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 .
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.
Specification
The specification and drawings have been reviewed and no clear informalities or objections have been noted.
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.
Claim 15 is 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.
In claim 15, which depends from claims 14 and claim 1, Applicant claims “a steam reformer”, “one or more firing units” and “at least one external combustion chamber”. Claimed this way, without utilizing “the” or “said”, it is not entirely clear if these items are the same named items that are listed in claim 1. Clarification is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 7, 10, 11, 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Palamara (US 8,240,370).
Regarding claim 1, Palamara discloses a process for feeding firing units of a steam reformer (steam reformer 100) with a second fuel gas (line 32 which is a fuel, see col. 7 lines 55-60) and a first flue gas (first flue gas is in line 615), wherein the first flue gas is generated in an external combustion chamber (such as turbine 610) arranged outside the steam reformer (as depicted in Fig. 1 where turbine 610 is not located in reformer 100) and upstream of the steam reformer (upstream as in the exhaust from the turbine moves downstream into the reformer via conduit 615) by combustion of a first fuel gas (the gas that is combusted in the turbine) with air (the oxidant in the turbine) and, together with the second fuel gas (32), is introduced into the firing units of the steam reformer for firing (see Fig. 1 which illustrates oxidant line 103 being sent to the reformer 100 along with the second fuel gas 32), wherein the first flue gas has a residual oxygen content sufficient for the firing (see col. 8 lines 15-29 which discloses that the oxidant gas can include the content of oxygen that comes from the gas turbine and is therefore sufficient).
Regarding claims 2-3, Palamara further discloses the second fuel gas and the first flue gas are introduced into the firing units in a quantity ratio at which the residual oxygen content of the first flue gas is sufficient for complete combustion of the second fuel gas (see col. 8 lines 30-38 which discloses that the molar ratio of oxygen to fuel is 5-10% in excess to ensure complete combustion).
Regarding claim 5, Palamara further discloses the temperature of the first flue gas is adjusted such that second fuel gas mixing with the first flue gas undergoes spontaneous combustion (see col. 8 lines 39-51 which discloses that the first flue gas/oxidant gas/turbine exhaust, is sent to the furnace which operates at 700C-2500C where the temperature of the first flue gas will be adjusted to above the autoignition temperature of methane (approx. 700C) and will auto ignite when combined with the methane).
Regarding claim 7, Palamara further discloses the thermal energy formed in the external combustion chamber arranged upstream of the steam reformer is utilized exclusively to preheating the first flue gas for the firing units of the steam reformer (see Fig. 1 which illustrates the flow of turbine exhaust being sent to the burner 110 via conduit 615 and discloses that the 618 portion that branches off from 615 is optional which implies all gas goes to the firing units, col. 14 lines 14-30).
Regarding claim 10, Palamara further discloses wherein steam reformer-comprises a plurality of firing units and a common first flue gas stream from the external combustion chamber is used for all firing units (see col. 10 lines 46-50 which discloses that the oxidant gas and fuel are introduced into a plurality of burners).
Regarding claim 11, Palamara further discloses the firing units are fed with the first flue gas via a common channel system (the common channel is the single exhaust line 615 that exits the turbine).
Regarding claim 13, Palamara further discloses the heat generated during generation of the first flue gas is supplied to the steam reformer (heat generated in the turbine, or the first flue gas, is sent to the reformer as the reforming tubes 101 are in heat exchange with chamber 110 where the first flue gas is sent).
Regarding claims 14 and 15, Palamara further discloses steam reforming plant for performing the process of claim 1 further comprising:
a steam reformer (100) having one or more firing units (103, 110), at least one external combustion chamber arranged upstream of the steam reformer for generating the first flue gas by combustion of the first fuel gas with air and a channel system by means of which the first flue gas is suppliable to the firing units (such as gas turbine 610 which sends exhaust to the burners of reformer 100).
Claim(s) 1, 8 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Koh (US 2009/0165377).
