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
Claims 1-18 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on February 27, 2026.
Applicant's election with traverse of claims 19-27 in the reply filed on February 27,2026 is acknowledged.
The traversal is on the ground(s) that the groups are related as multiple feeds leading to a methanation and autothermal reforming unit section as a method of syngas production and thus the groups should be considered to have unity of invention. This is not found persuasive because though the groups relating to each other as multiple feeds leading to a methanation and autothermal reforming unit section as a method of syngas production shows unity a priori, that is before considering the prior art, unity of invention still requires a common special technical feature that makes a contribution over the prior art (a posteriori), a requirement which is not met in this case as explained in the Restriction Requirement and below in the prior art rejections. See also PCT International Search and Preliminary Examination (ISPE) Guidelines, Chapter 10, paragraph 10.21 (Example 1).
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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.
Claim(s) 19-25 and 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schlichting (WO 2014096226 A1) and further in view of Mortensen (WO 2019110269).
Regarding claim 19, Schlichting discloses a system displaying multiple feed streams where there is a methanation stage, ATR stage, and feed streams (referred to as conduits) which comprise of hydrogen, carbon dioxide and hydrocarbons in the form of naphtha (Schlichting [Fig3]). Upon closer inspection the hydrogen feed, in the form of conduit 17 A, leads to a methanation stage (Schlichting [pg.10 L21-24]). Another feed stream of CO-2 , conduit 19, is transferred to the same methanation stage (Schlichting [pg.10 L18]). These are then transferred to the syngas production stage where an autothermal reformer is used (Schlichting [pg.8 L39-31]). The combined process in which the conduits go through methanation followed by processing via ATR is the syngas stage(Schlichting [pg.3 L19-26]). Within figures 2 and 3, the prior art teaches that a stream of hydrocarbons can be applied into the syngas reactor containing the ATR or the methanation reactor (Schlichting [Fig3]), resulting in the feed streams being converted into a syngas stream.
While the feed containing oxygen is missing in the prior art, Mortensen, which teaches the use of ATR in the syngas process, discloses that autothermal reformers (ATRs) commonly use oxygen (Mortensen [pg.2 L11-24]). The prior art further discloses the presence of a separate inlet that supplies oxygen gas to the ATR for combustion (Mortensen [pg. 17 L6-7]). One of ordinary skill in the art would be able to apply the ATR taught in Mortensen in place of the ATR present in Schlichting to predictably yield syngas.
Regarding claim 20, Schlichting discloses a process of methanation that shares similarities to that of the instant invention. For example, the carbon dioxide stream and hydrogen stream are both directed into the methanation reactor (Schlichting [Fig.3]) and reacted at high temperatures where any water present would be in the gaseous state. During the methanation process the hydrogen and carbon dioxide react leading to a product stream comprised of methane (Schlichting [pg.11 L1-5]). Furthermore, both the claim and the prior art discloses embodiments where hydrocarbons are transferred into the methanation section (Schlichting [Fig. 4]) or the ATR section (Schlichting [Fig.3]). With the level of similarities between Schlichting and the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the methanation section in the prior art to have no water condensation as required in the instant claim .
Regarding claim 21, Schlichting does not disclose the environment of the methanation section and what the temperature of the exiting gas is. However, Mortensen teaches that during the methanation process the exiting temperature of the gas is at 995°C. Furthermore, Mortensen teaches that hydrocarbon feed streams will undergo adiabatic performing in order to prevent carbon formation (Mortensen[pg. 113 L16-18]). One of ordinary skill in the art is able to apply the teachings of Mortensen to Schlichting in which the utilization of an adiabatic methanation device with a temperature level around 995°C is used to prevent carbon formation in the system (Mortensen [pg.19 L16-19]).
Regarding claim 22, the system displayed in Schlichting shows a conduit from the methanation unit to the ATR without passing through any heat exchange device (Schlichting [Fig.3]). While the methanation device is not discloses as being adiabatic, Mortensen teaches that hydrocarbon feed streams will undergo adiabatic performing in order to prevent carbon formation (Mortensen[pg. 113 L16-18]) One of ordinary skill in the art is able to apply the teachings of Mortensen to Schlichting in which the utilization of an adiabatic methanation device with a temperature level around 995°C is used to prevent carbon formation in the system (Mortensen [pg.19 L16-19]).
Regarding claim 23, Schlichting does not disclose the temperature at the inlet of the methanation unit. However, Mortensen, teaches in that the heat exchange of a CO2 rich gas stream over the catalysts is between 700°C (Mortensen [pg.9 L9-11]). One of ordinary skill in the art can apply the teachings of Mortensen to Schlichting in order to decrease the change of metal dusting (Mortensen [pg.9 L11-13]).
Regarding claim 24, Schlichting discloses a process where after the syngas stage the purge gas which contains unreacted hydrogen and carbon oxides are separated from the synthesis gas (Schlichting [pg.5 L28-30]). While the stage is not explicitly a CO2 removal stage one of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to determine that during gas separation, one of the compounds removed is unreacted carbon dioxide.
Regarding claim 25, Schlichting discloses a process where after the syngas stage the purge gas which contains unreacted hydrogen and carbon oxides are separated from the synthesis gas (Schlichting [pg.5 L28-30]). The prior art further suggests that in creating a CO2 rich stream to feed into the methanation reactor can be obtained “with the regeneration waste gas of a process for a physiosorptive CO2 separation ” (Schlichting [pg.4 L19-20]). One of ordinary skill in the art is able to determine that, if necessary, a carbon dioxide can be removed from the purge gas and recycled into the syngas stage (which for CO2 is the methanation to ATR process).
Regarding claim 27, Schlichting discloses the transfer of process gasses from the methanation section to the ATR in the form of conduit 21 (Schlichting [Fig. 3]). Therefore, the prior art meets the limitations set in the instant claim requiring the gas that leaves the methanation section to be led to the ATR section.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 26 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but is allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
While Schlichting discloses the system in which the combined process of feeds contain hydrogen, carbon dioxide, and hydrocarbons go through methanation followed by processing via ATR to produce syngas (Schlichting [pg.3 L19-26]). Mortensen teaches the use of ATR in the syngas process further disclosing that an autothermal reformer commonly uses oxygen (Mortensen [pg.2 L11-24]). Both references fail to address the amount of methane content leaving the methanation section as required by claim 26. There is not teaching or suggestion in the prior art that would have made it obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to produce a methane content of the gas leaving the methanation section of less than 20%. Therefore, the claim is considered novel and nonobvious.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANNETTE H PHAN whose telephone number is (703)756-4520. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-6:30 EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Anthony Zimmer can be reached at 5712703591. 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.
/ANNETTE PHAN/Examiner, Art Unit 1736
/ANTHONY J ZIMMER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1736
Prosecution Insights