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 .
EXAMINER’S NOTE
Applicant’s remarks filed 9/24/2025 have been entered. The examiner found Applicant’s remarks persuasive, regarding Allam. Therefore, the previous 103 rejection is withdrawn. Upon updating search, new references, namely Zubrin et al. (US 2017/0174592 A1) (Zubrin), came to the attention of the examiner. Therefore, the following action is a second non-final, as a new set of rejection over Zubrin is provided as set forth below.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-3, 10-11, 16, 23, and 30 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In order to ensure proper grammar, it is suggested to amend “flow comprises” to “flow comprising” in claim 1, line 10; claim 2, line 10; and claim 3, line 10.
In order to ensure proper compound format, it is suggested to amend “CO2e” to “CO2e” in claim 2, line 18; and claim 3, line 20.
In order to provide further clarity, it is suggested to amend “pure.” To “pure, wherein % refer to the moles of a first component as a percentage of the mole of the total.” in claim 10, line 3 and claim 11, line 3.
In order to ensure proper list format, it is suggested to amend “engine, a” to “engine, and a” in claim 16, line 3.
In order to be consistent with the format of ranges in the previous claims, it is suggested to amend “1.1 – 2.5” to “1.1 to 2.5” in claim 23, line 2.
In order to define the term, it is suggested to amend “TDC” to “top dead center (TDC)” in claim 30, line 9.
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 20-25, 30, and 38-40 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.
Claims 20-25 recite “a ratio of H2 to CO”. However, it is unclear what type of ratio “a ratio” refers to, e.g., molar ratio, weight ratio, etc., and the instant disclosure does not clarify what type of ratio is used. For purposes of examination, the examiner interprets “a ratio” to mean “a molar ratio”. Clarification is requested.
Claims 30 and 38-40 recite “an inlet manifold air pressure of ambient to about 5 bar; to about 300°C”. However, it is unclear what is meant by the additional statement “to about 300°C” in regards to the inlet manifold air pressure. Clarification is requested.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-15, 20-29, and 33-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zubrin et al. (US 2017/0174592 A1) (Zubrin).
Regarding claims 1, 2, and 3, Zubrin teaches a system that reforms flare gas, methane, or natural gas, using air to directly produce methanol (Zubrin, Abstract) (i.e., a method of converting a flare gas to an end product). Zubrin teaches the method comprises mixing reactant gases methane and air (Zubrin, [0084]) (i.e., (a) receiving a flare gas from a source; (b) forming a mixture of the flare gas and an oxygen source, wherein the oxygen source primarily comprises air, thereby defining a fuel/air mixture), wherein the mixture of methane and air would inherently define a starting enthalpy.
Zubrin further teaches preheating the air/methane mixture and reforming the air-methane mixture at ambient atmospheric pressure (Zubrin, Abstract; [0084]) which then enters the Syngas Generator to produce hydrogen and carbon monoxide (i.e., the syngas generated) (Zubrin, [0084]), which corresponds to step (c) partially oxidizing the fuel/air mixture at a predetermined reformer temperature; thereby providing a reprocessed gas flow comprises a syngas having a syngas composition, as the instant disclosure defines “partial oxidation” to mean a chemical reaction where a sub-stoichiometric mixture of fuel and air is partially reacted to produce a syngas which occurs in a non-catalytic reformer (Specification, [0009]).
Zubrin further teaches the syngas is sent to a methanol synthesis unit to convert CO to methanol and the methanol is separated as a separate stream from the biproducts, and wherein one of the streams is vented (i.e., exhaust product stream) (Zubrin, [0086]) (i.e., converting the reprocessed gas flow in a synthesis unit to thereby provide a first product stream comprising an end product and an exhaust product stream), which would inherently define a final specific entropy.