Regarding claim 1, Koh discloses a process for feeding firing units (burners 120) of a steam reformer (7 syngas production device) with a second fuel gas (such as natural gas in line 18, see paragraph 10 which discloses the burners are fed with natural gas) and a first flue gas (gas turbine exhaust coming from turbine 3 via conduit 21), wherein the first flue gas is generated in an external combustion chamber (such as turbine 3) arranged outside the steam reformer (as depicted in Fig. 1 where turbine 3 is not located in reformer 7) and upstream of the steam reformer (upstream as in the exhaust from the turbine moves downstream into the reformer) by combustion of a first fuel gas (the gas that is combusted in the turbine) with air (the oxidant in the turbine and fed via air line 8) and, together with the second fuel gas (in Fig. 1 the fuel to the combustor 120 is fed via line 18), is introduced into the firing units of the steam reformer for firing (see Fig. 1 which illustrates oxidant line 21, which comes from the turbine, being sent to the burner 120 along with the second fuel gas 18), wherein the first flue gas has a residual oxygen content sufficient for the firing (see paragraph 11 which discloses that the oxidant gas can include the content of oxygen that comes from the gas turbine and is therefore sufficient).
Regarding claim 8, Koh further discloses the thermal energy formed during combustion in the external combustion chamber arranged upstream of the steam reformer is at least partially withdrawn and decoupled from the first flue gas before introduction into the steam reformer (in Fig. 1, see exhaust stream 2 exiting the turbine and is then divided to either a stack 40 and combustor 120 which sends a portion of the thermal energy to the stack and the remainder to the burner 120).
Regarding claim 9, Koh further discloses first flue gas generated in the combustion chamber arranged outside the steam reformer is admixed with air before introduction into the firing units (see embodiment in Fig. 6 in which the air, 8, is injected into the turbine exhaust gas stream 22 prior to entering the combustor 120).
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) 4 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Palamara (US 8,240,370).
Regarding claim 4, Palamara does not explicitly disclose the residual oxygen content in the first flue gas upon introduction into the firing units is in the range from 10% by volume to 19% by volume, but does teach an overlapping range (see col. 8 lines 15-29 which discloses an oxygen content of 13-21 vol%, which significantly overlaps the claimed range). As such, arriving at the claimed range would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP §2144.05(I)).
Regarding claim 12, Palamara discloses that the oxidant gas (which includes the combustion exhaust/first flue gas from the turbine) is preheated to 100-600C which suggests that the first flue gas can be below 100-600C (must be heated to reach this temperature range). Such a range overlaps the claimed range while not explicitly disclose the exact range of the claim. As such, arriving at the claimed range would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP §2144.05(I)).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Palamara (US 8,240,370) in view of Speth (WO 2021/244840 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Palamara further discloses the second fuel gas contains natural gas (col. 7 lines 61-66) and teaches that the oxidant is a gas turbine exhaust but does not explicitly disclose the temperature of the turbine exhaust. More specifically, Palamara does not teach the temperature of the first flue gas is at least 700° C. upon introduction into the firing units.
Speth also discloses a tubular catalytic reactor process (see abstract, page 2 lines 5-9).
Speth teaches, like Palamara, utilizing a vitiated gas stream, as an oxidant stream to generate heat by combusting it with a fuel (page 2, line 30 – page 3 line 5). Speth goes on to teach a step of preheating this vitiated gas stream to temperatures in excess of 700C (page 4 lines 27-32) in order to achieve auto-ignition of the fuel and eliminate the need for flame detection (page 2 lines 7-12).
As such, preheating the combustion exhaust of Palamara to achieve a temperature between 500-1100C, as taught by Speth, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention in order to achieve auto-ignition of a fuel and eliminate the need for a flame detector in the firing units of Palamara.
Relevant Prior Art
CA 2840411 A1 – Discloses a reforming process that utilizes oxidant from a turbine exhaust (vitiated air) to combust a fuel to provide thermal energy to the steam reforming step, but does not teach exclusively utilizing the thermal energy from the combustion to heat the first flue gas.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW J MERKLING whose telephone number is (571)272-9813. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8am-6pm.
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, Basia Ridley can be reached at 571-272-1453. 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.
/MATTHEW J MERKLING/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725