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 with traverse of Group I, Claims 1-14, and Species A-i and Species B-i in the reply filed on September 16, 2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the grounds that “The present invention allows, in a single reactor, the alternative selection of a first configuration in which the Sabatier reaction is favored to produce methane, or a configuration in which the Water-Gas-Shift reaction is favored to produce dihydrogen. The different configurations result in dual catalytic functionality and different operating parameters. This dual catalytic functionality is defined by a specific catalyst for the Water-Gas-Shift reaction and a catalyst promoting methanation in the same reactor. Claim 1 clearly defines "a control system comprising a selector for selecting a configuration for operating the reactor and an emitter for emitting a command representative of the selected configuration, the reactor being configured to operate according to a given configuration as a function of the command emitted by the emission means." These characteristics correspond in particular to the following steps covered by claim 15:
"- a step of selecting a configuration for operating a conversion reactor;
- a step of emitting a command representative of the selected configuration;
- a step of configuring the conversion reactor as a function of the command emitted
according to one of the two following configurations:
- a first configuration in which the operating conditions of the reactor promote a Sabatier reaction, so as to produce an outlet gas comprising mainly methane, or
- a second configuration in which the operating conditions of the reactor promote a water gas shift reaction, so as to produce an outlet gas comprising mainly dihydrogen;"
The system and the selecting and configuration step, and in particular the measurements performed to select one or other of the configurations, are explained several times in the description of this patent application, in particular from page 15, line 27, to page 19, line 4, which presents the operating conditions of the available configurations. Depending on the configuration selected, the inlet and outlet gases are different and the operating conditions are different, as explained in particular on page 12, lines 5 to 14: "This reactor 110 is configured to operate according to two thermodynamic equilibrium configurations, or systems:
- a first configuration in which the operating conditions of the reactor promote a Sabatier reaction at medium temperature and high pressure, so as to produce an outlet gas comprising mainly methane, or
- a second configuration in which the operating conditions of the reactor promote a water gas shift reaction at high temperature, or a water gas shift reaction at low temperature, and at low pressure, so as to produce an outlet gas comprising mainly dihydrogen.
The choice of the temperature range of this second configuration will be a function of the catalytic bed 111 introduced into 110 to ensure the water-gas or WGS reaction. This configuration requires significant operating ranges in terms of pressure and temperature in particular." These characteristics therefore imply a reactor structure capable of withstanding the temperature and pressure ranges of both reactions without degradation, but also of alternating between two configurations according to a command received. These are therefore structural characteristics of the invention. It should be noted that the subject matter of claim 1 does not relate solely to a catalytic conversion reactor, but also includes the control system described above. The subject matter of claim 15 includes the same limitations in the steps described above. Kara does not disclose this feature, which therefore constitutes a contribution over Kara.
In Kara, the purpose of the reactor is to simultaneously recirculate synthetic natural gas to improve the methanation reaction. In particular, the reactor in Kara is only capable of supplying synthetic natural gas (page 6, lines 14 to page 7, line 4, and page 1, lines 2 to 4). Furthermore, a Water-Gas-Shift reaction can take place simultaneously with the Sabatier reaction in the reactor disclosed in Kara. However, this does not allow for the production of mainly dihydrogen. This is described in particular on page 14, lines 20 to 31:
"The injection line 165 is, for example, a sealed line connected to a device (not shown) for producing water vapor. This water vapor production device heats, for example, the water separated from the synthetic natural gas to produce water vapor injected into the syngas. The water thus injected enables a WGS reaction to take place and limits coke formation in reactor 105. In addition, the steam promotes, through the WGS reaction, the adjustment of the H2/CO ratio close to the optimal conditions for the methanation reaction. Analysis of the prior art has shown that the WGS reaction can be carried out in a dedicated reactor located upstream of reactor 105 or within the reactor itself in parallel with the methanation reactions. In order to benefit from economic gains and process simplification, the methanation and WGS reactions are preferably carried out in a single device."
Thus, Kara does not disclose two alternative configurations, in particular the dual catalytic functionality required in the present invention. On the one hand, Kara discloses the opposite of the invention, i.e., simultaneous reactions in the same methanation reactor. Kara also discloses a number of advantages resulting from these simultaneous reactions. On the other hand, Kara does not disclose or suggest the production of gas consisting mainly of dihydrogen resulting from this simultaneous reaction.”
The arguments are considered persuasive and therefore, the restriction requirement has been withdrawn and claim 15 is hereby rejoined.
Claims 1-15 are pending in the application.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “165” has been used to designate both methane output selector (see paragraph [0187] of published specification) and rate of recirculation (paragraph [0225] of published specification). Further, reference character “175” has been used to designate both dihydrogen output selector (see paragraph [0187] of published specification) and rate of recirculation (paragraph [0225] of published specification). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Paragraph [0187] of published specification identifies reference numeral 165 as a methane output selector. Further, paragraph [0225] of published specification identifies reference number 165 with the rate of recirculation.
Paragraph [0187] of published specification identifies reference numeral 175 as a methane output selector. Further, paragraph [0225] of published specification identifies reference number 175 with the rate of recirculation.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim 1 recites “…means for emitting a command representative of the selected configuration…” Claim 8 recites “…means for compressing syngas to a specified pressure…”
Paragraph [0211] of published specification discloses that: “The emission means 122 is, for example, an electronic control circuit, configured to adapt operating variables of the device 100 to correspond to the configurations available.”
Paragraphs [0201]-[0202] of published specification discloses that: “In a particular embodiment, such as that shown in FIG. 1, the device 100 comprises a means 545 for compressing products from the conversion reactor 110 to a specified pressure, this pressure corresponding to a nominal pressure of use for said products or to an operating pressure of the conversion reactor 110 with a view to the recirculation of a portion of the reaction products. This compression means 545 is, for example, a centrifugal, axial, vane, screw, lobe or scroll type of compressor.”
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitations use a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are: a selector for selecting a configuration for operating the reactor in claim 1, a methane output selector configured to direct the methane towards the methane recirculator in claim 11, a dihydrogen output selector configured to direct the dihydrogen towards the dihydrogen outlet in claim 11.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
Paragraphs [0134] and [0210] of published specification that: “…a control system 120 comprising a means 121 for selecting a configuration for operating the reactor…The selection means 121 is, for example, a mechanical, electrical or electronic interface allowing a configuration to be selected from the two configurations available.”
Paragraph [0186] of published specification that: “The term “recirculator”, 155 and 160, refers to a line transporting a stream of gas towards the inlet 105 for syngas. This stream of gas can be a stream of hydrogen 160 or synthetic methane 155, as a function of the command emitted by the control system 120. For example, if the control system 120 has configured the device 100 for producing hydrogen, the residual methane is recirculated by the “recirculator” 155, whereas if the control system 120 has configured the device 100 for producing methane, it is the dihydrogen which is recirculated by the “recirculator” 160.”