Zubrin further teaches the initial rate of CH4 (i.e., flare gas) entering the system is 0.013259 kg/s (Zubrin, Table 2, Stream 5) and in the product stream (13) after the methanol reactor, the amount of CO2 formed is 0.009406 as the mole fraction of the stream, which becomes 0.077937 mol/s by multiplying the mole fraction by the overall flow mol/s (i.e., 8.285894 x 0.009406 = 0.077937 mol/s), which becomes 0.003429 kg/s by multiplying the mol/s of CO2 by the molar mass of about 44 g/mol and dividing by 1000 to get the kg/s value (Zubrin, Table 2, Stream 13). Therefore, it is clear that the method of Zubrin produces less than 2.0 kg of CO2 per kg of flare gas received, i.e., 0.003429 kg/s CO2/ 0.013259 kg/s CH4 is 0.258 kg CO2/kg CH4.
As Zubrin teaches the method that is substantially identical to the claimed method of converting flare gas to an end product, it is clear that the method of Zubrin would inherently have (a) a starting specific entropy and final specific entropy less than about 1 kJ/kg °C of each other (i.e., claims 1 and 3), (b) the method is net carbon-negative, whereby these steps produce less than about -20 kg CO2e per kg end product provided (i.e., claims 2 and 3).
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP 2112.01 (I).
Regarding claim 4, Zubrin teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the reforming step may take place at pressures ranging from 0.1 to 10 bar (Zubrin, [0091]), which would require compressing the mixture to the determined pressure for the reformer reaction (i.e., compressing the fuel/air mixture to a predetermined reformer pressure).
Regarding claims 5 and 13, Zubrin teaches the method of claims 1 and 2, wherein the system first reforms the air-methane mixture at ambient atmospheric pressure (i.e., providing the fuel/air mixture at a predetermined reformer pressure) (Zubrin, Abstract), and reforming is conducted in a reformer (Zubrin, [0095]) (i.e., claim 13, partial oxidation takes place in a reformer) at a temperature ranging from 400 to 1000°C (Zubrin, [0091]) (i.e., partial oxidation is conducted in the reformer at the predetermined reformer temperature).
Regarding claim 6, Zubrin teaches the method of claim 3, wherein the methanol synthesis step may be run at pressures between 10 and 1000 bar, preferably between 20 and 60 bar and at temperatures between 170 and 250°C (Zubrin, [0092]), i.e., controlling the temperature and pressure of the gas entering the methanol synthesis system and during the synthesis (i.e., controlling the pressure and temperature of the reprocessed gas flow to provide a predetermined synthesis temperature and a predetermined synthesis pressure of the reprocessed gas flow).
Regarding claims 7 and 8, Zubrin teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the product is methanol (Zubrin, Abstract).
Regarding claims 9-12, Zubrin teaches the method of claim 8, wherein the stream leaving the methanol reactor, stream 13 is split in the phase separator into streams 16 and 18 (Zubrin, Figure 1B), and wherein stream 16 corresponds to the first product stream comprising hydrogen and stream 18 corresponds to the second product stream and comprises 94.5% pure methanol (Zubrin, Table 2, Stream 18), which falls within the claimed range and meets the limitation of “consists essentially of” as it is essentially pure methanol.
Regarding claim 14, Zubrin teaches the method of claim 2, wherein water enters the reformer with the natural gas and air (Zubrin, Figure 1A) (i.e., using water in the step of partially oxidizing the flare gas).
Regarding claim 15, Zubrin teaches the method of claim 3, wherein air and water enter the reformer (Zubrin, Abstract; Figure 1A), which corresponds to the claimed “air-breathing reformer” as it is defined in the instant disclosure to mean engines using air modified with the addition of water, oxygen, or both (Specification, [00117]).
Regarding claims 20-25, Zubrin teaches the method of claims 1, 2, and 3, wherein the molar ratio of H2 to CO in the syngas is approximately 2:1 (Zubrin, [0084) which falls within the claimed ranges.
