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 Amendment
The amendment filed on 03/10/2026 has been entered. The amendment filed on 04/16/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-44, 46-47 are pending in the application. Claims 26 and 45 have been canceled. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome each 112(b) rejection previously set forth in the office action mailed 10/10/2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/10/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on bottom of pg. 11 through top of pg. 12 that Goldstein integrates heating and hydrogen production within the same vessel while amended claim 1 requires the rotary apparatus to function solely as a heater and prevents hydrogen production reactions.
However, as discussed in the rejection below of claim 1 over Goldstein in view of Seppala, Seppala discloses aforesaid configuration enables carrying out highly customized chemical processes, wherein reaction time, temperature and/or gaseous feedstock residence time in reaction zone may be tailored to achieve best selectivity/conversion ratios ([0095]).
It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to tailor temperature and/or gaseous feedstock residence time in the rotary apparatus to achieve desired selectivity/ conversion ratios, including adjusting the temperature and residence time to below a threshold at which a heat-consuming process related to production of hydrogen occurs, in order to achieve a zero conversion rate if desired.
Thus, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the temperature of the stream of fluidic medium and residence time in the rotary apparatus to be adjusted below a threshold at which a heat-consuming process related to production of hydrogen occurs in order to avoid initiating said heat-consuming process(es) before the fluid enters a reactor or furnace configured to carry out process or processes related to hydrogen production in the method of Goldstein in order to achieve best selectivity/conversion ratios as disclosed by Seppala.
Applicant argues in paragraph 2 of pg. 12 that Goldstein teaches that integrating the reaction at the point of heating is a benefit of its design.
However, Seppala provides motivation to modify the method of Goldstein – to achieve best selectivity/conversion ratios, which includes any desired conversion ratio including zero conversion.
Applicant argues in par. 1 of pg. 13 that Goldstein’s integrated design achieves only a 4% methane conversion rate in one pass while the present invention achieves 37% methane conversion in one pass, and 78% conversion with three sequential heater-reactor sequences. These unexpected improvements in conversion efficiency further demonstrate the non-obviousness of the claimed functional separation.
However, in response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., methane conversion) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant argues on top of pg. 14 that Kang’s pre-reformer itself converts hydrocarbons and acts as a reactor, not merely a heater.
However, Kang is not relied upon to teach the limitation of the rotary apparatus being a heater, Seppala is. Kang is relied upon for teaching arrangement of an additional heating apparatus downstream of the rotary apparatus. Kang discloses using a pre-reformer combined with oxygen and fuel preheating for combustion (Col 1 lines 8-10) comprising the steps of feeding a non-pre-reformed hydrocarbon fuel gas stream to a pre-reformer forming a pre-reformed hydrocarbon fuel gas stream, feeding the pre-reformed hydrocarbon fuel gas stream to burners of the furnace, combusting oxidant and the pre-reformed hydrocarbon fuel gas with the burners to produce flue gas, heating air through heat exchange with the flue gas at a recuperator, and transferring heat from heated air to pre-reformer tubes of the pre-reformer (Col 2 lines 25-33).
It would be obvious to modify Goldstein in view of Seppala in order to increase the temperature of the gas and use waste heat as taught by Kang.
Applicant argues in par. 2 of Pg. 14 that the temperature achieved by Fournier is by combustion, not by a rotary apparatus acting as a heater.
However, claim 13 which is dependent upon claims 11 and 12 is interpreted as the “fluidic medium preheated” being preheated by “propagating through said additional heating apparatus” as recited in claim 11. Therefore, the Stage I combustion of Fournier reads on the additional heating apparatus, not the rotary apparatus.
Applicant argues in par. 3 on pg. 14 that since Fournier’s temperatures are achieved by combustion, not a rotary heater apparatus, claim 17 is non-obvious over Goldstein in view of Fournier.
However, this argument is moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 27 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
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.
Claims 1- 10, 15-16, 18-19, 21-25, 29-32, 43-45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goldstein (WO 2014209643 A1, cited in IDS 08/11/2025) in view of Seppala et al (US 20140243569 A1, cited in IDS 12/13/2022).
