DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
With respect to the rejection of Claims 1-2, 4-7, 11-20, and 22-25 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), Claims 1, 6, 13, 15, 18, 24, and 25 have been amended to remove the multiple ranges. This cures the indefiniteness issue raised in the previous Office Action. Accordingly the rejections are WITHDRAWN.
With respect to the rejection of Claims 1-2, 5, 7, 11, 13-15, 17-18, 20, and 23-25 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Iaquaniello et al., Claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Genkin et al., Claims 1 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Licht et al., and Claims 1, 6, 19, and 22 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ziaka et al., and Claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iaquaniello et al., as understood by the Examiner the traversal relies on amendments. Specifically, Claim 1 has been amended to recite the limitations previously presented in Claim 4. While said rejections are withdrawn, new rejections appear below, necessitated by applicant’s amendments.
With respect to the rejection of Claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Genkin et al. as evidenced by, or alternatively in view of Iaquaniello et al., as understood the traversal relies on arguments. Applicant begins by clearly setting forth the difference between pre-reforming and reforming reactions by stating “a pre-reforming process may be performed that converts the longer hydrocarbons to methane” and “The reforming processes have the purpose of converting the hydrocarbons in the feed gas, that pre-reforming may have converted to substantially only methane, to the desired product hydrogen as well as carbon monoxide and/or carbon dioxide.” [Remarks, Page 11, Paragraphs 5-6]. In other words, the pre-reforming process modifies the hydrocarbon feedstock into a hydrocarbon feedstock that is more suitable for reforming while a reforming reaction modifies a hydrocarbon feedstock into synthesis gas (a mixture of H2 and CO/CO2). The applicant further points to inconsistencies in the language used in Genkin et al. regarding pre-reforming/reforming reactors (“Genkin et al.'s description of the reactor 10 occasionally refers to the reactor 10 using a reforming catalyst, even though the same catalyst may be referred to as a pre-reforming catalyst or a catalyst for pre-reforming immediately thereafter. See the first two sentences of para. [0075]. When considered in the context of Genkin et al. described above, one of ordinary skill would recognize referring to the catalyst as a reforming catalyst is a misstatement or mistake.” [Remarks, Page 12, Paragraph 4]). In light of this the definitions of pre-reforming and reforming set forth by the Applicant are used to interpret Genkin et al. rather than the language used within Genkin et al. In other words, if Genkin et al. describes a reactor that produces syngas it will be understood to be a “reformer” regardless of whether Genkin et al. refers to said reactor as a pre-reformer or reformer.
Applicant argues “With regard to the disclosure in Genkin et al., a pre-reforming process is performed in the reactor 10, and the reactor 10 is a pre-reforming reactor, or "prereformer." See para. [0073]. The purpose of the reactor 10 is clearly to convert the longer length hydrocarbons to a shorter length. See, particularly, the last two lines of paragraph [0075].” [Remarks, Page 12, Paragraph 2]. This is unpersuasive. Although Genkin et al. calls the reactor a “prereformer” [0073] they also disclose forming syngas withing reactor 10 “The process comprises introducing reactants comprising steam and a hydrocarbon feed 47 into reactor 10, reacting the reactants in the presence of a reforming catalyst under reaction conditions sufficient to form a reformate comprising H2, CO, and unreacted hydrocarbon feed and steam, and withdrawing the reformate from reactor 10.” [0069]. This makes reactor 10 a reformer as defined by the Applicant (see above). Further supporting this Genkin et al. discloses pre-reforming process happen in a different reactor 30 “The hydrocarbon feed may be "pretreated" in desulfurizer 30 to remove sulfur components prior to introducing into the reactor 10 as shown in FIGS. 1 and 2. Sulfur compounds are removed from the feed to the reactors because sulfur compounds may poison the catalyst in the reactors. The hydrocarbon feed may also be pretreated to hydrogenate olefins to produce saturated hydrocarbons.” [0072]. It is therefore understood that Genkin et al. discloses pre-reforming in pre-reformer reactor 30 and reforming in a reforming reactor 10.
