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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 09/02/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s response to amendment of claims filed 09/02/2026 with amendment to claims 1 and 13 is noted. Claims 1-23 are pending.
Claim Objections
Claim 18 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 18 recites, “….. wherein the plant is absent of a primary reforming unit……”. Further, the claim also recites, “the primary reforming unit being a tubular reformer…….” Both are contradicting.
Appropriate correction is required.
The claim has been rejected over the prior art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09/02/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues,
“Jensen Does Not Disclose Feeding the Claimed H₂-Rich Stream to the Fired Heater. The rejection relies on Jensen's use of two fuel streams: (1) flash gas from the CO2- removal section and (2) waste gas from the nitrogen wash unit (NWU). See Jensen 10045], [0063]. The deficiency is that neither stream is the H2-rich stream reported in Jensen's Table 2.
The actual flash gas is a separate stream generated in the CO2-removal section. Jensen ||[0045] identifies that flash gas as a possible component of the fired-heater fuel, but Jensen does not assign the flash gas a numbered position in Fig. 1 or report its composition in Table 2. Table 2 therefore provides no support for the Office's finding that Jensen's flash gas contains 75% H₂, or, as alternatively asserted, 92.96% H₂”.
The Applicant’s argument is not persuasive. As explained in the following rejection, Jensen et al invention is directed to an integrated process and plant comprising a pre-reformer, ATR, shift, carbon dioxide-removal, nitrogen wash and ammonia synthesis. The claimed invention is directed to a plant comprising pre-reformer, ATR, Shift and carbon dioxide removal unit (Applicant’s Fig. 1). The claimed invention has an ATR (110) with an oxygen supply (15) obtained from an air separation unit (145) (Applicant's Fig. 1; Specification page 17, lines 4-7; page 22, lines 27-28). Jensen et al, on the other hand, also use an air separation unit, separating air into oxygen and nitrogen (Fig. 1 and 2; Paragraph 0059). Thus, the Applicant uses oxygen obtained from air separation unit (ASU) in the ATR and is silent about nitrogen separated from air. On the other hand, Jensen et al use oxygen from ASU in the ATR and further disclose use of nitrogen in the wash unit and ammonia synthesis (Paragraph 0059).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to eliminate nitrogen wash and ammonia synthesis units and use the H2-rich fuel gas at step 7 (Fig. 2) for the fired heater, where the hydrogen purity is 99.8% (Habermehl et al).
It is to be noted here that Omission of an Element and Its Function Is Obvious if the Function of the Element Is Not Desired.
Ex parte Wu, 10 USPQ 2031 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1989).
The Applicant further argues, “Licht does not cure these factual deficiencies. A general disclosure that a hydrogen- containing product gas may be used as fuel does not establish that Jensen's unreported flash gas or NWU waste gas has the composition of Jensen's numbered main-process streams. If Licht is merely an "evidentiary reference," it must still evidence the proposition for which it is cited. Licht provides no evidence that either of Jensen's fired-heater waste streams contains at least 95 vol. % hydrogen.
The rejection also lacks an articulated reason to modify Jensen as required by the amended claims. Jensen's nitrogen wash is integral to producing ammonia synthesis gas, while Licht obtains its hydrogen fuel only after a separate downstream separation, such as PSA/TSA. Neither reference suggests eliminating those purification steps and instead using a ≥95 vol. % H₂ stream directly from an amine-wash CO2-removal section as fuel. Combining isolated features while omitting the separation steps on which the cited processes rely does not provide a reasoned basis for obviousness.
Accordingly, Jensen's use of CO2-removal flash gas and NWU waste gas as fired-heater fuel does not teach or suggest feeding the separately claimed H₂-rich stream containing at least 95 vol. % hydrogen to the fired heater”.
Applicant’s argument is not persuasive. Licht et al has not been used in the following rejection. As discussed in the rejection below, Jensen et al disclose a typical CO₂ removal step using water wash and by adsorption. New rejection uses Habermehl et al disclosing CO2 removal by amine solution.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jensen et al (US 2019/0039886 A1) and Habermehl et al (US 3,382,045).
With respect claims 1, 13, 14, 22 and 23, Jensen et al disclose a plant and process for producing H2-rich stream (ultimately to be used in ammonia synthesis) from a hydrocarbon feed (Fig. 1, Claims 1, 17).
Jensen et al disclose an autothermal reformer {ATR} (Fig 1, and 0031), receiving a hydrocarbon feed (Fig. 1, 0010) and converting it to syngas (0010).
Jensen et al, use an air separation unit, separating air into oxygen and nitrogen (Fig. 1 and 2; Paragraph 0059). Oxygen from ASU is used in the ATR, and nitrogen is used in the wash unit and ammonia synthesis (Paragraph 0059).
Jensen et al also disclose a shift section, comprising one or more water gas shift units (Fig. 1; 0046) and converting the syn gas to shifted gases (Fig. 1; 0012, 0013, 0014, 0046, 0047).
Jensen et al further disclose (Fig. 1; 0054, 0083) a CO2 removal section, separating a CO2 rich stream (Fig. 1; 0054, 0061, 0083), a H2-rich stream (Table 2) and also a high-pressure flash gas stream (Fig. 1; 0045).
Jensen et al also disclose a fired heater with the recycled fuel comprising natural gas, waste gas and flash gas (Fig. 1; 0045, 0063). The fired heater is used to preheat the hydrocarbon feed before entering the ATR (Fig. 1; 0045). It is to be noted that the recycle stream from the nitrogen wash unit (NWU) and going to the fired heater is a hydrogen -rich stream.