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim limitations “methane output selector configured to direct the methane towards the methane recirculator, and dihydrogen output selector configured to direct the dihydrogen towards the dihydrogen outlet” in claim 11” invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Paragraphs [0188]-[0192] of published specification discloses that: “a methane output selector 165 connected to a recirculator 155 for recirculating methane towards the inlet 105 for syngas, and to a methane outlet 170; a dihydrogen output selector 175 connected to a recirculator 160 for recirculating dihydrogen towards the inlet 105 for syngas, and to a dihydrogen outlet 180, device wherein: when the command emitted corresponds to a configuration of the reactor to promote a water gas shift reaction, the dihydrogen output selector is configured to direct the dihydrogen mainly towards the dihydrogen outlet and the methane output selector is configured to direct the methane mainly towards the methane recirculator; and when the command emitted corresponds to a configuration of the reactor to promote a Sabatier reaction, the dihydrogen output selector is configured to direct the dihydrogen mainly towards the dihydrogen recirculator, and the methane output selector is configured to mainly direct the methane towards the methane outlet.”
However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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 2-7, 11 and 13 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.
Claim 2 recites: “…a first catalyst being configured to promote a Sabatier reaction at medium temperature, preferably between 250ºC and 350ºC; and a second catalyst being configured to promote a water gas shift reaction at high temperature, preferably higher than 350ºC.” The term “preferably” is considered indefinite because it this is a relative term and it is unclear as to what the meets and bounds of the claim is.
For purposes of examination, examiner will interpret claim 2 as reciting: “…a first catalyst being configured to promote a Sabatier reaction at a medium temperature between 250º and 350ºC; and a second catalyst being configured to promote a water gas shift reaction at a temperature higher than 350ºC.”
Claim 3 recites: “…wherein the conversion reactor comprises a catalytic bed comprising two separate catalysts, a first catalyst being configured to promote a Sabatier reaction at medium temperature, preferably between 250ºC and 350ºC, and a second catalyst being configured to promote a water gas shift reaction at low temperature, preferably between 200ºC and 250ºC.” The term “preferably” is considered indefinite because it this is a relative term and it is unclear as to what the meets and bounds of the claim is.
For purposes of examination, examiner will interpret claim 3 as reciting: “…wherein the conversion reactor comprises a catalytic bed comprising two separate catalysts, a first catalyst being configured to promote a Sabatier reaction at a medium temperature between 250ºC and 350ºC, and a second catalyst being configured to promote a water gas shift reaction at a low temperature between 200ºC and 250ºC.”
Claim 4 recites: “…wherein the conversion reactor comprises a catalytic bed comprising a bifunctional catalyst, configured to promote a Sabatier reaction at medium temperature, preferably between 250ºC and 350ºC, in the first configuration of the reactor; and to promote a water gas shift reaction at high temperature in the second configuration of the reactor, preferably higher than 350ºC.” The term “preferably” is considered indefinite because it this is a relative term and it is unclear as to what the meets and bounds of the claim is.
For purposes of examination, examiner will interpret claim 4 as reciting: “…wherein the conversion reactor comprises a catalytic bed comprising a bifunctional catalyst, configured to promote a Sabatier reaction at a medium temperature between 250ºC and 350ºC, in the first configuration of the reactor; and to promote a water gas shift reaction at a temperature in the second configuration of the reactor higher than 350ºC.”
Claim 5 recites: “…wherein the conversion reactor comprises a catalytic bed comprising a bifunctional catalyst, configured to promote a Sabatier reaction at medium temperature, preferably between 250ºC and 350ºC, in the first configuration of the reactor; and to promote a water gas shift reaction at low temperature in the second configuration of the reactor, preferably between 200ºC and 250ºC.” The term “preferably” is considered indefinite because it this is a relative term and it is unclear as to what the meets and bounds of the claim is.
For purposes of examination, examiner will interpret claim 5 as reciting: “…wherein the conversion reactor comprises a catalytic bed comprising a bifunctional catalyst, configured to promote a Sabatier reaction at a medium temperature between 250ºC and 350ºC, in the first configuration of the reactor; and to promote a water gas shift reaction at a low temperature in the second configuration of the reactor between 200ºC and 250ºC.”
Claim 6 recites: “Device according to claim 1, which comprises an injector injecting vapour into the stream of syngas and/or an injector injecting liquid water or vapour into the catalytic reactor, a quantity of water and/or vapour injected by at least one injector being realised as a function of the command emitted by the control system.” This limitation is considered indefinite because it is unclear as to what applicant refers to. It is unclear if applicant is referring to one of the injectors or if it is a different injector.
For purposes of examination, examiner will interpret claim 6 as reciting: “Device according to claim 1, which comprises an injector injecting vapour into the stream of syngas and/or an injector injecting liquid water or vapour into the catalytic reactor, a quantity of water and/or vapour injected by at least one of the injectors being realised as a function of the command emitted by the control system.”
Claim 7 recites: “Device according to claim 6, which comprises, downstream from the conversion reactor, a water separator configured to supply the separated water to a water discharge or to an injector.” There is no mention of water being separated previously in any of the claims which claim 7 depends from. Therefore, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
For purposes of examination, examiner will interpret claim 7 as reciting: “Device according to claim 6, which comprises, downstream from the conversion reactor, a water separator configured to separate water from the outlet gas and supply the separated water to a water discharge or to an injector.”
Claim 7 recites: “Device according to claim 6, which comprises, downstream from the conversion reactor, a water separator configured to separate water from the outlet gas and supply the separated water to a water discharge or to an injector.” This limitation is considered indefinite because it is unclear if applicant is referring to one of the injectors in claim 6 or if it is a different injector.
Claim 11 recites: “Device according to claim 10, which comprises, downstream from the conversion reactor:
-a methane output selector connected to a recirculator for recirculating methane towards the inlet for syngas, and to a methane outlet;
-a dihydrogen output selector connected to a recirculator for recirculating dihydrogen towards the inlet for syngas, and to a dihydrogen outlet,
-when the command emitted corresponds to a configuration of the reactor to promote a water gas shift reaction, the dihydrogen output selector is configured to direct the dihydrogen towards the dihydrogen outlet and the methane output selector is configured to direct the methane towards the methane recirculator; and - when the command emitted corresponds to a configuration of the reactor to promote a Sabatier reaction, the dihydrogen output selector is configured to direct the dihydrogen towards the dihydrogen recirculator, and the methane output selector is configured to direct the methane towards the methane outlet. These limitations are considered indefinite because it is unclear if applicant is referring to the same recirculator of claim 10 or if the applicant is referring to different recirculators.
Claim 13 recites: “Device according to claim 1, wherein the catalytic conversion reactor” This limitation is indefinite because it appears to be incomplete.
