DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
With respect to the rejection of Claim(s) 1-3, and 14 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Grover (US 2010/0284892 A1), the Remarks would appear to traverse the rejections en mass (Remarks of 11/21/2025 at 8), versus responding to each and every rejection as required by rule. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) (“The reply by the applicant or patent owner must be reduced to a writing which distinctly and specifically points out the supposed errors in the examiner’s action and must reply to every ground of objection and rejection in the prior Office action.”). As best understood, the Remarks rely on the amendment narrowing Claim 1 to recite limitations from non-rejected dependent claims like Claim 4, among others. The rejection is WITHDRAWN for this reason alone.
With respect to the rejection of Claim(s) 4 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grover (US 2010/0284892 A1) as applied to claims 1-3 and 13 above, and further in view of Cognard (US 20140208798 A1), cancellation of this claim moots the rejection. The rejection is WITHDRAWN.
With respect to the rejection of Claim(s) 5 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grover (US 2010/0284892 A1) as applied to claims 1-3, and 13 above, and further in view of Marin (US 2002/0166323 A1), the rejection is WITHDRAWN in view of the new embodiment created by all of the amendments to Claim 1.
With respect to the rejection of Claim(s) 8 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grover (US 2010/0284892 A1) as applied to claims 1-3 and 13 above, and further in view of Shah (US 2007/0212286 A1), the rejection is WITHDRAWN in view of the new embodiment created by all of the amendments to Claim 1.
With respect to the rejection of Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grover (US 2010/0284892 A1) as applied to claims 1-5, 8 and 13 above, and further in view of Grover (EP 2281775 A1), cancellation of this claim moots the rejection. The rejection is WITHDRAWN.
The amendment to Claim 1 incorporates limitations from Claims 4/3 and Claims 11/10, as well as deleting some “optionally” and “suitably” language from the claims. At no point was this specific combination of features, i.e. the combination of the features of Claims 4/3 and Claims 11/10 ever pending. Claim 14 has amended to recite new, previously unclaimed features. The Remarks are noted, but are directed to claims that were not rejected.
All rejections are withdrawn in view of the newly presented, previously unclaimed embodiments reflected in the claims.
New rejections appear below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-2, and 13-14, 17-18, 20-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grover (US 2010/0284892 A1), further in view of Erling (GB 2571136 A).
With respect to claim 1, the claim requires “a process for producing a high purity CO2 product.” Grover teaches a process and plant for purifying a CO2 stream (Grover: Fig 1).
Claim 1 further requires “providing a C02-rich stream containing hydrocarbons, hydrogen and/or CO; combining it with a stream rich in methane (CH4) and mixing it with oxygen, thereby forming a C02/02- mixture” Grover teaches a raw CO2 stream (1) containing flammable components such as methane and hydrogen is that is mixed with an oxygen source (2) via line (2.1) and additional fuel such methane (natural gas) is added to the CO2/O2 mixture via line (21).
Claim 1 further requires " subjecting the C02/02- mixture to a catalytic oxidation step, thereby producing a purified stream having a higher CO2 and/or H20 concentration.” Grover teaches the CO2/O2 mixture is directed to catalytic oxidizer reactor (5) via line (4), where the flammable components are oxidized, producing purified CO2 (Grover: Fig 1).
Claim 1 further requires “removing H20 from said purified stream, for producing said high purity CO2 product.” Grover teaches the purified CO2 rich stream exiting the catalytic oxidizer reactor (5) via the outlet (8) is passed along line (7) through one or more heat-exchangers (9a, 9b, 9c), allowing for the extraction of energy in form of heat to the water separator (10) which allows for the extraction of water via line (11 ). The purified CO2-rich stream leaves the water separator (10) via line (12) (D1: 1-26; page 9, 2nd paragraph to page 11, end of 2nd paragraph; figures 1-3).
Claim 1 further requires “wherein the removing of H2O comprises passing the purified stream to a cooling train including one or more cooling units for thereby producing a cooled purified stream, and subsequently passing the cooled purified stream to a condensing step and wherein the cooling train includes a cooling unit using N2 from an air separation unit (ASU); “ Grover does not explicitly teach a cooling train including one or more cooling units for thereby producing a cooled purified stream, and subsequently passing the cooled purified stream to a condensing step and wherein the cooling train includes a cooling unit using N2 from an air separation unit (ASU). However, Erling teaches hydrogen and/or carbon dioxide is liquified using excess cooling capacity from an, optionally an air-separation plant and the excess cooling capacity is in the form of cold oxygen and/or nitrogen (Erling 4, line 11).
