage “… may be used in conjunction with methanol production…” (at paragraph [0029]). Paravathikar et al. also discloses that the synthesis unit can be configured to convert the syngas to methanol as the end product (i.e., in a methanol synthesis unit producing methanol as the final product; see FIG. 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the modified system of Carpenter et al. to produce methanol, when methanol is the desired end product.
Regarding claims 77-79, Carpenter et al. discloses that the reformer stage “… may be used in conjunction with methanol production…” (at paragraph [0029]), and that the flare gas can comprise biogas (see paragraph [0051]). Paravathikar et al. also discloses that the system can be configured to use a flare gas comprising biogas to produce an end product comprising methanol (see FIG. 1; Example 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the modified system of Carpenter et al. to use biogas for producing methanol as the end product.
Ludeman further discloses that partial oxidation combustion can be conducted at: (i) a temperature of from about 700 °C to about 1200 °C (i.e., a temperature of at least about 1600 °F (871 °C); see column 3, lines 37-40 and ref. claim 1); and (ii) a pressure from about 1 bar to about 70 bar (i.e., a pressure varying from atmospheric to 300 pounds per square inch (about 1 bar to about 21 bar); see column 3, lines 35-40). Ludeman also discloses that the conversion of syngas into hydrocarbons or oxygenated hydrocarbons can be conducted at: (iii) a temperature from about 200 °C to about 300 °C (i.e., a temperature from 280 °F to 650 °F (138°C to 343 °C), with the exact temperature selected being dependent on the type of operation, the catalyst, and the products desired; see column 4, lines 5-48); and (iv) a pressure from about 30 bar to about 100 bar (i.e., a pressure from about atmospheric to 1500 pounds per square inch (about 1 bar to 103 bar); see column 4, lines 48-50).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the control system in the modified system of Carpenter et al. to operate under two or more of the conditions (i)-(iv), dependent on the biogas composition and the catalyst used for the synthesis of methanol, because the process conditions would have been considered suitable for carrying out the partial oxidation combustion reaction in the reformer stage and the synthesis reaction in the synthesis stage, and where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claims 80-82, Carpenter et al. discloses that the reformer stage “… may be used in conjunction with methanol production…” (at paragraph [0029]), and that the flare gas can comprise biogas (see paragraph [0051]). Paravathikar et al. also discloses that the system can be configured to use a flare gas comprising biogas to produce an end product comprising methanol (see FIG. 1; Example 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the modified system of Carpenter et al. to use biogas for producing methanol as the end product.
Carpenter et al. (at paragraph [0038]) further discloses:
“The central processing unit may be in communication with and capable of activating and controlling one or more of the individual components of the process 200. The central processing unit may be capable of storing and executing computer code to initiate operation of the process 200 in response to monitored operating conditions of the engine 100 and analysis of the syngas produced by the engine 100. For example, the ratio of H2 to CO in the exhaust stream of the engine 100 may be monitored, and the central processing unit may adjust one or more of the individual components of the process 200 in response to the monitored H2 to CO ratio. Additionally, the central processing unit may adjust one or more of the individual components of the process 200 in response to monitored parameters of the engine 100, such as combustion temperature in one or more cylinders 105, inlet pressure, exhaust pressure, and the like.” (with emphasis added).
Therefore, Carpenter et al. discloses that the controller is configured to control the operation of the reformer stage by adjusting one or more of the individual components of the reformer stage, based on the feedback of a monitored H2/CO ratio in the synthesis gas, to maintain a steady, predetermined H2/CO ratio in the synthesis gas. As such, the controller in the modified system of Carpenter et al. would be configured such that a variation in a composition of the flare gas does not change a H2/CO ratio of the synthesis gas from the reformer stage, and, accordingly, a variation in a composition of the flare gas would not change a composition of the end product produced from the syngas (having an unchanged H2/CO ratio) received from the reformer stage, and a variation in a composition of the flare gas would not require a change in two or more of the predetermined synthesis temperature, the predetermined synthesis pressure, the predetermined reformer temperature, and/or the predetermined reformer pressure.
Regarding claim 83-85, Carpenter et al. discloses that the reformer stage “… may be used in conjunction with methanol production…” (at paragraph [0029]), and that the flare gas can comprise biogas (see paragraph [0051]). Paravathikar et al. also discloses that the system can be configured to use a flare gas comprising biogas to produce an end product comprising methanol (see FIG. 1; Example 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the modified system of Carpenter et al. to use biogas for producing methanol as the end product.