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, 6-7, 10 and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cofield, W. (US Pat. No. 3,728,093, hereinafter Cofield) in view of Ishii et al. (US Pat. Pub. No. 2002/0122520, hereinafter Ishii).
In regards to Claim 1, Cofield discloses a device for the hybrid production of synthetic dihydrogen and/or synthetic methane, comprising:
an inlet (#42) for a stream of synthetic gas (known as "syngas"), comprising at least CO (see figure and column 3, lines 53-56);
a catalytic conversion reactor (#44 methanation reactor, #60 water-gas shift reactor), configured to operate according to one of the two following alternative configurations:
a first configuration in which the operating conditions of the reactor promote a Sabatier reaction, so as to produce an outlet gas (#48) comprising mainly methane (see figure and column 3, line 63 to column 4, line 16), or
a second configuration in which the operating conditions of the reactor promote a water gas shift reaction, so as to produce an outlet gas (#68) comprising mainly dihydrogen (see figure and column 4, lines 25-38);
an outlet (#48 and pipeline for methane, #68 for dihydrogen) for a stream of synthetic dihydrogen and/or synthetic methane (see figure and column 4, lines 3-20 and lines 25-38).
Although Cofield discloses separate catalytic converter reactors for methanation and water-gas shift reaction, instead of a single integrated catalytic converter, it has been held that making separate structures integrated into a single structure is a mere engineering design choice, in order to obtain and desired end-result, such as for space and economic savings, and is considered prima facie obvious, absent evidence to the criticality or new or unexpected results. See MPEP 2144.04.
Cofield fails to disclose a control system comprising a selector for selecting a configuration for operating the reactor and a means for emitting a command representative of the selected configuration, the reactor being configured to operate according to a given configuration as a function of the command emitted by the emission means.
However, Ishii teaches a reactor manual control system for a reactor. The reactor comprises an operation control means (#41) that processes the timing of a drive sequence at a duplicated data processing unit, a transmission control means that performs an AND logic within a predetermined period of time by receiving the duplicated data at another duplicated data processing unit and mutually transmitting data, and when said AND logic is fulfilled, selects one data and transmits said data, i.e. control system comprising a selector for selecting a configuration for operating the reactor, a transmission means that receives said data and performs protocol conversion so as to generate a serial transmission command and to transmit them serially to a plurality of transmission branch portions positioned downstream (see figure 1 and paragraph [0007]).
This operation is performed using a display/operation unit (#72) and a switch-lamp circuit (#73) equipped to the main console of the central control cabinet. For example, the display/operation unit (#72) having a touch-operation function displays a rod selection switch for the full core, and one rod is selected as the object of operation by touching the screen. Thereafter, the switch of the switch-lamp circuit (#73) existing as a hard switch is operated. In the case of a notch operation, the insertion or withdrawal switch is pressed down for any chosen period of time while observing the position information output from the control rod monitoring device (#6). Further, when performing a continuous insertion operation, a switch for emergency insertion is pressed, and when performing a continuous withdrawal operation, the continuous withdrawal switch and the withdrawal switch are operated simultaneously. The above-mentioned operation information is transmitted as data to a rod control unit (#4) through a display control unit (#71), and each operation control means (#41), which are duplicated data processing units, determines whether control is possible or control is rejected based on the interlock signal input from associated systems such as a neutron monitoring system and the like. Thereafter, operation command is output in the form of a timing sequence pattern for controlling the opening/closing of the direction control solenoid valve based on the above mentioned operation information (see figure and paragraphs [0035]-[0036]). This is considered equivalent to a control system comprises a selector for selecting a configuration for operating the reactor, as claimed by the applicant.
A control rod drive unit (#3) of the rod control system controls the opening/closing of four direction control solenoid valves mounted to a control rod drive mechanism (#2) via a transistor contact of a solenoid valve drive circuit (#31) which is in form of cards corresponding to each control rod. Based on this timing sequence pattern, the transmission control means (#42) creates a frame of the transmission data having the address information of the control rod being the object of operation and the excitation information of the direction control valve (withdrawal supply valve excitation command, insertion valve excitation command, withdrawal discharge valve excitation command) as the command word. The frames of the transmission data are mutually transmitted between duplicated transmission control means (#42a and #42b), and when they coincide upon parameter comparison, they are cyclically transmitted by high speed to the transmission unit (#32) of the control rod drive unit (#3) from each transmission control means (#42a, 42b). In the transmission unit (#32), protocol conversion is performed to the received transmission data, and serial signals corresponding to each control rod are generated including the transmitted synchronizing bit information, the address information for identifying the solenoid valve drive circuit that is in a one-to-one relation with the control rod, and the excitation information of the solenoid valve, which are put into the transmission frame that is a special protocol for downstream transmission, before transmitting the same to a solenoid valve drive circuit (#31) equipped with a card corresponding to each control rod. The solenoid valve drive circuit (#31) selects a card corresponding to the address information of the control rod being the object of operation that is included in the serial signal. The solenoid valve drive unit (#31) outputs a transistor contact signal for controlling the opening/closing of the direction control solenoid valve based on the excitation information (withdrawal supply valve excitation command, insertion valve excitation command, withdrawal discharge valve excitation command) of the direction control valve included also in the serial signal (see figure and paragraphs [0034] and [0037]-[0038]). This is considered equivalent to a means for emitting a command representative of the selected configuration, the reactor being configured to operate according to a given configuration as a function of the command emitted by the emission means, as claimed by the applicant.
It would have been obvious by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify the device for the hybrid production of synthetic dihydrogen and/or synthetic methane as disclosed by Cofield by further having a control system comprising a selector for selecting a configuration for operating the reactor and a means for emitting a command representative of the selected configuration, the reactor being configured to operate according to a given configuration as a function of the command emitted by the emission means, as claimed by the applicant, with a reasonable expectation of success, as Ishii teaches a reactor manual control system that can be applied to a reactor system for controlling the operation of the reactor system through software processing which can be applied to an existing reactor plant by easily replacing the conventional system with the system realizing the necessary function through software programming and easily switching ad hoc between products based on client necessity (see paragraphs [0003] and [0005]).
In regards to Claim 6, Cofield discloses the device comprises an injector injecting vapour into the stream of syngas and/or an injector injecting liquid water or vapour into the catalytic reactor (see column 4, lines 25-31). Cofield does not explicitly disclose wherein a quantity of water and/or vapour injected by the at least one injector being realized as a function of the command emitted by the control system.