Regarding claim 1, Goldstein discloses a method for syngas production and performing other industrial chemical processes using mechanical energy from wind (Pg. 2 par. 2), where other industrial chemical processes include producing either of hydrogen, methanol ammonia or another product, utilizing mechanically powered syngas production facility with optional waste heat re-use and optional production curtailing in times of high electricity demand (Pg. 30 par. 2 meeting limitation “A method for inputting thermal energy into a process or processes related to producing hydrogen in a hydrogen production facility”).
PNG
media_image1.png
382
572
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Goldstein discloses the reacting gas is compressed by centrifugal compressor 901, comprising an impeller 902, sitting on shaft 706, and a diffuser 903 (Pg. 27 par. 3). A cylindrical pressure vessel 904, i.e. rotary apparatus integrated into the hydrogen production facility, is attached to compressor 901, so that the compressed gas exiting compressor 901 enters it from the left (Pg. 27 par. 3). A rotor 905 with helical (auger like) blades 906 is installed on shaft 706 (Pg. 27 par. 3). 904 in Fig. 9A meets “a casing with at least one inlet and at least one exit”.
PNG
media_image2.png
328
356
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fig. 9B shows a cross section of reactor 904 (Pg. 27 par. 3). Multiple helical rotor blades 906 may be installed on rotor 905 (Pg. 27 par. 3 meeting limitation “a rotor comprising at least one row of rotor blades arranged over a circumference of a rotor hub mounted onto a rotor shaft”). Thin stator sheets 907 are attached to the walls of reactor 904 (Pg. 28 par. 1 meeting limitation “a plurality of stationary vanes arranged into an assembly at least upstream of the at least one row of rotor blades”). Stator sheets 907 have the form of helix with an angle, optimal to accommodate gas flow from rotor blades 906 (i.e., that the gas flow from rotor blades 906 is parallel to stator sheets 907). When the gas mix exits reactor 904 on the right, most of the methane has already reacted, producing syngas (Pg. 29 par. 1 meeting limitation “integrating the at least one rotary apparatus into the hydrogen production facility configured to carry out process or processes related to hydrogen production”). The syngas is utilized in any desired way (Pg. 29 par. 1). Gas temperature inside reactor tube 904: 800°C (Pg. 28 par. 1 meeting limitation “at temperatures essentially equal to or exceeding about 500 degrees Celsius (°C)”). Shaft 706 is driven by engine 707 (Pg. 29 par. 1). Engine 707 may be anything of the following: an electrical motor (Pg. 25 par. 2 meeting limitation “conducting an amount of input energy into the at least one rotary apparatus integrated into the hydrogen production facility, the input energy comprising electrical energy”). The gas mix enters reactor 904, where fast rotation of rotor 905 with rotor blades 906 continuously adds energy to the gas mix. This energy is initially in the form of high velocity of the gas, accelerated by blades 906 (Pg. 29 par. 1). As the velocity of the gas drops (mostly through friction between the gas and stator blades 907), this energy converts into heat, and the generated heat sustains steam methane reforming reaction (Pg. 29 par. 1 meeting limitation “operating the at least one rotary apparatus integrated into the hydrogen production facility such, that an amount of thermal energy is imparted to a stream of fluidic medium directed along a flow path formed inside the casing between the inlet and the exit by virtue of a series of energy transformations occurring when said stream of fluidic medium passes through the stationary vanes and the at least one row of rotor blades, respectively, whereby the stream of heated fluidic medium is generated”).
Regarding the limitation “supplying the stream of heated fluidic medium generated by the at least one rotary apparatus into the hydrogen production facility,” Goldstein discloses when the gas mix, i.e. stream of heated fluidic medium generated by the at least one rotary apparatus, exits reactor 904 on the right, most of the methane has already reacted, producing syngas (Pg. 29 par. 1). The syngas is utilized in any desired way (Pg. 29 par. 1).