Carpenter et al. further discloses that the reformer is a reciprocating engine (i.e., a reciprocating engine 100 including a piston 115 that reciprocates (moves up and down) within a cylinder 105 of the engine, see FIG. 1 and paragraph [0031]); wherein the engine is capable of operating with an inlet manifold air temperature of 200 °C (see paragraph [0047]); an inlet manifold air pressure between ambient to 2 bar absolute (see paragraph [0053]); and an engine speed of 1500 RPM (see paragraph [0056]) or up to 2000 RPM (see paragraph [0048]).
Regarding claim 89, both Carpenter et al. (at paragraph [0029]) and Paravathikar et al. (see FIG. 1) disclose an end product comprising methanol. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the synthesis stage to product methanol in the modified system of Carpenter et al., on the basis of methanol being the desired end product.
Regarding claim 91, Carpenter et al. discloses a system 400 (see FIG. 4) for converting flare gas into an end product, comprising:
a reformer stage (i.e., a gas reformer system including an internal combustion engine 100 operable under fuel-rich conditions, so as to function as a chemical reactor (reformer) to produce synthesis gas (syngas); see paragraph [0036]),
wherein the reformer stage comprises:
an intake for receiving a flow of a flare gas (i.e., an inlet for receiving a fuel), such as a flow of biogas (i.e., biogas streams; see paragraphs [0029], [0051]);
an intake for receiving a flow of air (i.e., an inlet for receiving an oxidizer, such as air; see paragraph [0037]);
a mixer 240 for combining the flows of air and flare gas, wherein the mixer is configured to provide a mixture having a rich fuel/air equivalence ratio (i.e., the mixer 240 mixes the oxidizer and the fuel in a desired ratio to form a charge delivered to the engine 100, wherein the charge has a rich fuel-air equivalence ratio; see paragraphs [0013], [0036]-[0037]);
an air breathing reformer comprising an internal combustion engine (i.e., the internal combustion engine 100; see FIG. 1, paragraph [0034]) having a plurality of cylinders (i.e., 8-cylinders; see paragraph [0056]), wherein each of the cylinders is configured to operate under rich fuel/air conditions; wherein the reformer is configured to operate in a partial oxidation combustion window to convert the mixture into a syngas (i.e., the engine 100 is configured to partially oxidized the fuel to produce an exhaust stream comprising synthesis gas; see paragraphs [0036]-[0037]); and
a line for flowing the syngas to a conversion system (see FIG. 4).
With respect to the conversion system, Carpenter et al. (at paragraph [0029]) discloses that the reformer stage “may be used in conjunction with methanol production”. Carpenter et al., however, does not further describe a synthesis stage for the conversion system.
Paravathikar et al. discloses a system (see FIG. 1; paragraph [0010]) for converting flare gas into an end product, comprising:
a reformer stage (i.e., an upstream stage for producing syngas) and a synthesis stage (i.e., a downstream stage for producing an end product from the syngas);
wherein the reformer stage comprises:
an intake for receiving a flow of a flare gas comprising biogas (i.e., an inlet for a gaseous hydrocarbon stream, such as biogas from anaerobic digestion, biogas from landfills, etc.; see paragraph [0016]);
an intake for receiving a flow of air (i.e., an inlet for oxygen-enriched air);
an air breathing reformer (i.e., an internal combustion engine-based syngas generator) for converting the flare gas and air into a syngas via partial oxidation combustion; and
a line (shown) for flowing the syngas to the synthesis stage; and
wherein, specifically, the synthesis stage comprises:
a line (shown) for receiving a flow of syngas from the reformer stage; and
a synthesis unit configured to receive the syngas and convert the syngas into an end product comprising methanol (i.e., as shown in FIG. 1, a methanol synthesis unit converts the syngas into methanol as a final product).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the claimed synthesis stage for the conversion system in the system of Carpenter et al. because the synthesis stage would have been considered a suitable means for enabling the methanol production from the syngas derived from the partial oxidation combustion of flare gas (biogas) in the reformer, as taught by Paravathikar et al.
