DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 11 December 2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Amendments to claims 1 and 12 are noted.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11 December 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the plant layout makes it possible to carry out the control solely on the basis of the temperature of the gas exiting the e-SMR by adjusting the electrical power supply to the e-SMR and outlines advantages of the control systems as described in the specification.
This argument is not found persuasive. The office is of the position that the combination of references fully teaches and/or suggests the structural features of the claimed apparatus, as set forth in the previous office action and updated herein according to claim amendments. The fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
Applicant argues that claim 1 has been amended to recite that the first catalyst bed(s) are arranged inside the heat exchange reformer with a transient temperature and degree of conversion to distinguish from the cited art.
The office respectfully disagrees that the amendment distinguishes over the prior art, as it relates to the intended manner of operating the claimed apparatus. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Applicant points out various ways that Husted differs from the claimed invention (pp. 11-12).
This argument is not found persuasive. Husted is a modifying reference, relied upon for its teachings with respect to control of an electric heater used in catalytic reactions. One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicant contends that “due to the transient temperature and degree of conversion in the heat exchange reformer, the temperature and composition of the first syngas from the heat exchange reformer varies significantly in temperature” and, in comparison, the purpose of the control in Husted is merely to maintain a constant temperature in the heater at all times.
This argument is not found persuasive. As a preliminary matter, the office notes that the newly added claim limitation is addressed above and below in the updated prior art rejection. Furthermore, the office maintains that Husted’s teachings with respect to temperature control of an electric catalyst heater are relevant, where the control mechanism responds to input to control the temperature therein within a predetermined temperature range. As noted in the previous office actions, the temperature of the heating element is directly related to the temperature of an effluent stream from a reactor.
Applicant argues that Wismann discloses e-SMR alone and does not contain information on how the e-SMR can be used together with other units. Thus, Applicant is of the position that it would not have been obvious to use an e-SMR in the type of plant set forth in claim 1 comprising a heat exchange reformer and a downstream reformer and a gas separation section.
This argument is not found persuasive. The office respectfully submits that Applicant is again attacking a reference individually, where the prior art rejection is based upon a combination of references. Lywood, the primary reference, discloses serial stages of reforming in a heat exchange reformer and a conventional fired reformer. Wiseman, a modifying reference, provides the motivation to replace a conventional fired reformer with an e-SMR. Thus, the office is of the position that modifying Lywood to replace the conventional reformer with an e-SMR would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art for the reasons outlined in this and the previous office actions.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 4-6, 8, 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lywood et al (EP 437 059) in view of Wismann et al (“Electrified methane reforming: A compact approach to greener industrial hydrogen production”) and Husted et al (US 2003/0176953).
Regarding claims 1 and 12, Lywood discloses a plant comprising a reforming section, a gas separation section, and a hydrocarbon-containing feed (see Fig. 1; Abstract; p. 4, lines 15-22),
wherein the reforming section is arranged to receive the hydrocarbon-containing feed 16 and provide a synthesis gas stream 14, wherein the reforming section comprises a heat exchange reformer 7 and a second reformer 1 arranged downstream of the heat exchange reformer (see Abstract; p. 4, lines 28-48);
the heat exchange reformer comprises a housing and one or more reactor tubes within the housing (see p. 4, lines 35-39);
one or more first catalyst bed(s) are arranged inside the heat exchange reformer, the catalyst bed(s) arranged to be heated by a heating fluid, wherein the catalyst bed(s) are arranged to receive a first portion 17 of the hydrocarbon-containing feed and convert the first portion of the feed to a first synthesis gas 15 (see p. 4, lines 35-48);
the second reactor houses a second catalyst and is arranged to receive at least a portion of the first synthesis gas stream from the heat exchange reformer and convert it to a second synthesis gas stream 13 (see p. 4, lines 39-48);
wherein the gas separation section is arranged to receive a synthesis gas stream from the reforming section and separate it into at least a condensate and a product gas (see p. 4, lines 15-22), and
wherein at least a portion of the second synthesis gas stream is arranged to be provided to the heat exchange reformer as the heating fluid (see p. 3, lines 4-5; p. 4, lines 35-42).
Lywood differs from the instant claims in the following ways:
(1) the second reformer is a conventional fired reformer (see p. 2, line 38) and is therefore not an electrical steam methane reformer (e-SMR); and
(2) the reference does not disclose the plant comprising a control system arranged to control electrical power supply to ensure that the temperature of the gas exiting the e-SMR lies in a predetermined range.
Regarding (1), reference is drawn to Wismann, which discloses an electrically heated SMR as an advantageous replacement for conventionally fired reformers. The e-SMR drives the reaction close to thermal equilibrium, increases catalyst utilization, limits unwanted by-product formation, reduces CO2 emissions, and reduces reactor volume, among numerous other advantages described (see Abstract; p. 1, column 3).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the instant claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Lywood to replace the conventional fired reformer with an e-SMR, as suggested by Wismann, in order to realize the benefits associated therewith, in order to produce hydrogen with greener technology.
Regarding (2), Wismann briefly suggests the e-SMR provides “well-defined control of the reaction front” (see p. 1, column 3), but also does not disclose the specific control system claimed.
Husted is directed to a control system for an electric heater, in particular a heater used for catalytic reactions, including a current sensor, a voltage sensor, a switching element, and a control circuit. The control circuit is coupled to the current sensor, the voltage sensor, and a control terminal of the switching element and varies a control signal on the control terminal to maintain a temperature of the heating element within a predetermined range (see Abstract). In this regard, the office notes that the temperature of the heating element is directly related to the temperature of an effluent stream from a reactor.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the instant claimed invention to include the control system disclosed by Husted in the apparatus of Lywood in view of Wismann, i.e., on the e-SMR reactor, in order to provide the capability of reaction control by controlling the temperature within a predetermined range.