Regarding claims 26-29 and 33-35, Zubrin teaches the method of claims 1, 2, and 3, wherein as the method of Zubrin is substantially identical to the claimed method, it is clear the method would inherently have partial oxidation of the flare gas conducted at a specific entropy of greater than about 7.1 kJ/kg °C, or 7.5 kJ/kg °C, or 8.0 kJ/kg °C, or from about 7.1 kJ/kg °C to about 8.6 kJ/kg °C, wherein a reference state for the specific entropy is based upon -273.15°C and 1 atmosphere; and would inherently have a starting specific entropy and final specific entropy less than about 0.5 kJ/kg °C of each other, or less than 0.3 kJ/kg °C of each other, or less than 0.2 of each other.
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP 2112.01 (I).
Claims 16-19, 30-31, and 38-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zubrin, as applied to claims 1, 2, and 3 above, and further in view of Bromberg et al. (US 9,169,773 B2) (Bromberg).
Regarding claim 16, Zubrin teaches the method of claim 1, but does not explicitly teach the reformer comprises one or more of a gas turbine engine, a combustion box, an internal combustion engine, an otto cycle reciprocating engine, a diesel cycle reciprocating engine.
With respect to the difference, Bromberg teaches using a reciprocating engine for the reformer process to convert methane and oxygen into hydrogen and carbon monoxide, specifically using a spark ignition reciprocating engine (i.e., otto cycle, as defined in the instant disclosure – Specification [00153]) (Bromberg, claims 1, 6, and 8).
As Bromberg expressly teaches, the use of reciprocating engines can provide a means to considerably reduce the cost of small-scale reformer-liquid fuel production systems. A substantial elimination of system components can be achieved if the fuel is reformed in the reciprocating engine. The percentage cost reduction is greatest for systems that produce methanol (Bromberg, Col. 3, lines 22-27).
Bromberg is analogous art as it is drawn to the method of producing methanol from syngas (Bromberg, claim 15).
In light of the motivation of using a spark ignition reciprocating engine (i.e., otto cycle) in the reformer as disclosed by Bromberg, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the reformer of Zubrin by incorporating the spark ignition reciprocating engine of Bromberg in order to considerably reduce the cost of the system by substantially eliminating system components, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 17-19, Zubrin teaches the method of claims 1, 2, and 3, but does not explicitly teach the fuel/air mixture has a fuel/air equivalence ratio of from 1.1 to about 4; or from about 1.5 to about 3, or from about 1.5 to about 2.5.
With respect to the difference, Bromberg teaches the reformer engine operates at a fuel/air equivalence ratio of between 2.5 and 4 (Bromberg, claim 12; Col. 3, line 44), which overlaps with the range of the presently claimed.
As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
As Bromberg expressly teaches, using an equivalence ratio within this range creates an exothermic reaction and the system is able to utilize the energy from this exothermic reaction to rotate a shaft and also utilizes the heat in the syngas to heat the reactants, while providing hot reformate for the liquid fuel making reactor downstream from the reformer (Bromberg, Col. 2, lines 6-20).
In light of the motivation of using a fuel/air equivalence ratio between 2.5 and 4 as disclosed by Bromberg, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Zubrin by using a fuel/air equivalence ratio as disclosed by Bromberg in order to create an exothermic reaction that creates energy to be used elsewhere in the process as well as producing heat to heat reactants and provide hot reformate for the fuel made downstream from the reformer, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 30 and 38-40, Zubrin teaches the method of claim 13, but does not explicitly teach the reformer is a reciprocating engine.
With respect to the difference, Bromberg teaches using a reciprocating engine for the reformer process to convert methane and oxygen into hydrogen and carbon monoxide (Bromberg, claims 1, 6, and 8), wherein in embodiments, the compression ratio is 14 (i.e., 14:1) or 13 (i.e., 13:1) (i.e., (a) a compression ratio in the range of about 8:1 to about 17:1), and the manifold pressure is 5 bar (Bromberg, Col. 8, lines 43-45 and 55-57) (i.e., an inlet manifold air pressure of ambient to about 5 bar).