Carpenter et al. further discloses that the system comprises a control system (i.e., a central processing unit (not shown); see paragraph [0038]), wherein:
“The central processing unit may be in communication with and capable of activating and controlling one or more of the individual components of the process 200. The central processing unit may be capable of storing and executing computer code to initiate operation of the process 200 in response to monitored operating conditions of the engine 100 and analysis of the syngas produced by the engine 100. For example, the ratio of H2 to CO in the exhaust stream of the engine 100 may be monitored, and the central processing unit may adjust one or more of the individual components of the process 200 in response to the monitored H2 to CO ratio. Additionally, the central processing unit may adjust one or more of the individual components of the process 200 in response to monitored parameters of the engine 100, such as combustion temperature in one or more cylinders 105, inlet pressure, exhaust pressure, and the like.” (with emphasis added).
Thus, the control system is configured to operate the reformer stage at a predetermined partial oxidation temperature and a predetermined partial oxidation pressure.
Carpenter et al., however, does not specifically disclose that the control system is also configured to operate the synthesis stage at a predetermined synthesis temperature and a predetermined synthesis pressure.
Bromberg et al. discloses a system for converting flare gas into an end product (i.e., a fuel manufacturing plant 10; see FIG. 13, paragraphs [0038]-[0039]), comprising:
a reformer stage (i.e., an upstream stage including an engine-based reformer 20 for producing synthesis gas 40) and a synthesis stage (i.e., a downstream stage including a chemical reactor 50 for converting the synthesis gas 40 into a liquid fuel as an end product);
wherein the reformer stage comprises:
an intake for receiving a flow of a flare gas (i.e., an inlet for receiving a fuel 21, such as biogas from landfills and digesters; see paragraphs [0004], [0100]);
an intake for receiving a flow of air (i.e., an inlet for receiving an oxidant 22, such as air; see paragraph [0038]);
a mixer for combining the flow of air and the flow of the flare gas (i.e., a mixer for pre-mixing the fuel 21 and oxidant 22 upstream of the engine-based reformer 20; see paragraph [0038],[0041]);
an air breathing reformer (i.e., the engine-based reformer 20) configured to operate under rich fuel/air conditions, wherein the reformer is configured to operate in a partial oxidation combustion window (see paragraphs [0035]-[0036]); whereby the reformer 20 is configured to convert the mixture into a syngas 40; and
a line (shown) for flowing the syngas 40 to the synthesis stage 50; and
wherein the synthesis stage comprises:
a line (shown) for receiving a flow of syngas 40 from the reformer stage; and
a synthesis unit (i.e., the chemical reactor 50) configured to receive the syngas and convert the syngas into an end product (i.e., the liquid fuel, such as methanol; see paragraph [0039]).
Specifically, Bromberg III, et al. discloses that the system comprises a control system (i.e., a controller 90; see paragraph [0039]), wherein the controller:
“… may be in communication with the chemical reactor 50, the engine 20 and the mechanical power plant 60 to control the overall operation of the system 10.” (with emphasis added).
In addition, Ludeman discloses a system (see Figure) comprising:
a reformer stage (i.e., an upstream stage including a conversion zone 4 for producing a synthesis gas) and a synthesis stage (i.e., a downstream stage including a catalytic reactor in a synthesis zone 32 for converting the synthesis gas to an end product);
wherein the reformer stage comprises:
an intake for receiving a flow of fuel gas (i.e., methane through line 1);
an intake for receiving a flow of oxidant (i.e., oxygen through line 2);
an air-breathing reformer configured to convert the fuel gas and oxidant into a syngas (i.e., a conversion zone 4, such as internal combustion reciprocating engine, for converting the methane and oxygen into a synthesis gas comprising carbon monoxide and hydrogen via partial oxidation combustion; see column 3, lines 35-48); and
a line 22 for flowing the syngas to the synthesis stage; and
wherein the synthesis stage comprises:
a line 27 for receiving a flow of syngas from the reformer stage; and
a synthesis unit (i.e., the synthesis zone comprising the catalytic converter 32) configured to receive the syngas and convert the syngas into an end product (i.e., hydrocarbons or oxygenated hydrocarbons; see column 4, lines 39-50).