Ishii further teaches the reactor manual control system for a reactor. The control rod drive unit (#3) of the rod control system controls the opening/closing of four direction control solenoid valves mounted to a control rod drive mechanism (#2) via a transistor contact of a solenoid valve drive circuit (#31) which is in form of cards corresponding to each control rod. Based on this timing sequence pattern, the transmission control means (#42) creates a frame of the transmission data having the address information of the control rod being the object of operation and the excitation information of the direction control valve (withdrawal supply valve excitation command, insertion valve excitation command, withdrawal discharge valve excitation command) as the command word. The frames of the transmission data are mutually transmitted between duplicated transmission control means (#42a and #42b), and when they coincide upon parameter comparison, they are cyclically transmitted by high speed to the transmission unit (#32) of the control rod drive unit (#3) from each transmission control means (#42a, 42b). In the transmission unit (#32), protocol conversion is performed to the received transmission data, and serial signals corresponding to each control rod are generated including the transmitted synchronizing bit information, the address information for identifying the solenoid valve drive circuit that is in a one-to-one relation with the control rod, and the excitation information of the solenoid valve, which are put into the transmission frame that is a special protocol for downstream transmission, before transmitting the same to a solenoid valve drive circuit (#31) equipped with a card corresponding to each control rod. The solenoid valve drive circuit (#31) selects a card corresponding to the address information of the control rod being the object of operation that is included in the serial signal. The solenoid valve drive unit (#31) outputs a transistor contact signal for controlling the opening/closing of the direction control solenoid valve based on the excitation information (withdrawal supply valve excitation command, insertion valve excitation command, withdrawal discharge valve excitation command) of the direction control valve included also in the serial signal (see figure and paragraphs [0034] and [0037]-[0038]).
It would have been obvious by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify the device as disclosed by Cofield by having a quantity of water and/or vapour injected by the at least one injector being realized as a function of the command emitted by the control system, as claimed by the applicant, with a reasonable expectation of success, as Ishii teaches a reactor manual control system that can be applied to a reactor system for controlling the operation of the reactor system through software processing which can be applied to an existing reactor plant by easily replacing the conventional system with the system realizing the necessary function through software programming and easily switching ad hoc between products based on client necessity (see paragraphs [0003] and [0005]).
In regards to Claim 7, Cofield further discloses downstream from the conversion reactor, a water separator (#56) configured to separate water from the outlet gas (#48) and supply the separated water to a water discharge or to an injector (see column 4, lines 12-16; Cofield discloses wherein the product stream in line #48 is passed to a gas dehydrator #56 for removal of water vapor, i.e. separated water to a water discharge, prior to passage of the methane gas stream to a pipeline.).
In regards to Claim 10, Cofield discloses a recirculator (#50 recycle line) for recirculating at least part of the outlet gas (#48) towards the inlet for syngas (#42) (see figure and column 4, lines 3-11). Cofield does not explicitly disclose wherein a quantity of recirculated gas being determined as a function of the command emitted by the control system.
Ishii further teaches the reactor manual control system for a reactor. The control rod drive unit (#3) of the rod control system controls the opening/closing of four direction control solenoid valves mounted to a control rod drive mechanism (#2) via a transistor contact of a solenoid valve drive circuit (#31) which is in form of cards corresponding to each control rod. Based on this timing sequence pattern, the transmission control means (#42) creates a frame of the transmission data having the address information of the control rod being the object of operation and the excitation information of the direction control valve (withdrawal supply valve excitation command, insertion valve excitation command, withdrawal discharge valve excitation command) as the command word. The frames of the transmission data are mutually transmitted between duplicated transmission control means (#42a and #42b), and when they coincide upon parameter comparison, they are cyclically transmitted by high speed to the transmission unit (#32) of the control rod drive unit (#3) from each transmission control means (#42a, 42b). In the transmission unit (#32), protocol conversion is performed to the received transmission data, and serial signals corresponding to each control rod are generated including the transmitted synchronizing bit information, the address information for identifying the solenoid valve drive circuit that is in a one-to-one relation with the control rod, and the excitation information of the solenoid valve, which are put into the transmission frame that is a special protocol for downstream transmission, before transmitting the same to a solenoid valve drive circuit (#31) equipped with a card corresponding to each control rod. The solenoid valve drive circuit (#31) selects a card corresponding to the address information of the control rod being the object of operation that is included in the serial signal. The solenoid valve drive unit (#31) outputs a transistor contact signal for controlling the opening/closing of the direction control solenoid valve based on the excitation information (withdrawal supply valve excitation command, insertion valve excitation command, withdrawal discharge valve excitation command) of the direction control valve included also in the serial signal (see figure and paragraphs [0034] and [0037]-[0038]).
It would have been obvious by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify the device as disclosed by Cofield by having a quantity of recirculated gas being determined as a function of the command emitted by the control system, as claimed by the applicant, with a reasonable expectation of success, as Ishii teaches a reactor manual control system that can be applied to a reactor system for controlling the operation of the reactor system through software processing which can be applied to an existing reactor plant by easily replacing the conventional system with the system realizing the necessary function through software programming and easily switching ad hoc between products based on client necessity (see paragraphs [0003] and [0005]).
In regards to Claim 12, Cofield discloses wherein the catalytic conversion reactor is an isothermal reactor (see column 3, line 71 to column 4, line 11; Cofield discloses wherein in the catalyzed methanation process of the unit #44, it is desirable to utilize hot gas recycle in order to control the surface temperature of the catalyst bed in the unit thereby avoiding physical degradation of the catalyst itself. This is considered equivalent to wherein the catalytic conversion reactor is an isothermal reactor, as claimed by the applicant.).
In regards to Claim 13, Cofield discloses wherein the catalytic conversion reactor is a fluidized bed reactor (see column 3, lines 71-74; Cofield discloses wherein the methanation process unit #44 comprises a fluidized bed reactor.).
In regards to Claim 14, Cofield, in view of Ishii, discloses the device as recited in claim 1. Although Cofield discloses separate catalytic converter reactors for methanation and water-gas shift reaction, instead of a single integrated catalytic converter, it has been held that making separate structures integrated into a single structure is a mere engineering design choice, in order to obtain and desired end-result, such as for space and economic savings, and is considered prima facie obvious, absent evidence to the criticality or new or unexpected results. See MPEP 2144.04.
In regards to Claim 15, Cofield discloses a method for the hybrid production of synthetic dihydrogen and/or synthetic methane comprising:
a first configuration in which the operating conditions of the reactor promote a Sabatier reaction, so as to produce an outlet gas (#48) comprising mainly methane (see figure and column 3, line 53 to column 4, line 2), or
a second configuration in which the operating conditions of the reactor promote a water gas shift reaction, so as to produce an outlet gas comprising mainly dihydrogen (see figure and column 4, lines 25-35);
a step of inputting a stream of synthetic gas (#42), (known as "syngas") (see figure and column 3, lines 53-62);
a step of catalytic conversion reaction (#44 methanation) according to the selected configuration (see figure and column 3, lines 63-74); and
a step of outputting a stream of synthetic dihydrogen and/or synthetic methane (#48) (see figure and column 4, lines 3-16).