Additionally, no other control systems are mentioned in the above cited references. Accordingly, the combination of references is considered to teach the limitation wherein the control system is not arranged to provide feedback control on the outlet temperature of the heat exchange reformer.
The combination of references, as outlined above, is considered to teach the structural features of the claimed apparatus. Recitations with respect to the temperature and degree of conversion within the heat exchange reformer pertain to the intended manner of operating the apparatus and do not structurally differentiate the claimed apparatus over the prior art. MPEP 2114 II.
Regarding claim 4, Lywood discloses the one or more first catalyst bed(s) being arranged inside the reactor tube(s), the reactor tube(s) arranged to be heated by the heating fluid, the heating fluid being arranged between the reactor tubes and the housing (see p. 1, lines 41-43; p. 3, lines 9-12; p. 4, lines 35-42).
Regarding claim 5, the heat exchange reformer of Lywood is understood to be a bayonet reformer as claimed (see p. 4, lines 35-42).
Regarding claim 6, Lywood discloses wherein the second reformer is arranged to receive a second portion 18 of the hydrocarbon containing feed together with the first synthesis gas stream 15 (via line 19 - see p. 4, lines 44-47).
Regarding claim 8, Lywood discloses the second synthesis gas stream being sent to the separation section (see Fig. 1; p. 4, lines 15-22).
Regarding claim 13, Lywood in view of Wismann and Husted disclose the apparatus as described above in the rejection of claim 1, the discussion of which applies equally herein to claim 13.
In addition, the combination of references discloses a process for providing a product gas from a hydrocarbon-containing feed comprising:
converting a first portion of the hydrocarbon-containing feed to a first synthesis gas stream in the heat exchange reformer (Lywood: Fig. 1; Abstract; p. 2, lines 51-54);
converting at least a portion of the first synthesis gas stream from the heat exchange reformer to a second synthesis gas stream in the e-SMR (Lywood: p. 2, line 55 – p. 3, line 3; Wismann: Abstract; p. 1, column 3, providing the motivation to replace the second, conventional fired reformer in Lywood with an e-SMR, as discussed above in claim 1);
controlling the product quality by feedback control on the e-SMR to ensure that the temperature of the gas exiting the e-SMR lies in a predetermined range (Husted: Abstract, providing the motivation to include temperature control of the electric reactor, as discussed above in claim 1);
supplying at least a part of the second synthesis gas to the heat exchange reformer as at least a part of the heating fluid (Lywood: p. 3, lines 4-5); and
supplying a synthesis gas stream from the reforming section to the gas separation section and separating it into at least a condensate and a product gas (Lywood: p. 4, lines 15-27).
Additionally, no other control systems are mentioned in the above cited references. Accordingly, the combination of references is considered to teach the limitation wherein the control system is not arranged to provide feedback control on the outlet temperature of the heat exchange reformer.
Claims 7, 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lywood in view of Wismann and Husted, as applied to claim 1, in further view of Imbault et al (FR 2 897 052).
Imbault is cited from the English machine translation, provided herewith.
Regarding claims 7, 9 and 10, Lywood discloses a post-processing unit (e.g., water gas shift reactor) arranged between the reforming section and the gas separation section, the post processing unit arranged to receive the second synthesis gas stream from the second reformer and provide a post processed synthesis gas stream to the gas separation section, wherein the gas separation section separates it into at least a condensate and a product gas (flash separation unit as claimed) (see p. 4, lines 15-27).
However, Lywood does not explicitly disclose separation of an off-gas in a PSA unit.
Imbault discloses a conventional scheme for production of hydrogen including, downstream of reforming reactors, a water gas shift reactor and subsequent separation section which includes a pressure swing adsorber (PSA) that separates the gas into hydrogen (product gas) and waste gas (see Fig. 2; p. 4, penultimate paragraph). In other words, Imbault provides evidence that the gas obtained from reforming and water gas shift reaction contains more than solely hydrogen and that separation of components, e.g., by PSA, may be undertaken in order to provide a high purity hydrogen product stream.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the instant claimed invention, to modify the apparatus of Lywood to include separation unit(s), e.g., a pressure swing adsorber, which separate hydrogen from other gas components in order to provide a high purity hydrogen product stream.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lywood in view of Wismann and Husted, as applied to claim 1, in further view of Adams, II et al (US 2016/0289072) and Fonseca Bidart et al (US 2016/0236183).
Regarding claim 11, Lywood does not disclose wherein the separation section includes any of the claimed sections (methanol synthesis, CO cold box, ammonia loop, or Fischer-Tropsch).
However, in this regard, the office notes that downstream uses of syngas produced from SMR are well-known in the art and include those claimed by Applicant. See, e.g., Adams and Fonseca Bidart: where syngas may be used for Fischer-Tropsch synthesis to convert the syngas to synthetic fuel (Adams: [0030]; Fonseca Bidart: [0003]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include a F-T synthesis reactor in the apparatus of Lywood, as evidenced by the cited references, in order to convert the product syngas to synthetic fuel.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RENEE ROBINSON whose telephone number is (571)270-7371. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8:00a-5:00p and Friday 8:00a-2:00p.
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, In Suk Bullock can be reached at (571)272-5954. 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.
/Renee Robinson/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1772