Specifically, Ludeman discloses that the reformer stage requires operation at a predetermined partial oxidation temperature and a predetermined partial oxidation pressure (see column 3, lines 35-48), and the synthesis stage requires operation at a predetermined synthesis temperature and a predetermined synthesis pressure (see column 4, lines 39-50).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the control system in the modified system of Carpenter et al. to control the operations of both the reformer stage and the synthesis stage, including a predetermined partial oxidation temperature, a predetermined partial oxidation pressure, a predetermined synthesis temperature, and a predetermined synthesis pressure, because the operations of the entire system could then be automatically controlled by the control system, as taught by Bromberg, III et al., including the operating temperatures and pressures that would be required of the partial oxidation combustion reaction conducted in the reforming stage and the synthesis reaction conducted in the synthesis stage, as taught by Ludeman.
Regarding claim 93, Carpenter et al. discloses a system 400 (see FIG. 4) for converting flare gas into an end product, comprising:
a reformer stage (i.e., a gas reformer system including an internal combustion engine 100 operable under fuel-rich conditions, so as to function as a chemical reactor (reformer) to produce synthesis gas (syngas); see paragraph [0036]), wherein the reformer stage comprises:
an intake for receiving a flow of a flare gas comprising a biogas (i.e., an inlet for receiving a fuel, such as a biogas stream; see paragraphs [0029], [0051]);
an intake for receiving a flow of air (i.e., an inlet for receiving an oxidizer, such as air; see paragraph [0037]);
an air breathing reformer comprising an internal combustion engine (i.e., the internal combustion engine 100; see FIG. 1, paragraph [0034]), wherein the internal combustion engine can comprise a plurality of cylinders 105 (i.e., an 8-cylinder engine; see paragraph [0056]), wherein each of the cylinders is configured to operate under rich fuel/air conditions (i.e., each cylinder 105 receives a charge of fuel (biogas) and oxidant (air) in a desired ratio from a mixer 240, wherein the charge has a rich fuel-air equivalence ratio; see paragraphs [0013], [0036]-[0037]); wherein the reformer is configured to operate in a partial oxidation combustion window to convert a mixture of the flare gas and air into a syngas (i.e., the engine 100 partially oxidizes the fuel to produce an exhaust stream of synthesis gas; see paragraphs [0036]-[0037]); and
a line for flowing the syngas to a conversion system (see FIG. 4).
With respect to the conversion system, Carpenter et al. discloses that the reformer stage “may be used in conjunction with methanol production.” (paragraph [0029]). Carpenter et al., however, does not specifically disclose a synthesis stage for the conversion system.
Paravathikar et al. discloses a system (see FIG. 1; paragraph [0010]) for converting flare gas into an end product, comprising:
a reformer stage (i.e., an upstream stage for producing syngas) and a synthesis stage (i.e., a downstream stage for producing an end product from the syngas);
wherein the reformer stage comprises:
an intake for receiving a flow of a flare gas comprising biogas (i.e., an inlet for biogas from anaerobic digestion or biogas from landfills; see paragraph [0016]);
an intake for receiving a flow of air (i.e., an inlet for oxygen-enriched air);
an air breathing reformer (i.e., an internal combustion engine-based syngas generator) for converting the flare gas and air into a syngas via partial oxidation combustion; and
a line (shown) for flowing the syngas to the synthesis stage; and
wherein, specifically, the synthesis stage comprises:
a line (shown) for receiving a flow of syngas from the reformer stage; and
a synthesis unit configured to receive the syngas and convert the syngas into an end product comprising methanol (i.e., as shown in FIG. 1, a methanol synthesis unit converts the syngas into methanol as a final product).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the claimed synthesis stage for the conversion system in the system of Carpenter et al. because the synthesis stage would have been considered a suitable means for enabling the methanol production from the syngas derived from the partial oxidation combustion of flare gas (biogas) in the reformer, as taught by Paravathikar et al.
Carpenter et al. further discloses that the system comprises a control system (i.e., a central processing unit (not shown); see paragraph [0038]), wherein:
“The central processing unit may be in communication with and capable of activating and controlling one or more of the individual components of the process 200. The central processing unit may be capable of storing and executing computer code to initiate operation of the process 200 in response to monitored operating conditions of the engine 100 and analysis of the syngas produced by the engine 100. For example, the ratio of H2 to CO in the exhaust stream of the engine 100 may be monitored, and the central processing unit may adjust one or more of the individual components of the process 200 in response to the monitored H2 to CO ratio. Additionally, the central processing unit may adjust one or more of the individual components of the process 200 in response to monitored parameters of the engine 100, such as combustion temperature in one or more cylinders 105, inlet pressure, exhaust pressure, and the like.” (with emphasis added).