Cofield does not explicitly disclose:
a step of selecting a configuration for operating a conversion reactor;
a step of emitting a command representative of the selected configuration; and
a step of configuring the conversion reactor as a function of the command emitted according to one of the two configurations.
However, Ishii teaches a reactor manual control system for a reactor. The reactor comprises an operation control means (#41) that processes the timing of a drive sequence at a duplicated data processing unit, a transmission control means that performs an AND logic within a predetermined period of time by receiving the duplicated data at another duplicated data processing unit and mutually transmitting data, and when said AND logic is fulfilled, selects one data and transmits said data, i.e. control system comprising a selector for selecting a configuration for operating the reactor, a transmission means that receives said data and performs protocol conversion so as to generate a serial transmission command and to transmit them serially to a plurality of transmission branch portions positioned downstream (see figure 1 and paragraph [0007]).
This operation is performed using a display/operation unit (#72) and a switch-lamp circuit (#73) equipped to the main console of the central control cabinet. For example, the display/operation unit (#72) having a touch-operation function displays a rod selection switch for the full core, and one rod is selected as the object of operation by touching the screen. Thereafter, the switch of the switch-lamp circuit (#73) existing as a hard switch is operated. In the case of a notch operation, the insertion or withdrawal switch is pressed down for any chosen period of time while observing the position information output from the control rod monitoring device (#6). Further, when performing a continuous insertion operation, a switch for emergency insertion is pressed, and when performing a continuous withdrawal operation, the continuous withdrawal switch and the withdrawal switch are operated simultaneously. The above-mentioned operation information is transmitted as data to a rod control unit (#4) through a display control unit (#71), and each operation control means (#41), which are duplicated data processing units, determines whether control is possible or control is rejected based on the interlock signal input from associated systems such as a neutron monitoring system and the like. Thereafter, operation command is output in the form of a timing sequence pattern for controlling the opening/closing of the direction control solenoid valve based on the above mentioned operation information (see figure and paragraphs [0035]-[0036]). This is considered equivalent to a step of selecting a configuration for operating a conversion reactor, as claimed by the applicant.
A control rod drive unit (#3) of the rod control system controls the opening/closing of four direction control solenoid valves mounted to a control rod drive mechanism (#2) via a transistor contact of a solenoid valve drive circuit (#31) which is in form of cards corresponding to each control rod. Based on this timing sequence pattern, the transmission control means (#42) creates a frame of the transmission data having the address information of the control rod being the object of operation and the excitation information of the direction control valve (withdrawal supply valve excitation command, insertion valve excitation command, withdrawal discharge valve excitation command) as the command word. The frames of the transmission data are mutually transmitted between duplicated transmission control means (#42a and #42b), and when they coincide upon parameter comparison, they are cyclically transmitted by high speed to the transmission unit (#32) of the control rod drive unit (#3) from each transmission control means (#42a, 42b). In the transmission unit (#32), protocol conversion is performed to the received transmission data, and serial signals corresponding to each control rod are generated including the transmitted synchronizing bit information, the address information for identifying the solenoid valve drive circuit that is in a one-to-one relation with the control rod, and the excitation information of the solenoid valve, which are put into the transmission frame that is a special protocol for downstream transmission, before transmitting the same to a solenoid valve drive circuit (#31) equipped with a card corresponding to each control rod. The solenoid valve drive circuit (#31) selects a card corresponding to the address information of the control rod being the object of operation that is included in the serial signal. The solenoid valve drive unit (#31) outputs a transistor contact signal for controlling the opening/closing of the direction control solenoid valve based on the excitation information (withdrawal supply valve excitation command, insertion valve excitation command, withdrawal discharge valve excitation command) of the direction control valve included also in the serial signal (see figure and paragraphs [0034] and [0037]-[0038]). This is considered equivalent to a step of emitting a command representative of the selected configuration and a step of configuring the conversion reactor as a function of the command emitted according to one of the two configurations, as claimed by the applicant.
It would have been obvious by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify the method for the hybrid production of synthetic dihydrogen and/or synthetic methane as disclosed by Cofield by further having a step of selecting a configuration for operating a conversion reactor, a step of emitting a command representative of the selected configuration, and a step of configuring the conversion reactor as a function of the command emitted according to one of the two configurations, as claimed by the applicant, with a reasonable expectation of success, as Ishii teaches a reactor manual control system that can be applied to a reactor system for controlling the operation of the reactor system through software processing which can be applied to an existing reactor plant by easily replacing the conventional system with the system realizing the necessary function through software programming and easily switching ad hoc between products based on client necessity (see paragraphs [0003] and [0005]).
Claims 2 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cofield in view of Ishii and further in view of Kara et al. (FR3038910A1, relied on machine translation, hereinafter Kara) and Banquy, D. (US Pat. No. 3,904,389, hereinafter Banquy).
In regards to Claim 2, Cofield, in view of Ishii, discloses the device as recited in claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein the conversion reactor comprises a catalytic bed comprising two separate catalysts, a first catalyst being configured to promote a Sabatier reaction at medium temperature between 250ºC and 350ºC, and a second catalyst being configured to promote a water gas shift reaction at high temperature higher than 350ºC.
However, Kara teaches a device and method for producing synthetic natural gas comprising gasification of a hydrocarbon compound to produce syngas, catalytic methanation which converts dihydrogen and CO into methane and water-gas shift (WGS) reaction for reacting carbon monoxide with steam to produce dihydrogen. The WGS reaction can be carried out upstream of the methanation stage or it could also be carried out in parallel in the same reactor and the steam required for the WGS reaction to be injected into the reactor at the same time as the reaction mixture (see paragraph [0004]). The methanation reaction (Sabatier reaction) involves converting carbon monoxide and hydrogen in the presence of a nickel catalyst, i.e. catalytic bed comprising a first catalyst configured to promote a Sabatier reaction, in a fluidized bed reactor to produce methane and the reaction is exothermic. The temperatures of methanation should be carried out at a temperature above 230ºC to avoid the formation of nickel tetracarbonyl, which is a highly toxic compound. This is why is essential that all parts of the reactor in the presence of carbon monoxide and metallic compound are always at a temperature above 230ºC to avoid it completely (see paragraph [0004]). In the temperature range used in fluidized bed methanation reactors (temperatures of around 230ºC to 700ºC), the kinetics of reaction are very rapid and the amount of catalyst required solely due to the chemical reaction is low (see paragraph [0004]). The temperature range of 230ºC to 700ºC overlaps the claimed range of 250ºC to 350ºC, as claimed by the applicant, thereby making the claimed range prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2144.05.