Applicant argues Iaquaniello teaches against the combination “In fact, paragraph [0017] of Iaquaniello prejudices the skilled person against using any other type of reactor than a catalytic partial oxidation reactor. Paragraph [0017] of Iaquaniello specifically teaches against using steam reforming processes.” [Remarks, Page 13, Paragraph 2]. Paragraph 17 of Iaquaniello et al. discloses “In a broad sense, the invention is based on the judicious insight that the use of catalytic partial oxidation in the formation of synthesis gas, rather than steam reforming, is able to bring about unexpected advantages in both the production of ammonia and the production of urea.” This is unpersuasive. MPEP 2145.X.D.1 states “A prior art reference that "teaches away" from the claimed invention is a significant factor to be considered in determining obviousness. However, "the nature of the teaching is highly relevant and must be weighed in substance. A known or obvious composition does not become patentable simply because it has been described as somewhat inferior to some other product for the same use.” See also MPEP 2123. In this case Iaquaniello et al. does not teach that a steam reforming process is incapable of reforming hydrocarbons into syn gas but rather that a steam reformer is somewhat inferior to their method. Furthermore, one major advantage of avoiding steam reforming is that it is an endothermic process and therefore requires combusting additional fuel to supply the heat needs of the reaction (See Iaquaniello et al. [0021]). However, the heat recovery train of Genkin et al. would reduce or eliminate the need for extra fuel to be burned for heat and therefore the specific combination of Iaquaniello et al. and Genkin et al. overcomes a major disadvantage of the general combination of a partial oxidation reactor and steam reformer.
Applicant does not argue against the obviousness of using gas to heat a reactor presented in the previous Office Action. Therefore it is understood that the heated reformer of Genkin et al. is a gas heated reformer and the rejection is presented under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) rather than 35 U.S.C. 103. The rejection is otherwise MAINTAINED.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 1 recites “performing a hydrogen separation process and a carbon dioxide separation process on the shifted gas to thereby generate separate streams of hydrogen, carbon dioxide and a rest gas”. The phrase ‘rest gas’ is not a recognized term in the art to the best of the Examiner’s knowledge. Rest gas was not fully defined in the specification however it does provide the following: “The rest gas 102 contains remnants of CO and CH4 together with unseparated CO2 and hydrogen.” [Page 18, Lines 11-12]. Because rest gas is not defined as having a particular composition it is therefore the understanding of the Examiner that the phrase ‘rest gas’ indicates only the gas that is left over after H2 and CO2 separation and does not indicate a particular chemical composition is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 5, 7, 11, 13-15, 17, 20, 22, 24, and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2013 243686 A1 Genkin et al. Claim 1 requires “A method of producing hydrogen”. Genkin et al. discloses “The present invention relates to a hydrogen production process.” [0007].
Claim 1 further requires “the method comprising: receiving a feed gas comprising hydrocarbons”. Genkin et al. discloses “introducing reactants comprising steam and a hydrocarbon feed into a first reactor” [0009].
Claim 1 further requires “performing one or more reforming processes on the feed gas so as to generate a reformed gas comprising hydrogen and carbon monoxide”. Genkin et al. discloses “reacting the reactants in the presence of a reforming catalyst under reaction conditions sufficient to form a reformate comprising H2, CO, and unreacted methane and steam” [0009].
Claim 1 further requires “performing a water-gas-shift process on the reformed gas so as to generate a shifted gas comprising hydrogen and carbon dioxide”. Genkin et al. discloses “reacting the cooled reformate in the presence of a shift catalyst under reaction conditions sufficient to shift the reformate to form additional H2 in the reformate” [0012]. Additionally, Genkin et al. discloses that the shift is water gas shift “reformate from reactor 20 that has been cooled in heat recovery train 50 is passed to water-gas shift reactor 60 to shift the reformate and form additional H2” [0092].