Thus, control system is configured to operate the reformer stage at a predetermined partial oxidation temperature and a predetermined partial oxidation pressure.
Carpenter et al., however, does not specifically disclose that the control system is also configured to operate the synthesis stage at a predetermined synthesis temperature and a predetermined synthesis pressure.
Bromberg et al. discloses a system for converting flare gas into an end product (i.e., a fuel manufacturing plant 10; see FIG. 13, paragraphs [0038]-[0039]), comprising:
a reformer stage (i.e., an upstream stage including an engine-based reformer 20 for producing synthesis gas 40) and a synthesis stage (i.e., a downstream stage including a chemical reactor 50 for converting the synthesis gas 40 into a liquid fuel as an end product);
wherein the reformer stage comprises:
an intake for receiving a flow of a flare gas (i.e., an inlet for receiving a fuel 21, such as biogas from landfills and digesters; see paragraphs [0004], [0100]);
an intake for receiving a flow of air (i.e., an inlet for receiving an oxidant 22, such as air; see paragraph [0038]);
an air breathing reformer (i.e., the engine-based reformer 20) configured to operate under rich fuel/air conditions, wherein the reformer is configured to operate in a partial oxidation combustion window (see paragraphs [0035]-[0036]); whereby the reformer 20 is configured to convert a mixture of the flare gas and air (i.e., produced by a mixer for pre-mixing the fuel 21 and oxidant 22 upstream of the engine-based reformer 20; see paragraph [0038],[0041]) into a syngas 40; and
a line (shown) for flowing the syngas 40 to the synthesis stage 50; and
wherein the synthesis stage comprises:
a line (shown) for receiving a flow of syngas 40 from the reformer stage; and
a synthesis unit (i.e., the chemical reactor 50) configured to receive the syngas and convert the syngas into an end product (i.e., the liquid fuel, such as methanol; see paragraph [0039]).
Specifically, Bromberg III, et al. discloses that the system comprises a control system (i.e., a controller 90; see paragraph [0039]), wherein the controller:
“… may be in communication with the chemical reactor 50, the engine 20 and the mechanical power plant 60 to control the overall operation of the system 10.” (with emphasis added).
In addition, Ludeman discloses a system (see Figure) comprising:
a reformer stage (i.e., an upstream stage including a conversion zone 4 for producing a synthesis gas) and a synthesis stage (i.e., a downstream stage including a catalytic reactor in a synthesis zone 32 for converting the synthesis gas to an end product);
wherein the reformer stage comprises:
an intake for receiving a flow of fuel gas (i.e., methane through line 1);
an intake for receiving a flow of oxidant (i.e., oxygen through line 2);
an air-breathing reformer configured to convert the fuel gas and oxidant into a syngas (i.e., a conversion zone 4, such as internal combustion reciprocating engine, for converting the methane and oxygen into a synthesis gas comprising carbon monoxide and hydrogen via partial oxidation combustion; see column 3, lines 35-48); and
a line 22 for flowing the syngas to the synthesis stage; and
wherein the synthesis stage comprises:
a line 27 for receiving a flow of syngas from the reformer stage; and
a synthesis unit (i.e., the synthesis zone comprising the catalytic converter 32) configured to receive the syngas and convert the syngas into an end product (i.e., hydrocarbons or oxygenated hydrocarbons; see column 4, lines 39-50).
Specifically, Ludeman discloses that the reformer stage requires operation at a predetermined partial oxidation temperature and a predetermined partial oxidation pressure (see column 3, lines 35-48), and the synthesis stage requires operation at a predetermined synthesis temperature and a predetermined synthesis pressure (see column 4, lines 39-50).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the control system in the modified system of Carpenter et al. to control the operations of both the reformer stage and the synthesis stage, including a predetermined partial oxidation temperature and a predetermined partial oxidation pressure of the reformer stage, and a predetermined synthesis temperature and a predetermined synthesis pressure of the synthesis stage, because the operations of the entire system could be automatically controlled by the control system, as taught by Bromberg, III et al., including the operating temperatures and pressures that would be required of the partial oxidation combustion reaction in the reforming stage and the synthesis reaction in the synthesis stage, as taught by Ludeman.