Goldstein further discloses another embodiment of the invention is a system for producing hydrogen (Pg. 19 par. 2). The “dirty” syngas from pressure vessel 109 is sent into a water shift subsystem 402, where water shift reaction is performed to increase amount of hydrogen in the mix (Pg. 19 par. 2). The “hydrogen enriched” syngas from water shift subsystem 402 is sent into a purification subsystem 403, where gases other than hydrogen are removed (Pg. 19 par. 2), i.e. hydrogen production facility.
Therefore it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art for the syngas exiting reactor 904 to be supplied into the hydrogen production facility as disclosed by Goldstein in order to produce hydrogen.
Goldstein does not disclose “wherein the temperature of the stream of fluidic medium and residence time in the rotary apparatus is adjusted below a threshold at which a heat-consuming process related to production of hydrogen occurs in order to avoid initiating said heat-consuming process(es) before the fluid enters a reactor or furnace configured to carry out process or processes related to hydrogen production”.
Seppala discloses a rotary machine type shock wave reactor suitable for thermal cracking of hydrocarbon-containing materials includes a casing, a rotor whose periphery contains an axial-flow blade cascade, and a directing rim, provided with at least two stationary vane cascades, adjoining an axial-flow rotor cascade, wherein the casing substantially encloses the periphery of the rotor and the directing rim (abstract). The cascades are configured to direct feedstock containing process stream to repeatedly pass the cascades in a helical trajectory while propagating within the duct between the inlet and exit and to generate stationary shock-waves to heat the feedstock (abstract). The axial-flow rotor cascade is configured to provide kinetic energy and add velocity to feedstock containing process stream, and the stationary vanes located downstream the rotor cascade are configured to reduce the velocity of the stream and convert kinetic energy into heat (abstract).
While Seppala discloses alternatively or additionally the reactor of the invention may be provided with catalytic surfaces to enable catalytic reactions ([0029]), the general disclosure given by Seppala does not require catalytic surfaces.
Seppala further discloses aforesaid configuration enables carrying out highly customized chemical processes, wherein reaction time, temperature and/or gaseous feedstock residence time in reaction zone may be tailored to achieve best selectivity/conversion ratios ([0095]).
It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to tailor temperature and/or gaseous feedstock residence time in the rotary apparatus to achieve desired selectivity/ conversion ratios, including adjusting the temperature and residence time to below a threshold at which a heat-consuming process related to production of hydrogen occurs, in order to achieve a zero conversion rate if desired.
Thus, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the temperature of the stream of fluidic medium and residence time in the rotary apparatus to be adjusted below a threshold at which a heat-consuming process related to production of hydrogen occurs in order to avoid initiating said heat-consuming process(es) before the fluid enters a reactor or furnace configured to carry out process or processes related to hydrogen production in the method of Goldstein in order to prevent the
Regarding claim 2, Goldstein in view of Seppala discloses all the limitations in the claims as set forth above including Goldstein discloses when the gas mix exits reactor 904 on the right, most of the methane has already reacted, producing syngas (Pg. 29 par. 1). Syngas is an abbreviation for synthesis gas - a mix of CO and H2, possibly contaminated by significant presence of one or more of the following: C, CO2, H2O, CH4 (Pg. 2 par. 5). Therefore, reactor 904 is configured to produce hydrogen from hydrogen-containing gas.
Regarding claim 3, Goldstein in view of Seppala discloses all the limitations in the claims as set forth above and Goldstein further discloses stator sheets 907 are made of heat resistant metal and are covered by the catalyst support and catalyst (Pg. 28 par. 1). High speed of gas flow also improves transport of reacting components to and from the surface of the catalyst (Pg. 29 par. 1).
Regarding claim 4, Goldstein in view of Seppala discloses all the limitations in the claims as set forth above and Goldstein further discloses a sub-plant for production of methanol from syngas; a pressure vessel for syngas production by methane steam reforming; a catalyst inside of the pressure vessel; a gas compressor, adapted to compress a gas inside of the pressure vessel; where most of the energy necessary for methane steam reforming is supplied by the gas compressor compressing the gas (Pg. 29 par. 2-Pg. 30 par. 1). As the velocity of the gas drops (mostly through friction between the gas and stator blades 907), this energy converts into heat, and the generated heat sustains steam methane reforming reaction.