Claim 1 further requires “performing a hydrogen separation process and a carbon dioxide separation process on the shifted gas to thereby generate separate streams of hydrogen, carbon dioxide and a rest gas”. Genkin et al. discloses “separating the water-depleted reformate into a CO2 product stream and a pressure swing adsorber feed stream comprising H2 and secondary gas components” [0015] and “separating the pressure swing adsorber feed stream in a plurality of at least 4 pressure swing adsorption beds, each adsorption bed containing an adsorbent selective for the secondary gas components thereby forming a H2 product stream and a pressure swing adsorption tail gas stream” [0016]. The tail gas stream of Genkin et al. is identified as a rest gas because it results from the leftovers once H2 and CO2 have been removed from the reformed and shifted gas.
Claim 1 further requires “the method further comprises recycling at least part of the rest gas by feeding at least part of the rest gas back into one or more the water-gas-shift process, the hydrogen separation process and the carbon dioxide separation process”. Genkin et al. discloses “introducing a second portion of the tail gas stream into at least one of the plurality of pressure swing adsorption beds” [0018]. It is noted that pressure swing adsorption beds are required of the hydrogen separation process.
Claim 1 further requires “wherein the portion of the rest gas that is recycled is at least 80%”. Genkin et al. discloses “The process of aspect 1 or aspect 2 wherein the molar flow rate of the second portion of the tail gas stream is 5% to 80% or 40% to 55% of the molar flow rate of the tail gas stream.” [0020].
Claim 1 further requires “the reforming process comprises both a gas-heated reforming process and an autothermal reforming process”. Genkin et al. discloses “Reactor 20 is a reformer often called an “autothermal reformer” abbreviated “ATR.”” [0080] and “The reaction conditions in reactor 10 include a temperature ranging from 430° C. to 570° C.” [0076]. Reactor 10 is a reformer because feedstock hydrocarbons are converted into syngas within the reactor “The process comprises introducing reactants comprising steam and a hydrocarbon feed 47 into reactor 10, reacting the reactants in the presence of a reforming catalyst under reaction conditions sufficient to form a reformate comprising H2, CO, and unreacted hydrocarbon feed and steam, and withdrawing the reformate from reactor 10.” [0069]. Therefore Genkin et al. discloses a heated reforming process and an autothermal reforming process however does not explicitly state that the heated reforming process is gas heated. It is understood by the Examiner that gas heated reforming is conventional in the art and therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that a heated reactor is implicitly a gas heated reactor unless otherwise stated.
Claim 1 further requires “heat generated by the autothermal reforming process is supplied to the gas- heated reforming process.” Genkin et al. discloses using the heat from an autothermal reactor to preheat the reactants going into the reformer “the step of recovering heat from the reformate from reactor 20 may comprise heating the reactants in reactor 10 by indirect heat exchange (not shown) between the reactants and the reformate from reactor 20 . Reactor 10 may be coupled (not shown) with heat recovery train 50 such that heat may be recovered from the reformate from reactor 20 and provide heat for reactor 10.” [0085].
Claim 5 requires “optionally performing a sulfur removal process on the feed gas before performing the reforming process on the feed gas”. Genkin et al. discloses “The hydrocarbon feed may be "pretreated" in desulfurizer 30 to remove sulfur components prior to introducing into the reactor 10”. [0072].
Claim 7 requires “the hydrogen separation process comprises a PSA process”. Genkin et al. discloses “separating the pressure swing adsorber feed stream in a plurality of at least 4 pressure swing adsorption beds, each adsorption bed containing an adsorbent selective for the secondary gas components thereby forming a H2 product stream and a pressure swing adsorption tail gas stream” [0016].
Claim 11 requires “the feed gas is natural gas.”. Genkin et al. discloses “The hydrocarbon feed may be formed from any suitable hydrocarbon feedstock known for producing hydrogen, for example, natural gas.” [0071].
Claim 13 requires “the reforming process comprises a gas-heated reforming process and the temperature of the gas exiting the gas-heated reforming process is in the range 400-800 °C”. Genkin et al. discloses “The reaction conditions in reactor 10 include a temperature ranging from 430° C. to 570° C.” [0076].