Claims 67, 69, 71, 72, 87, 88, and 90 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carpenter et al. (US 2020/0232406 A1) in view of Paravathikar et al. (US 2024/0051824 A1), Bromberg, III et al. (US 2014/0144397 A1), and Ludeman (US 2,800,402 A), as applied to claim 1 or 63 above, and further in view of Struis et al. (CA 2,186,222 A1).
Regarding claims 67 and 69, both Carpenter et al. (at paragraph [0029]) and Paravathikar et al. (see FIG. 1) disclose an end product comprising methanol. Paravathikar et al. further discloses a synthesis unit for producing methanol (i.e., a methanol synthesis unit producing methanol as the final product; FIG. 1) Paravathikar et al., however, fails to disclose a separation assembly associated with the synthesis unit, wherein a byproduct is selectively removed from the synthesis unit in situ.
Struis et al. discloses a synthesis unit (i.e., a membrane reactor; FIG. 1-3) for converting synthesis gas 5 into methanol as an end product and water as a byproduct (see page 8, lines 4-17) and a separation unit (i.e., a semi-permeable membrane 1) associated with the synthesis unit; wherein the separation unit 1 is configured to selectively remove the byproduct (water) from the synthesis unit in situ (i.e., the semi-permeable membrane 1 is made of a material having a high selectively for water transport, see page 7, lines 13-22; while carrying out the methanol synthesis reaction, the produced methanol and water permeate preferably through the membrane 1, as indicated by the arrow 7, in order to be discharged on the opposite of the membrane in the direction of arrow 9, see page 8, lines 4-17).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to associate a separation assembly with the synthesis unit for selectively removing a byproduct from the synthesis unit in situ in the modified system of Carpenter et al. because the continuous removal of the byproduct (water) through the separation assembly (semi-permeable membrane) would shift the reaction equilibrium for the methanol synthesis reaction in the direction of the products, and consequently, the conversion of the synthesis gas into the methanol end product would be substantially increased, as taught by Struis et al. (see page 4, line 27, to page 6, line 1; page 8, lines 13-22).
Regarding claim 71, both Carpenter et al. (paragraph [0029]) and Paravathikar et al. (FIG. 1) disclose an end product comprising methanol. Paravathikar et al. further discloses a synthesis unit for producing methanol (i.e., a methanol synthesis unit producing methanol as the final product; FIG. 1) Paravathikar et al., however, fails to disclose a separation assembly associated with the synthesis unit, wherein the end product (methanol) is selectively removed from the synthesis unit in situ.
Struis et al. discloses a synthesis unit (i.e., a membrane reactor; FIG. 1-3) for converting synthesis gas 5 into methanol as an end product (see page 8, lines 4-17) and a separation unit (i.e., a semi-permeable membrane 1) associated with the synthesis unit; wherein the separation unit is configured to selectively remove the end product (methanol) from the synthesis unit in situ (i.e., while carrying out the methanol synthesis reaction, the methanol permeates preferably through the membrane 1, as indicated by arrow 7, in order to be discharged on the opposite side of the membrane in the direction of arrow 9, see page 8, lines 4-17).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to associate the a separation assembly with the synthesis unit for selectively removing the end product from the synthesis unit in situ in the modified system of Carpenter et al. because the continuous removal of the end product (methanol) through the separation assembly (semi-permeable membrane) would shift the reaction equilibrium for the methanol synthesis reaction in the direction of the products, and consequently, the conversion of the synthesis gas into the methanol end product would be substantially increased, as taught by Struis et al. (see page 4, line 27, to page 6, line 1; page 8, lines 13-22).
Regarding claim 72, both Carpenter et al. (paragraph [0029]) and Paravathikar et al. (FIG. 1) disclose an end product comprising methanol. Paravathikar et al. further discloses a synthesis unit for producing methanol (i.e., a methanol synthesis unit producing methanol as the final product; FIG. 1) Paravathikar et al., however, fails to further disclose a separation assembly associated with the synthesis unit, wherein the end product (methanol) is selectively removed from the synthesis unit by a liquid or gaseous sweep.