Jensen et al plant uses a CO2-removal section and regeneration of CO₂ wash (Fig. 1; 0054, 0055, 0061). Although Jensen et al disclose a typical CO₂ removal step using water wash and by adsorption, it does not specifically disclose using amine solution.
Jensen et al also disclose regeneration of CO2 wash solution will require a stripper and flash drum as claimed.
As mentioned earlier, Jensen et al disclose recycling of high-pressure flash gas (0045) and H2-rich stream-(Fig. 1) to the fired heater.
Jensen et al plant and process do not use any hydrogen purification unit such as a pressure swing adsorption (PSA) unit, a hydrogen membrane or a cryogenic separation unit
Thus, Jensen et al disclose removal of CO2, but not specifically by amine wash. Jensen et al use hydrogen-rich stream from the NWU and not from CO2 removal section. Also, Jensen et al do not disclose purity of hydrogen after CO2-removal section.
Habermehl et al disclose production of hydrogen in a similar process using similar feed, similar operating conditions with reforming, shift, and carbon dioxide removal units (title, Fig. 1-5).
Habermehl et al also disclose CO2 removal after Shift reaction using amine solution (column 4, lines 11-20). Habermehl further disclose producing 99.8% pure hydrogen after CO2 removal (column 6, lines 34-60).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use an amine was in Jensen et al invention to achieve a 99.8% hydrogen purity.
It is to be noted that Jensen et al invention is directed to an integrated process and plant comprising pre-reformer, ATR, shift, carbon dioxide-removal, nitrogen wash and ammonia synthesis. The claimed invention is directed to a plant comprising pre-reformer, ATR, Shift and carbon dioxide removal unit (Applicant’s Fig. 1). The claimed invention has an ATR (110) with an oxygen supply (15) obtained from an air separation unit (145) (Applicant's Fig. 1; Specification page 17, lines 4-7; page 22, lines 27-28). Jensen et al, on the other hand, also use an air separation unit, separating air into oxygen and nitrogen (Fig. 1 and 2; Paragraph 0059). Thus, the Applicant uses oxygen obtained from air separation unit (ASU) in the ATR and is silent about nitrogen separated from air. On the other hand, Jensen et al use oxygen from ASU in the ATR and further disclose cleaning nitrogen in the wash unit and using purified nitrogen in the ammonia synthesis (Paragraph 0059).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to eliminate nitrogen wash and ammonia synthesis units and use the H2-rich fuel gas at step 7 (Fig. 2) for the fired heater, where the hydrogen purity is 99.8%, as evidenced by Habermehl et al.
It is to be noted here that Omission of an Element and Its Function Is Obvious if the Function of the Element Is Not Desired.
Ex parte Wu, 10 USPQ 2031 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1989).
.
With respect to claims 2, 3, 4 and 15, all the limitations of claims 1 and 13 have already been discussed.
Jensen et al disclose recycle of fuel gas comprising H₂ to the fired heater (Fig. 1, 2; Table 2).
Habermehl et al disclose gas composition comprising 99.8 % hydrogen (column 6, lines 57-60).
In addition, Jensen et al disclose, "It is well known that MT/LT shift catalysts are prone to produce methanol as byproduct. Such byproduct formation can be reduced by increasing steam/carbon" (0054). This indicates that one with ordinary skill in the art will
recycle flash gas stream to the CO2 absorber of the amine wash to increase steam/carbon ratio.
With respect to claims 6, 7,16 and 17, Jensen et al disclose steam-to-carbon ratio of 2.6-0.1 in the ATR and pressure at 39.3 kg/cm2 (39.0 barg) (0039; Table 1).
With respect to claim 8, Jensen et al disclose WGS comprising High Temperature, Medium Temperature and Low Temperature shifts (Claims 8, 9, 10).
With respect to claim 9, Jensen et al disclose steam superheater being heated by flash gas from CO2 removal section (0045).
With respect to claims 10, 11 and 18, Jensen et al disclose a pre-reformer upstream of ATR, which may be optional (0044). Jensen et al also disclose a fixed bed reforming unit (Paragraph 0037). The details of the tubular reformer are given by Habermehl et al (column 2, lines 38-40, Fig. 1-4).
With respect to claim 12, Jensen et al disclose that pre-reformer may provide an efficient sulfur guard resulting in a practically sulfur-free feed gas entering the ATR
and the downstream system (0044). Mixing of hydrogen-rich stream and hydrocarbon feed before entering the ATR has already been discussed.
Claims 5 and 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jensen et al (US 2019/0039886 A1) and Habermehl et al (US 3,382,045) evidenced by Grotz, Jr. (US 3,549,335).
With respect to claims 5 and 19-21, Jensen et al disclose that process gas enters the ATR at 650°C (0072). It is to be noted that the temperature of the hydrocarbon gas to ATR may be different. This is evidenced by Grotz.
Grotz discloses a process and plant using autothermal reactor similar to Jensen et al (Fig. 1, 2, 3, 4). Grotz also discloses that the steam-hydrocarbon feed mixture is preheated to 890°F (477°C) before entering the reformer catalyst tubes (Column 8, lines 46-50). This indicates that inlet temperature to the ATR can vary as claimed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PREM C SINGH whose telephone number is (571)272-6381. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 6:00 AM to 3:00 PM.
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, Patricia Mallari can be reached at 571-272-4729. 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.
/PREM C SINGH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1771
Prosecution Insights