Claim 14 requires “the one or more reforming processes are supplied with oxygen from an air separation unit.”. Genkin et al. discloses “The oxygen [for reacting in reactor 20] may be provided from any known oxygen source, for example, a cryogenic air separation plant, or pressure swing adsorption air separation plant.” [0079].
Claim 15 requires “the water- gas-shift process is conducted in one water-gas-shift reactor”. Genkin et al. discloses one or more water gas shift reactors “Any suitable shift catalyst may be used. The shift reactor may be a so-called high temperature shift (HTS), low temperature shift (LTS), medium temperature shift (MTS), or combination. Since the article "a" means "one or more," one or more shift reactors may be used in the process.” [0093].
Claim 17 requires “no additional steam is added between the reforming processes and the water-gas-shift process.”. Genkin et al. discloses adding steam prior to reacting in the first reformer “As shown in FIG. 2, steam for reactor 10 may be generated by direct heat exchange between the hydrocarbon feed 47 and feed water in saturator 35.” [0090]. Genkin et al. is silent towards adding additional steam after reforming and therefore it is understood that this is not part of the method of Genkin et al.
Claim 20 requires “water is not separated from the shifted gas before the hydrogen separation process”. Genkin et al. discloses separating water from the stream immediately after the water gas shift process “The process further comprises removing H₂O from the shifted reformate to form a water-depleted reformate.” [0101].
Claim 22 requires “the carbon dioxide separation process is conducted cryogenically.”. Genkin et al. discloses “The CO₂ may be separated from the water-depleted reformate by any known means.” [0104]. Because cryogenic separation of CO2 is known in the art this is considered one embodiment of the method of Genkin et al.
Claim 24 requires “A hydrogen production plant arranged to perform a method of producing hydrogen, the method comprising:” and then recites verbatim the limitations from the method of Claim 1. Genkin et al. discloses a plant capable of performing the method of Claim 1 in Examples 2 and 3 [0171-0176].
Claim 26 requires “performing a pre-reforming process on the feed gas before performing the reforming processes on the feed gas”. Genkin et al. discloses “The hydrocarbon feed may be "pretreated" in desulfurizer 30 to remove sulfur components prior to introducing into the reactor 10 as shown in FIGS. 1 and 2. Sulfur compounds are removed from the feed to the reactors because sulfur compounds may poison the catalyst in the reactors. The hydrocarbon feed may also be pretreated to hydrogenate olefins to produce saturated hydrocarbons.” [0072].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Genkin et al. Regarding Claim 12, Genkin et al. teaches all of the limitations of Claim 1, see above. Claim 12 requires “the feed gas is a hydrocarbon-rich gaseous stream from, or within, an oil refinery or a petrochemical plant.”. Genkin et al. discloses “The hydrocarbon feed may be formed from any suitable hydrocarbon feedstock known for producing hydrogen, for example, natural gas.” [0071]. Genkin et al. does not disclose the source of the hydrocarbon feed, however it would have been obvious to source natural gas (or by-product methane) from an oil refinery or petrochemical plant because those are well known sources of the feedstock material.
Claim(s) 6 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Genkin et al. in view of US 6090312 A Ziaka et al. Regarding Claim 6, Genkin et al. teaches all of the limitations of Claim 1, see above. Claim 6 requires “the hydrogen separation process comprises: inputting the shifted gas to a hydrogen separator that comprises a Palladium membrane”. Genkin et al. does not disclose a palladium membrane.
Ziaka et al. is similarly directed to methods for producing hydrogen from hydrocarbon gas streams. Ziaka et al. discloses membranes comprising palladium “Similar permselective inorganic membranes can be also made by sols of the above inorganic oxides mixed with metals such as nickel, palladium, platinum, silver, gold, rhodium, ruthenium, rhenium, chromium, cobalt, copper, zinc” [Column 4, Lines 3-7].