Further Bromberg teaches wherein the operating speeds are from 500 rpm to 4000 rpm (Bromberg, Col. 13, lines 17-18) (i.e., (e) overlaps with the engine speed of from about 8000 rpm to 1350 rpm), and wherein the spark is generated in the cylinder before or near the TDC (Bromberg, Col. 15, lines 62-63) (i.e., (d) a spark timing that is between TDC and 50 degrees before TDC).
As Bromberg expressly teaches, the use of reciprocating engines can provide a means to considerably reduce the cost of small-scale reformer-liquid fuel production systems. A substantial elimination of system components can be achieved if the fuel is reformed in the reciprocating engine. The percentage cost reduction is greatest for systems that produce methanol (Bromberg, Col. 3, lines 22-27).
In light of the motivation of using a reciprocating engine in the reformer as disclosed by Bromberg, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the reformer of Zubrin by incorporating the reciprocating engine of Bromberg in order to considerably reduce the cost of the system by substantially eliminating system components, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 31, Zubrin teaches the method of claim 13, but does not explicitly teach the reformer is selected from the group consisting of a two-stroke reciprocating engine and a four-stroke reciprocating engine.
With respect to the difference, Bromberg teaches Bromberg teaches using a reciprocating engine for the reformer process to convert methane and oxygen into hydrogen and carbon monoxide (Bromberg, claims 1, 6, and 8), wherein the reciprocating engine may be 4-cycle or 2-cycle engine (i.e., two-stroke or four-stroke) (Bromberg, Col. 13, lines 31-34).
As Bromberg expressly teaches, the use of reciprocating engines can provide a means to considerably reduce the cost of small-scale reformer-liquid fuel production systems. A substantial elimination of system components can be achieved if the fuel is reformed in the reciprocating engine. The percentage cost reduction is greatest for systems that produce methanol (Bromberg, Col. 3, lines 22-27).
In light of the motivation of using a reciprocating engine in the reformer as disclosed by Bromberg, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the reformer of Zubrin by incorporating the reciprocating engine of Bromberg in order to considerably reduce the cost of the system by substantially eliminating system components, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Claims 32 and 41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zubrin, as applied to claims 1, 2, and 3 above, and further in view of Liu et al. (US 2010/0175379 A1) (Liu).
Regarding claims 32 and 41, Zubrin teaches the method of claims 1, 2, 3, and 13, but does not explicitly teach wherein the reformer is a gas turbine assembly.
With respect to the difference, Liu teaches a fuel reformer system based on pre-mixed catalytic partial oxidation, and more particularly to a gas turbine system employing the fuel reformer system (Liu, [0002]), and wherein the gas turbine system includes a catalytic partial oxidation zone and a gas turbine combustor (Liu, [0008]).
As Liu expressly teaches, the gas turbine system reduces NOx emission and extends the lean blow out limit (Liu, Abstract), and wherein reducing the lean blow out point permits the flow rate to the gas turbine to be further turned down when demand for electricity is low, thereby saving fuel and reducing emissions (Liu, [0020]).
Liu is analogous art as it is drawn to partial oxidation in a reformer to form syngas (Liu, [0008]).
In light of the motivation of using a gas turbine assembly as the reformer as disclosed by Liu, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the reformer of Zubrin by using the gas turbine assembly of Liu in order to reduce NOx emission and extend the lean blow out limit which saves fuel and reduces emissions, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Response to Arguments
In response to applicant’s remarks filed on pages 11-20 regarding the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection over Allam, it is agreed that Allam would not meet the present claims. However, after further search and consideration, a new set of rejection is set forth above using Zubrin.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Coris Fung whose telephone number is (571)270-5713. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00 a.m. - 4:00 p.m..
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 director, Alexa Neckel can be reached at (571)272-2450. 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.
/CORIS FUNG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1732
Prosecution Insights