It would have been obvious by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify the device as disclosed by Cofield, in view of Ishii, by having the conversion reactor to comprise a catalytic bed comprising two separate catalysts, a first catalyst being configured to promote a Sabatier reaction at medium temperature between 250ºC and 350ºC, as claimed by the applicant, with a reasonable expectation of success, as Kara teaches a device and method for producing synthetic natural gas comprising gasification of a hydrocarbon compound to produce syngas, catalytic methanation which converts dihydrogen and CO into methane and water-gas shift (WGS) reaction for reacting carbon monoxide with steam to produce dihydrogen, wherein the methanation reaction (Sabatier reaction) involves converting carbon monoxide and hydrogen in the presence of a nickel catalyst in a fluidized bed reactor to produce methane and the reaction is exothermic, whereby the temperatures of methanation should be carried out at a temperature above 230ºC to avoid the formation of nickel tetracarbonyl, which is a highly toxic compound, whereby in the temperature range used in fluidized bed methanation reactors (temperatures of around 230ºC to 700ºC), the kinetics of reaction are very rapid and the amount of catalyst required solely due to the chemical reaction is low (see paragraph [0004]).
Cofield, in view of Ishii and Kara, fails to disclose a second catalyst being configured to promote a water gas shift reaction at a high temperature higher than 350ºC.
However, Banquy teaches a process for the production of high Btu methane by gasifying a liquid hydrocarbon to generate syngas, removing sulfur from the generated syngas, subjecting a portion of syngas to a water gas shift reactor for conversion to hydrogen and CO2, and subjecting another portion of syngas to a methanation step to produce methane gas. The portion of syngas to be carried to a water gas shift reactor (#33) is injected with steam and preheated in a heat exchanger (#32) to a temperature of between 350ºC to 400ºC and enters the first shift converter (#33), i.e. water gas shift reactor, which uses a conventional high temperature shift catalyst to expedite the shift conversion operation (see figures 1 and 5 and column 6, lines 27-37). The temperature of 350ºC to 400ºC falls inside the claimed range of higher than 350ºC, as claimed by the applicant, thereby making the claimed range prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2144.05. This is considered equivalent to a second catalyst being configured to promote a water gas shift reaction at high temperature higher than 350ºC, as claimed by the applicant.
It would have been obvious by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify the device as disclosed by Cofield, in view of Ishii and Kara, by having a second catalyst being configured to promote a water gas shift reaction at a high temperature higher than 350ºC, as claimed by the applicant, with a reasonable expectation of success, as Banquy teaches a process for the production of high Btu methane by gasifying a liquid hydrocarbon to generate syngas, removing sulfur from the generated syngas, subjecting a portion of syngas to a water gas shift reactor for conversion to hydrogen and CO2, and subjecting another portion of syngas to a methanation step to produce methane gas, wherein the portion of syngas to be carried to a water gas shift reactor is injected with steam and preheated in a heat exchanger to a temperature of between 350ºC to 400ºC and enters the first shift converter, i.e. water gas shift reactor, which uses a conventional high temperature shift catalyst to expedite the shift conversion operation, thereby efficiency improving the generation of hydrogen within the reactor (see figures 1 and 5 and column 6, lines 27-37).
In regards to Claim 4, Cofield, in view of Ishii, discloses the device as recited in claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein the conversion reactor comprises a catalytic bed comprising two separate catalysts, a first catalyst being configured to promote a Sabatier reaction at medium temperature between 250ºC and 350ºC, and a second catalyst being configured to promote a water gas shift reaction at high temperature higher than 350ºC.
However, Kara teaches a device and method for producing synthetic natural gas comprising gasification of a hydrocarbon compound to produce syngas, catalytic methanation which converts dihydrogen and CO into methane and water-gas shift (WGS) reaction for reacting carbon monoxide with steam to produce dihydrogen. The WGS reaction can be carried out upstream of the methanation stage or it could also be carried out in parallel in the same reactor and the steam required for the WGS reaction to be injected into the reactor at the same time as the reaction mixture (see paragraph [0004]). The methanation reaction (Sabatier reaction) involves converting carbon monoxide and hydrogen in the presence of a nickel catalyst, i.e. catalytic bed comprising a first catalyst configured to promote a Sabatier reaction, in a fluidized bed reactor to produce methane and the reaction is exothermic. The temperatures of methanation should be carried out at a temperature above 230ºC to avoid the formation of nickel tetracarbonyl, which is a highly toxic compound. This is why is essential that all parts of the reactor in the presence of carbon monoxide and metallic compound are always at a temperature above 230ºC to avoid it completely (see paragraph [0004]). In the temperature range used in fluidized bed methanation reactors (temperatures of around 230ºC to 700ºC), the kinetics of reaction are very rapid and the amount of catalyst required solely due to the chemical reaction is low (see paragraph [0004]). The temperature range of 230ºC to 700ºC overlaps the claimed range of 250ºC to 350ºC, as claimed by the applicant, thereby making the claimed range prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2144.05.
It would have been obvious by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify the device as disclosed by Cofield, in view of Ishii, by having the conversion reactor to comprise a catalytic bed comprising two separate catalysts, a first catalyst being configured to promote a Sabatier reaction at medium temperature between 250ºC and 350ºC, as claimed by the applicant, with a reasonable expectation of success, as Kara teaches a device and method for producing synthetic natural gas comprising gasification of a hydrocarbon compound to produce syngas, catalytic methanation which converts dihydrogen and CO into methane and water-gas shift (WGS) reaction for reacting carbon monoxide with steam to produce dihydrogen, wherein the methanation reaction (Sabatier reaction) involves converting carbon monoxide and hydrogen in the presence of a nickel catalyst in a fluidized bed reactor to produce methane and the reaction is exothermic, whereby the temperatures of methanation should be carried out at a temperature above 230ºC to avoid the formation of nickel tetracarbonyl, which is a highly toxic compound, whereby in the temperature range used in fluidized bed methanation reactors (temperatures of around 230ºC to 700ºC), the kinetics of reaction are very rapid and the amount of catalyst required solely due to the chemical reaction is low (see paragraph [0004]).
Cofield, in view of Ishii and Kara, fails to disclose a second catalyst being configured to promote a water gas shift reaction at a high temperature higher than 350ºC.
However, Banquy teaches a process for the production of high Btu methane by gasifying a liquid hydrocarbon to generate syngas, removing sulfur from the generated syngas, subjecting a portion of syngas to a water gas shift reactor for conversion to hydrogen and CO2, and subjecting another portion of syngas to a methanation step to produce methane gas. The portion of syngas to be carried to a water gas shift reactor (#33) is injected with steam and preheated in a heat exchanger (#32) to a temperature of between 350ºC to 400ºC and enters the first shift converter (#33), i.e. water gas shift reactor, which uses a conventional high temperature shift catalyst to expedite the shift conversion operation (see figures 1 and 5 and column 6, lines 27-37). The temperature of 350ºC to 400ºC falls inside the claimed range of higher than 350ºC, as claimed by the applicant, thereby making the claimed range prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2144.05. This is considered equivalent to a second catalyst being configured to promote a water gas shift reaction at high temperature higher than 350ºC, as claimed by the applicant.