Claim 1 further requires “wherein step i) comprises:- supplying a hydrocarbon feed to a reforming section, and converting it to a stream of synthesis gas; wherein the reforming section comprises autothermal reforming (ATR).” Grover does not explicitly teach supplying a hydrocarbon feed to a reforming section with autothermal reforming (ATR), and converting it to a stream of synthesis gas. However, Erling teaches reforming processes comprising both a gas-heated reforming process and an autothermal reforming process (Erling 2, line 20).
Claim 1 further requires “withdrawing a stream of synthesis gas from the reforming section and supplying it to a shift section, shifting the synthesis gas in a high temperature shift (HTS)-step, thereby obtaining a shifted synthesis gas stream.” Grover does not explicitly teach withdrawing a stream of synthesis gas from the reforming section and supplying it to a shift section to shift the synthesis gas in a high temperature shift (HTS)-step to obtain a shifted synthesis gas stream. However Erling teaches a high temperature shift reactor used for obtaining a shifted syngas stream. (Erling 8 , line 9).
Claim 1 further requires “supplying the shifted synthesis gas stream from the shift section to a CO-removal section, thereby obtaining said CO2-rich stream and a H2-rich stream.” Grover does not explicitly teach supplying the shifted synthesis gas stream from the shift section to a CO2-removal section, thereby obtaining said CO2-rich stream and a H2-rich stream. However, Erling teaches a Separation process that separates CO2 from the shifted gas and also hydrogen is separated in the process (Erling 12, line 11).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have, by the method of Grover, remove of H2O by passing the purified stream to a cooling train to cooling units for producing a cooled purified stream, and passing the cooled purified stream to a condensing step and wherein the cooling train includes a cooling unit using N2 from an air separation unit (ASU); supplying a hydrocarbon feed to a reforming section, and converting it to a stream of synthesis gas; wherein the reforming section comprises autothermal reforming and withdrawing a stream of synthesis gas from the reforming section and supplying it to a shift section, shifting the synthesis gas in a high temperature shift (HTS)-step, thereby obtaining a shifted synthesis gas stream as Erling teaches advantageously, that the processes discussed above when integrated provide improved performance over individual processes (Erling 5, line 14).
Regarding claim 2, Grover teaches that in that preferred embodiment, the catalytic oxidizer will have one or more beds of a catalyst that is selective for combusting the flammable contaminants contained in the oxygen/CO2 rich gas stream (Grover: [0019]).
Regarding claim 13, Grover teaches a H2 Rich residue stream output from a permeable membrane (18) that can be optionally purified (Grover: Fig 3).
Regarding claim 14 and notwithstanding the ambiguities noted above, Grover teaches a process and plant for purifying a CO2 stream (Grover: Fig 1).
Claim 14 further requires “conduit for mixing an oxygen stream, preferably oxygen generated from an air separation unit (ASU) and/or a water/steam electrolysis unit.” Grover teaches a raw CO2 stream (1) containing flammable components such as methane and hydrogen is that is mixed with an oxygen source (2) via line (2.1).
Claim 14 further requires “CO2-rich stream containing hydrocarbons, hydrogen and/or CO; and a conduit for combining a stream rich in methane (CH4), with said CO2-rich stream; thereby forming an inlet gas comprising a mixture of carbon dioxide and oxygen.” Grover teaches additional fuel such methane (natural gas) is added to the CO2/O2 mixture via line (21).
Claim 14 further requires “a catalytic oxidation (CATOX) unit arranged to receive said inlet gas comprising a mixture of carbon dioxide and oxygen, said CATOX unit comprising an outlet for withdrawing an outlet gas as a purified stream having a higher CO2 and/or H20 concentration.” Grover teaches the CO2/O2 mixture entering the catalytic oxidizer reactor (5) via line (6) and exiting catalytic oxidizer reactor (5) via line (8).
Claim 14 further requires “ a cooling train arranged to receive said outlet gas from the CATOX unit, said cooling train comprising one or more cooling units for cooling the outlet gas.” Grover teaches a purified CO2 rich stream exiting the catalytic oxidizer reactor (5) via the outlet (8) is passed along line (7) through one or more heat-exchangers (9a, 9b, 9c), allowing for the extraction of energy in form of heat to the water separator (10).
Claim 14 further requires “a condensate separator arranged to receive the thus cooled outlet gas and for removing H20, thereby forming an outlet product comprising said high purity CO2 product.” Grover teaches a purified CO2-rich stream leaving the water separator (10) via line (12).