Struis et al. discloses a synthesis unit (i.e., a membrane reactor; FIG. 1-3) for converting synthesis gas 5 into methanol as an end product (see page 8, lines 4-17) and a separation unit (i.e., a semi-permeable membrane 1) associated with the synthesis unit; wherein the separation unit 1 is configured to selectively remove the end product (methanol) from the synthesis unit (i.e., while carrying out the methanol synthesis reaction, the produced methanol permeates preferably through the membrane 1, as indicated by the arrow 7, in order to be discharged on the opposite of the membrane in the direction of arrow 9, see page 8, lines 4-17). Struis et al. further discloses that the removal can be facilitated by means of a gaseous sweep (i.e., a gas flow, see column 8, lines 9-13; a flushing gas flow, see page 9, lines 20-25).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to associate a separation assembly with the synthesis unit for selectively removing the end product from the synthesis unit by a gaseous sweep in the modified system of Carpenter et al. because the continuous removal of the end product (methanol) through the separation assembly (semi-permeable membrane) by the gaseous sweep (gas flow) would shift the reaction equilibrium for the methanol synthesis reaction in the direction of the products, and consequently, the conversion of the synthesis gas into the methanol end product would be substantially increased, as taught by Struis et al.
Regarding claims 87, 88, and 90, both Carpenter et al. (at paragraph [0029]) and Paravathikar et al. (see FIG. 1) disclose an end product comprising methanol. Paravathikar et al. further discloses a synthesis unit for producing methanol (i.e., a methanol synthesis unit for producing methanol as the final product; see FIG. 1) Paravathikar et al., however, fails to disclose a separation assembly associated with the synthesis unit, wherein a byproduct is selectively removed from the synthesis stage by a liquid or gaseous sweep.
Struis et al. discloses a synthesis unit (i.e., a membrane reactor; FIG. 1-3) for converting synthesis gas 5 into methanol as an end product and water as a byproduct (see page 8, lines 4-17) and a separation unit (i.e., a semi-permeable membrane 1) associated with the synthesis unit; wherein the separation unit 1 is configured to selectively remove the byproduct (water) from the synthesis unit (i.e., the semi-permeable membrane 1 is made of a material having a high selectively for water transport, see page 7, lines 13-22; while carrying out the methanol synthesis reaction, the produced methanol and water permeate preferably through the membrane 1, as indicated by the arrow 7, in order to be discharged on the opposite of the membrane in the direction of arrow 9, see page 8, lines 4-17). Struis et al. further discloses that the removal of byproduct (water) can be facilitated by means of a gaseous sweep (i.e., a gas flow, see column 8, lines 9-13; a flushing gas flow, see page 9, lines 20-25).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to associate a separation assembly with the synthesis unit for selectively removing a byproduct from the synthesis stage by a gaseous sweep in the modified system of Carpenter et al. because the continuous removal of byproduct (water) through the separation assembly (semi-permeable membrane) by the gaseous sweep (gas flow) would shift the reaction equilibrium for the methanol synthesis reaction in the direction of the products, and consequently, the conversion of the synthesis gas into methanol would substantially increase, as taught by Struis et al. (see page 4, line 27, to page 6, line 1; page 8, lines 13-22).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Sie (US 5,216,034 A) further illustrates the state of the art. In particular, Sie discloses a conventional synthesis stage for converting syngas into methanol, wherein the hydrogen to carbon monoxide ratio of the synthesis gas fed to the synthesis reactor ranges from 1 to 3:1, preferably between 1.5 to 2.5:1, and more preferably around 2:1 (see column 2, lines 37-45). Sie also discloses that, depending on the activity of the catalyst, the reaction temperature may be as low as 100 °C and as high as 350 °C, and the pressure can range from 5 to 35 MPa, with the pressure being below 10 MPa (100 bar) for high activity catalyst (see column 2, lines 45-48). For instance, Sie discloses an example where the synthesis stage was operated with an inlet pressure of 7.5 MPa (75 bar) and an average temperature of 250 °C (see column 5, lines 26-29).
* * *
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER A LEUNG whose telephone number is (571)272-1449. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:30 AM - 4:30 PM EST.
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 X 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.
/JENNIFER A LEUNG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1774
Prosecution Insights