It would have been obvious by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify the device as disclosed by Cofield, in view of Ishii and Kara, by having a second catalyst being configured to promote a water gas shift reaction at a high temperature higher than 350ºC, as claimed by the applicant, with a reasonable expectation of success, as Banquy teaches a process for the production of high Btu methane by gasifying a liquid hydrocarbon to generate syngas, removing sulfur from the generated syngas, subjecting a portion of syngas to a water gas shift reactor for conversion to hydrogen and CO2, and subjecting another portion of syngas to a methanation step to produce methane gas, wherein the portion of syngas to be carried to a water gas shift reactor is injected with steam and preheated in a heat exchanger to a temperature of between 350ºC to 400ºC and enters the first shift converter, i.e. water gas shift reactor, which uses a conventional high temperature shift catalyst to expedite the shift conversion operation, thereby efficiency improving the generation of hydrogen within the reactor (see figures 1 and 5 and column 6, lines 27-37).
Examiner notes that although Cofield, in view of Ishii, and Banquy, does not explicitly disclose a bifunctional catalyst instead of separate catalysts, it has been held that having an integrated catalyst instead of separate catalyst, is a mere engineering design choice and is considered prima facie obvious, absent evidence to the criticality or new or unexpected results. See MPEP 2144.04.
Claims 3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cofield, in view of Ishii, and further in view of Banquy.
In regards to Claim 3, Cofield, in view of Ishii, discloses the device as recited in claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein the conversion reactor comprises two separate catalysts, a first catalyst being configured to promote a Sabatier reaction at medium temperature between 250ºC and 350ºC, and a second catalyst being configured to promote a water gas shift reaction at low temperature between 200ºC and 250ºC.
However, Banquy teaches a process for the production of high Btu methane by gasifying a liquid hydrocarbon to generate syngas, removing sulfur from the generated syngas, subjecting a portion of syngas to a water gas shift reactor for conversion to hydrogen and CO2, and subjecting another portion of syngas to a methanation step to produce methane gas. The portion of syngas to be carried to a water gas shift reactor (#35) is injected with steam and cooled in a heat exchanger (#34) to a temperature of between 200ºC to 250ºC and enters the second shift converter (#35), i.e. water gas shift reactor, which uses a conventional low temperature shift catalyst operable within the low temperatures between 200ºC to 250ºC (see figures 1 and 5 and column 6, lines 27-37). The temperature of 200ºC to 250ºC falls inside the claimed range of between 200ºC and 250ºC, as claimed by the applicant, thereby making the claimed range prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2144.05. This is considered equivalent to a second catalyst being configured to promote a water gas shift reaction at a low temperature between 200º and 250ºC, as claimed by the applicant.
Banquy further teaches the portion of syngas to be carried to a methanation step to produce methane gas. The portion of syngas is preheated in a heat exchanger (#25) and fed into the methanation reactor (#26) comprising a first catalyst being configured to promote a Sabatier reaction. The preferred inlet temperature to the methanation reactor (#26) is in the range of 240ºC to 300ºC (see figures 1 and 4 and column 5, lines 28-43, column 5, line 67 to column 6, line 4), which overlaps the claimed range of from 250ºC to 350ºC, as claimed by the applicant, thereby making the claimed range prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2144.05.
It would have been obvious by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify the device as disclosed by Cofield, in view of Ishii and Kara, by having a first catalyst being configured to promote a Sabatier reaction at a medium temperature between 250ºC and 350ºC, and a second catalyst being configured to promote a water gas shift reaction at a low temperature between 200ºC and 250ºC, as claimed by the applicant, with a reasonable expectation of success, as Banquy teaches a process for the production of high Btu methane by gasifying a liquid hydrocarbon to generate syngas, removing sulfur from the generated syngas, subjecting a portion of syngas to a water gas shift reactor for conversion to hydrogen and CO2, and subjecting another portion of syngas to a methanation step to produce methane gas, wherein the portion of syngas to be carried to a water gas shift reactor is injected with steam and cooled in a heat exchanger to a temperature of between 200ºC to 250ºC and enters the second shift converter, i.e. water gas shift reactor, which uses a conventional low temperature shift catalyst operable within the low temperatures between 200ºC to 250ºC, and the portion of syngas to be carried to a methanation step to produce methane is preheated in a heat exchanger and fed into the methanation reactor comprising a first catalyst being configured to promote a Sabatier reaction, wherein the preferred inlet temperature to the methanation reactor is in the range of 240ºC to 300ºC, thereby efficiently improving the methane produced by the system (see figures 1 and 4 and column 5, lines 28-43, column 5, line 67 to column 6, line 4).
In regards to Claim 5, Cofield, in view of Ishii, discloses the device as recited in claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein the conversion reactor comprises a bifunctional catalyst, configured to promote a Sabatier reaction at medium temperature between 250ºC and 350ºC, in the first configuration of the reactor, and to promote a water gas shift reaction at low temperature in the second configuration of the reactor between 200ºC and 250ºC.
However, Banquy teaches a process for the production of high Btu methane by gasifying a liquid hydrocarbon to generate syngas, removing sulfur from the generated syngas, subjecting a portion of syngas to a water gas shift reactor for conversion to hydrogen and CO2, and subjecting another portion of syngas to a methanation step to produce methane gas. The portion of syngas to be carried to a water gas shift reactor (#35) is injected with steam and cooled in a heat exchanger (#34) to a temperature of between 200ºC to 250ºC and enters the second shift converter (#35), i.e. water gas shift reactor, which uses a conventional low temperature shift catalyst operable within the low temperatures between 200ºC to 250ºC (see figures 1 and 5 and column 6, lines 27-37). The temperature of 200ºC to 250ºC falls inside the claimed range of between 200ºC and 250ºC, as claimed by the applicant, thereby making the claimed range prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2144.05. This is considered equivalent to a second catalyst being configured to promote a water gas shift reaction at a low temperature between 200º and 250ºC, as claimed by the applicant.
Banquy further teaches the portion of syngas to be carried to a methanation step to produce methane gas. The portion of syngas is preheated in a heat exchanger (#25) and fed into the methanation reactor (#26) comprising a first catalyst being configured to promote a Sabatier reaction. The preferred inlet temperature to the methanation reactor (#26) is in the range of 240ºC to 300ºC (see figures 1 and 4 and column 5, lines 28-43, column 5, line 67 to column 6, line 4), which overlaps the claimed range of from 250ºC to 350ºC, as claimed by the applicant, thereby making the claimed range prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2144.05.