Claim 6 further requires “wherein the hydrogen separator comprises a permeate side of the Palladium membrane and a retentate side of the Palladium membrane, and the shifted gas is input to the retentate side of the Palladium membrane;”. Ziaka et al. discloses “The membrane permeators preferably consist of several thin hollow fibers or cylindrical tubes packed within a stainless steel module which have suitable inlet and outlet ports to deliver the gas permeated through the hollow fibers or tubes.” [Column 3, Lines 40-44]. It is noted that having two sides is an intrinsic property of a membrane and as understood by the Examiner the phrases “permeate side” and “retentate side” serve merely to clarify which side is being referred to and do not suggest further structural limitations.
Claim 6 further requires “outputting hydrogen from the permeate side of the Palladium membrane; and outputting a hydrogen-depleted shifted gas from the retentate side of the Palladium membrane”. Ziaka et al. discloses “H2 and CO2 are removed in permeate stream 12 through permselective action of membrane in D. Non permeating species CH4 and CO exit from permeator through stream 13 which can be called a reject stream.” [Column 6, Lines 36-40]. The reject stream is associated with the retentate side and the hydrogen and CO2 are associated with the permeate side.
Claim 6 further requires “wherein the Palladium membrane is operated at a temperature between 200 and 400 °C, preferably between 250 and 350 °C, more preferably between 270 and 330 °C.”. Ziaka et al. discloses “The organic polymer and organic polymer-inorganic support membrane permeators can operate usually between 35-500 DEG C … For the inorganic membranes higher temperatures in permeators can be used which may approach the temperature of the preceded reactor, depending also on the desired thermal design of the overall system. Inorganic materials such as those described above as membranes, usually withstand on higher temperatures and pressures than their usual polymer counterparts” [Column 5, Line 53 – Column 6 Line 14]. It is therefore understood that the inorganic membranes can also be operated between 35-500 °C or perhaps slightly higher. The language “higher temperatures in permeators can be used” is interpreted as optional language and does not require that the highest temperature possible to be used is used. Ziaka et al. does not motivate high temperatures for the membrane separation process generally, they merely acknowledge a flaw in organic membranes (poor performance at high temperature) which would not apply to the selection of a palladium membrane.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have combined the method of Genkin et al. with the palladium membrane of Ziaka et al. because both methods similarly require producing hydrogen from hydrocarbons in a reformer and purifying said hydrogen for further use/sale.
The motivation to have used the palladium membrane of Ziaka et al. instead of the multiple PSA adsorbers of Genkin et al. is that the palladium membrane separates multiple impurities (CH4 and CO) at the same time and therefore eliminates the need to run multiple beds. Furthermore Ziaka et al. discloses that essentially pure H2 may be recovered “Pure H₂ can be recovered after the СO₂ condensation and used as fuel or in chemical synthesis.” [Column 8, Lines 28-29], while Genkin et al. discloses H2 purity is only 98.5% “The hydrogen product stream may have a hydrogen concentration greater than 98.5 vol. %.” [0111].
Regarding Claim 19, Genkin et al. teaches all of the limitations of Claim 1, see above. Claim 19 requires “water is separated from hydrogen-depleted shifted gas output from the hydrogen separation process.”. Ziaka et al. discloses “Non permeating CO exits from permeator through stream 10 which can be called a reject stream. Stream 10 can be recycled via valve D1 and stream 3 into the first shift reactor A for continuous shift reaction and conversion to H2 and CO2 products. Alternatively, by use of same valve D1, stream 10 becomes 12 which enters into E for additional shift reaction (2), and conversion to final H2, CO2 products. Steam in E is provided via stream 13. Unreacted steam is removed from exit stream 14 by passing this stream through heat exchanger F.” [Column 7 Line 65 – Column 8 Line 7]. Ziaka discloses other process steps in between the gas output and the water separation, however Claim 19 does not require that the separation of water be performed immediately after the separation of H2.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Genkin et al. in view of US 2010310949 A1 Licht et al. Regarding Claim 16, Genkin et al. teaches all of the limitations of Claim 1, see above. Claim 16 requires “the water-gas-shift process and the hydrogen separation process are operated at about the same temperature.”. Genkin et al. discloses cooling the stream leaving the water gas shift reactor prior to separation “As shown in FIGS. 1 and 2, feed water 86 is passed to heat recovery train 70 to be heated by the shifted reformate by indirect heat transfer.” [0099].