Claim 14 further requires “a reforming section comprising an autothermal reforming unit (ATR) arranged to convert a hydrocarbon feed to a stream of synthesis gas.” Grover does not explicitly teach a reforming section comprising an autothermal reforming unit (ATR) arranged to convert a hydrocarbon feed to a stream of synthesis gas. Erling teaches reforming processes comprising both a gas-heated reforming process and an autothermal reforming process (Erling 2, line 20)
Claim 14 further requires “a shift section being arranged for a high temperature shift (HTS) of said synthesis gas.” Grover does not explicitly teach a shift section being arranged for a high temperature shift (HTS) of said synthesis gas. However, Erling teaches the water-gas-shift is performed in a high-temperature-shift reactor (Erling 8, line 9).
Claim 14 further requires “ a CO2-removal section being arranged to treat said shifted synthesis gas, thereby providing said CO2-rich stream and a H2-rich stream.” Grover does not explicitly teach a CO2-removal section being arranged to treat said shifted synthesis gas, thereby providing said CO2-rich stream and a H2-rich stream. However, Erling teaches Erling teaches a Separation process that separates CO2 from the shifted gas and also hydrogen is separated in the process (Erling 12, line 11).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have, by the method of Grover, to have a reforming section comprising ATR to convert a hydrocarbon feed to syngas; a shift section being arranged for a high temperature shift (HTS) of said syngas; and a CO2-removal section being arranged to treat said shifted synthesis gas, thereby providing said CO2-rich stream and a H2-rich stream as Erling once again teaches advantageously, that the processes discussed above when integrated provide improved performance over individual processes (Erling 5, line 14).
Regarding claim 17, modified Grover renders the method of claim 1 obvious, as discussed above.
Claim 17 further requires “shifting the synthesis gas in a medium temperature shift (MTS) and/or low temperature shift (LTS)-step in said shift section.” Grover does not explicitly teach further comprises shifting the synthesis gas in a medium temperature shift (MTS) and/or low temperature shift (LTS)-step in said shift section. However, Erling teaches the water-gas-shift is performed in both a high-temperature-shift reactor and a low- temperature-shift reactor (Erling 8, line 9).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have, by the method Grover, a as Erling teaches that a smaller total reactor
volume can be achieved (Erling 8, line 10-11).
Regarding claim 18, modified Grover renders the method of claim 1 obvious, as discussed above. Claim 18 further requires “wherein the process comprises pre-reforming said hydrocarbon feed in one or more pre-reformer units prior to it being fed to the ATR.” Grover does not explicitly teach one or more pre-reformer units for pre- reforming said hydrocarbon feed prior to it being fed to the ATR. However, Erling teaches pre-reforming of hydrocarbons (Erling 5, line 31).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have, by the method of Grover, pre-reform said hydrocarbon feed in one or more pre-reformer units prior to it being fed to the ATR as Erling teaches pre-treatment to remove sulfur (Erling 5, line 30).
Regarding claim 20, the plant of claim 14 has been discussed above and Grover teaches a raw CO2 stream (1) containing flammable components such as methane and hydrogen is that is mixed with an oxygen source (2) via line (2.1).
Regarding claim 21, the plant of claim 14 has been discussed above.
Claim 21 further requires “one or more pre-reformer units for pre- reforming said hydrocarbon feed prior to it being fed to the ATR.” Grover does not explicitly teach one or more pre-reformer units for pre- reforming said hydrocarbon feed prior to it being fed to the ATR. However, Erling teaches pre-reforming of hydrocarbons (Erling 5, line 31).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have, by the method Grover, one or more pre-reformer units for pre-reforming hydrocarbon as Erling once again teaches pre-treatment to remove sulfur (Erling 5, line 30).
Regarding claim 22, the plant of claim 14 has been discussed above.
Claim 22 further requires “shift section is arranged for a medium temperature shift (MTS) and/or a low temperature shift (LTS)” Grover does not explicitly teach a shift section is arranged for a medium temperature shift and/or a low temperature shift. However, Erling teaches the water-gas-shift is performed in both a high-temperature-shift reactor and a low- temperature-shift reactor (Erling 8, line 9).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have, by the method of Grover, teach a shift section is arranged for a medium temperature shift and/or a low temperature shift as Erling teaches these two steps are chosen because the equilibrium is favored by low temperature, whereas the reaction velocity is favored by high temperature. By selecting two reactors working in series, a smaller total reactor volume is achieved (Erling 8, line 9-11).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grover (US 2010/0284892 A1) and view of Erling (GB 2571136 A) as applied to claims 1-2, and 13-14, 17-18, 20-22 above, and further in view of Marin (US 2002/0166323 A1).