Examiner notes that although Cofield, in view of Ishii, and Banquy, does not explicitly disclose a bifunctional catalyst instead of separate catalysts, it has been held that having an integrated catalyst instead of separate catalyst, is a mere engineering design choice and is considered prima facie obvious, absent evidence to the criticality or new or unexpected results. See MPEP 2144.04.
It would have been obvious by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify the device as disclosed by Cofield, in view of Ishii and Kara, by having a conversion reactor to further a bifunctional catalyst, configured to promote a Sabatier reaction at medium temperature between 250ºC and 350ºC, in the first configuration of the reactor, and to promote a water gas shift reaction at low temperature in the second configuration of the reactor between 200ºC and 250ºC, as claimed by the applicant, with a reasonable expectation of success, as Banquy teaches a process for the production of high Btu methane by gasifying a liquid hydrocarbon to generate syngas, removing sulfur from the generated syngas, subjecting a portion of syngas to a water gas shift reactor for conversion to hydrogen and CO2, and subjecting another portion of syngas to a methanation step to produce methane gas, wherein the portion of syngas to be carried to a water gas shift reactor is injected with steam and cooled in a heat exchanger to a temperature of between 200ºC to 250ºC and enters the second shift converter, i.e. water gas shift reactor, which uses a conventional low temperature shift catalyst operable within the low temperatures between 200ºC to 250ºC, and the portion of syngas to be carried to a methanation step to produce methane is preheated in a heat exchanger and fed into the methanation reactor comprising a first catalyst being configured to promote a Sabatier reaction, wherein the preferred inlet temperature to the methanation reactor is in the range of 240ºC to 300ºC, thereby efficiently improving the methane produced by the system (see figures 1 and 4 and column 5, lines 28-43, column 5, line 67 to column 6, line 4).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cofield in view of Ishii and further in view of Kara.
In regards to Claim 9, Cofield, in view of Ishii, discloses the device as recited in claim 1, but fails to disclose a heat exchanger immersed in the conversion reactor, said heat exchanger being configured to cool or heat the reactor to a temperature determined as a function of the command emitted by the control system.
However, Kara teaches a device and method for producing synthetic natural gas comprising gasification of a hydrocarbon compound to produce syngas, catalytic methanation which converts dihydrogen and CO into methane and water-gas shift (WGS) reaction for reacting carbon monoxide with steam to produce dihydrogen (see paragraph [0004]). The methanation reaction (Sabatier reaction) involves converting carbon monoxide and hydrogen in the presence of a nickel catalyst in a fluidized bed reactor to produce methane and the reaction is exothermic. The temperatures of methanation should be carried out at a temperature above 230ºC to avoid the formation of nickel tetracarbonyl, which is a highly toxic compound. This is why is essential that all parts of the reactor in the presence of carbon monoxide and metallic compound are always at a temperature above 230ºC to avoid it completely. Controlling the temperature within the reactor, and therefore eliminating the heat produced by the reaction, is one of the key points to minimize catalyst deactivation, by sintering, and maximize methane conversion rates. The heat produced by the methanation reaction is removed by heat exchangers immersed in the fluidized bed (see paragraph [0004]).
It would have been obvious by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify the device as disclosed by Cofield, in view of Ishii, by further including a heat exchanger immersed in the conversion reactor, said heat exchanger being configured to cool or heat the reactor, as claimed by the applicant, with a reasonable expectation of success, as Kara teaches a device and method for producing synthetic natural gas comprising gasification of a hydrocarbon compound to produce syngas, catalytic methanation which converts dihydrogen and CO into methane and water-gas shift (WGS) reaction for reacting carbon monoxide with steam to produce dihydrogen, wherein the methanation reaction (Sabatier reaction) involves converting carbon monoxide and hydrogen in the presence of a nickel catalyst in a fluidized bed reactor to produce methane and the reaction is exothermic, whereby the temperatures of methanation should be carried out at a temperature above 230ºC to avoid the formation of nickel tetracarbonyl, which is a highly toxic compound, and wherein heat produced by the methanation reaction is removed by heat exchangers immersed in the fluidized bed, for efficiently minimizing catalyst deactivation, by sintering, and maximizing methane conversion rates (see paragraph [0004]).
In view of this, the combination of Cofield, in view of Ishii and Zara, reasonably teaches wherein the heat exchanger is configured to cool or heat the reactor to a temperature determined as a function of the command emitted by the control system, as claimed by the applicant.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cofield, in view of Ishii, and further in view of Selstam et al. (WO2013/110716A1, hereinafter Selstam).
In regards to Claim 8, Cofield, in view of Ishii, discloses the device as recited in claim 1, but fails to disclose further comprising a means for compressing syngas to a specified pressure, the outlet pressure of the compression means being determined as a function of the command emitted by the control system.
However, Selstam teaches a process, system and apparatus capable of using synthesis gas (syngas) to produce methane. The process and system comprises gasifying a carbon source to produce syngas, reacting a portion of the formed syngas with water in a water gas shift reactor to convert a portion of the syngas to CO and H2, and synthesizing the hydrocarbon fuel, i.e. methane, from the produced CO and H2, i.e. Sabatier reaction (see page 4, 3rd paragraph). The system comprises a syngas feed stream (#116) being compressed by a compressor (#117) before being conveyed into a gas to fuel reactor (#118), i.e. methanation reactor, wherein the syngas is converted to a fuel-containing feed stream (#119), i.e. methane (see figure 2 and page 12, 2nd-3rd paragraphs).
It would have been obvious by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify the device as disclosed by Cofield, in view of Ishii, by further including a means for compressing syngas to a specified pressure, as claimed by the applicant, with a reasonable expectation of success, as Selstam teaches a process, system and apparatus capable of using synthesis gas (syngas) to produce methane, wherein the process and system comprises gasifying a carbon source to produce syngas, reacting a portion of the formed syngas with water in a water gas shift reactor to convert a portion of the syngas to CO and H2, and synthesizing the hydrocarbon fuel, i.e. methane, from the produced CO and H2, i.e. Sabatier reaction, whereby a syngas feed stream is compressed by a compressor before being conveyed into a gas to fuel reactor, i.e. methanation reactor, wherein the syngas is converted to a fuel-containing feed stream, i.e. methane, thereby efficiently compressing the syngas to an appropriate pressure for improving the methanation reaction within the reactor (see figure 2 and page 12, 2nd and 3rd paragraphs).
Examiner’s Comments
In regards to Claim 11, no art rejection has been made. This claim has only been rejected under 35 USC § 112(b) as explained in the above office action.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JELITZA M PEREZ whose telephone number is (571)272-8139. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00am-6:00pm.
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 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.
/JELITZA M PEREZ/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1774
Prosecution Insights