Licht et al. is similarly directed to methods of producing hydrogen from hydrocarbon streams “The present invention relates to a process for producing a hydrogen-containing product gas. The process comprises: (a) introducing a process stream comprising steam and at least one hydrocarbon selected from the group consisting of methane, ethane, propane, butane, pentane, and hexane into a plurality of catalyst-containing reformer tubes … to form a reformate stream comprising hydrogen, carbon monoxide, methane and steam” [0006-0007]. Licht et al. does not explicitly disclose that the water gas shift process and hydrogen separation processes happen at the same temperature, however it is noted that unlike Genkin et al., Licht et al. does not disclose any cooling of the stream between leaving the water gas shift reactor and entering the hydrogen separator, see [0043-0047]. It is understood by the Examiner that if the stream is neither heated nor cooled then it is implicitly disclosed to be at approximately the same temperature.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have combined the method of Genkin et al. with the method of Licht et al. because both methods similarly require producing hydrogen from hydrocarbons in a reformer and purifying said hydrogen for further use/sale.
The motivation to have used the method of Licht is that CO2 emissions (per unit of H2 produced) are lower “The results show that use of a low temperature shift reactor is effective for reducing the amount of CO2 emissions. Compared to example 2, the CO2 emissions are lower for each respective amount of by-product gas recycle.” [0097].
Claim(s) 18, 23, and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Genkin et al. in view of US 2014170052 A1 Iaquaniello et al. Regarding Claim 18, Genkin et al. teaches all of the limitations of Claim 1, see above. Claim 18 requires “operating the water-gas shift process so that the CO conversion in the water-gas-shift process is at least 90%, and below 98%”. Genkin et al. does not disclose the CO conversion of the water gas shift process.
Iaquaniello et al. discloses “In the HTS the largest amount of CO is converted, usually more than 90% such as between 96 and 98%.” [0035]. It is noted that more conversion of CO happens in later stages, as high as 99.7-99.%, however one embodiment of the method of Iaquaniello et al. uses only a single stage and therefore would have CO conversion between 90-98% in that embodiment.
It would have been obvious to have combined the method of Genkin et al. with the method of Iaquaniello et al. because both methods similarly require producing hydrogen from hydrocarbons in a reformer and purifying said hydrogen for further use/sale.
The motivation to have combined the method of Genkin et al. with the method of Iaquaniello et al. is to raise the CO conversion efficiency to 90-98% and therefore produce more hydrogen during the water gas shift.
Regarding Claim 23, Genkin et al. teaches all of the limitations of Claim 1, see above. Claim 23 requires “generating ammonia in dependence on hydrogen output from the hydrogen separation process and nitrogen output from an air separation unit.”. Genkin et al. is silent towards producing ammonia with the hydrogen.
It can be seen in Fig. 1 of Iaquaniello et al. that the ammonia synthesis reactor receives hydrogen from PSA (Pressure Swing Absorption), which is a hydrogen separation process, and nitrogen from ASU (air separation unit). It is therefore understood that ammonia generation is dependent on these two streams.
The motivation to have combined the method of Genkin et al. with the method of Iaquaniello et al. is to have produced ammonia as a product instead of hydrogen.
Regarding Claim 25, Genkin et al. teaches all of the limitations of Claim 1, see above. Claim 25 requires “An ammonia production plant arranged to perform a method of …” and then lists method steps identical to Claim 1 and 23. Genkin et al. teaches the steps of Claim 1 and Iaquaniello et al. teaches the steps of Claim 23 and therefore the combination of these two methods can be considered an ammonia production plant arranged to perform the method steps of Claim 1 and 23 (see Claims 1 and 23 above).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA MAXWELL SPEER whose telephone number is (703)756-5471. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm 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, Anthony Zimmer can be reached at 571-270-3591. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JOSHUA MAXWELL SPEER/
Examiner
Art Unit 1736
/DANIEL BERNS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1736