With respect to claim 5, this claim requires “wherein the oxygen is generated from an air separation unit (ASU) and/or a water/steam electrolysis unit.“ Grover does not explicitly oxygen being generated from an air separation unit (ASU) and/or a water/steam electrolysis unit. However, Marin teaches an integrated air separation process producing an O-enriched gas stream using an air separation unit (Marin: Abstract: Fig 1).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have, by the method of Grover, oxygen generated from an air separation unit (ASU) and/or a water/steam electrolysis unit. The advantages using oxygen from an ASU is that the oxygen obtained is of high purity.
Claim(s) 8, 16 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grover (US 2010/0284892 A1) in view of Erling (GB 2571136 A) as applied to claims 1 and 14 above, and further in view of Shah (US 2007/0212286 A1).
With respect to claim 8, this claim requires “CO2-rich stream of step I is derived from a CO2-removal section, said CO2-removal section being arranged to receive a shifted synthesis gas stream.” Grover does not explicitly teach a CO2-removal section and said CO2-removal section being arranged to receive a shifted synthesis gas stream. However, Shah teaches a process for recovering CO2 from a shifted synthesis gas stream into the CO2-removal section (Shah: Abstract).
Claim 8 further requires “in which the CO2-removal section is an amine wash unit and comprises a CO2-absorber.” Grover does not explicitly teach a CO2-removal section is an amine wash unit and comprises a CO2-absorber. However, Shah teaches CO2 removal section being an amine scrubbing unit and a CO2 absorber column (Shah 5: [0049]).
Claim 8 further requires “CO2-stripper and a low-pressure flash drum, from which said CO2-rich stream is separated.” Grover does not explicitly teach a CO2-stripper and a low-pressure flash drum, from which said CO2-rich stream is separated. However, Shah teaches a low pressure flash column (flash drum) from which a CO2-rich stream is separated (Shah 5: [0025]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have, by the method of Shah, perform steps in claim 8. As Shah teaches this process allows for good economic balance of the requirement of consumption of steam from the steam generation system (Shah 5: [0017]).
Regarding claim 16, the process of claim 1 has been discussed above.
Claim 16 further requires “wherein the CO2-removal section is an amine wash unit.” Grover does not explicitly teach wherein the CO2-removal section is an amine wash unit. However, Shah teaches CO2 removal section being an amine scrubbing unit and a CO2 absorber column (Shah 5: [0049]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have, by the method of Shah, perform steps in claim 8. As Shah teaches this process allows for good economic balance of the requirement of consumption of steam from the steam generation system (Shah 5: [0017]).
Regarding claim 19, the plant of claim 14 has been discussed above.
Claim 19 further requires “wherein the CO2-removal section is an amine wash unit.” Grover does not explicitly teach wherein the CO2-removal section is an amine wash unit. However, Shah teaches CO2 removal section being an amine scrubbing unit and a CO2 absorber column (Shah 5: [0049]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have, by the method of Shah, perform steps in claim 8. As Shah teaches this process allows for good economic balance of the requirement of consumption of steam from the steam generation system (Shah 5: [0017]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7, 9 and 12 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: Grover (US 2010/0284892 A1), Cognard (US 20140208798 A1), Marin (US 2002/0166323 A1), Shah (US 2007/0212286 A1), and Grover’775 (EP 2281775 A1).
Regarding claim 7, neither Grover or other cited prior teach or suggest a drying step is conducted in a temperature swing adsorption unit. Rather the cited prior art teaches the step conducted outside of a temperature swing adsorption unit.
Regarding claim 7, neither Grover or other cited prior art teach or suggest wherein the CO2-removal section comprises a high- pressure flash drum and the process further comprises adding hydrogen to said CO2-rich stream.
Regarding claim 9, neither Grover or other cited prior art teach or suggest wherein the C02-removal section comprises a high- pressure flash drum and the process further comprises adding hydrogen to said C02-rich stream.
Regarding claim 12, neither Grover or other cited prior art teach or suggest g preheating said hydrocarbon feed in one or more fired heaters and feeding at least a part of said H2-rich stream as hydrocarbon fuel to the at least one or more fired heaters.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STARFARI TESHAWN MCCLAIN whose telephone number is (571)272-0169. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 AM- 5 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, Anthony Zimmer can be reached at (571) 270-3591. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/STARFARI TESHAWN MCCLAIN/Examiner, Art Unit 1736
/DANIEL C. MCCRACKEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1736