Regarding claim 5, Goldstein in view of Seppala discloses all the limitations in the claims as set forth above including gas temperature inside reactor tube 904: 800°C (Goldstein Pg. 28 par. 1).
Regarding claim 6, Goldstein in view of Seppala discloses all the limitations in the claims as set forth above including Goldstein discloses the gas mix enters reactor 904, where fast rotation of rotor 905 with rotor blades 906 continuously adds energy to the gas mix (Pg. 29 par. 1). This energy is initially in the form of high velocity of the gas, accelerated by blades 906. As the velocity of the gas drops (mostly through friction between the gas and stator blades 907), this energy converts into heat, and the generated heat sustains steam methane reforming reaction (Pg. 29 par. 1).
Regarding claim 7, Goldstein in view of Seppala discloses all the limitations in the claims as set forth above and Goldstein further discloses geometry of the system can vary (Pg. 29 par. 2). For example… diameters of rotor 905, rotor blades 906 and/or stator blades 907 may vary along the length of reactor 904 to accommodate changing reaction rates (Pg. 29 par. 2). Thus, rows of rotor blades are along the length of reactor 904.
Regarding claim 8-9, Goldstein in view of Seppala discloses all the limitations in the claims as set forth above and Goldstein further discloses the reacting gas is compressed by centrifugal compressor 901, comprising an impeller 902, sitting on shaft 706, and a diffuser 903 (Pg. 27 par. 4). Additional sheets 908, i.e. stationary diffuser vanes, covered by the catalyst support and the catalyst, may be installed inside of diffuser 903 (Pg. 28 par. 1).
Goldstein does not explicitly disclose the diffuser area is arranged downstream of the at least one row of rotor blades, however it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to reverse the flow of gas through reactor 904, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art while the device having the claimed dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 and since it has been held that a mere reversal of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art, In re Einstein, 8 USPQ 167.
Regarding claim 10, Goldstein in view of Seppala discloses all the limitations in the claims as set forth above including Goldstein discloses the gas mix enters reactor 904, where fast rotation of rotor 905 with rotor blades 906 continuously adds energy to the gas mix (Pg. 29 par. 1). This energy is initially in the form of high velocity of the gas, accelerated by blades 906. As the velocity of the gas drops (mostly through friction between the gas and stator blades 907), this energy converts into heat, and the generated heat sustains steam methane reforming reaction (Pg. 29 par. 1). Shaft 706 is driven by engine 707 (Pg. 29 par. 1). Engine 707 may be anything of the following: an electrical motor (Pg. 25 par. 2). Therefore, adjusting the amount of input energy from Engine 707 into reactor 904 by Shaft 706 and rotor blades 906 controls the heat added to the gas.
Regarding claim 15, Goldstein in view of Seppala discloses all the limitations in the claims as set forth above and Goldstein further discloses wherein the pressure vessel outlet is connected to the gas compressor to facilitate multiple passes of the reacting gas through the compressor (Pg. 37 Claim 47). While Goldstein does not explicitly disclose two sequentially connected rotary apparatuses, addition of at least two rotary apparatuses integrated into the hydrogen production facility, wherein the at least two rotary apparatuses are connected in parallel or in series, would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. Mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 124 USPQ 378, 380 (CCPA 1960). Further, it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Regarding claim 16, Goldstein in view of Seppala discloses all the limitations in the claims as set forth above including wherein the pressure vessel outlet is connected to the gas compressor to facilitate multiple passes of the reacting gas through the compressor (Pg. 37 Claim 47). While Goldstein does not explicitly disclose two sequentially connected rotary apparatuses, addition of at least two sequentially connected rotary apparatuses, wherein the stream of fluidic medium is preheated to a predetermined temperature in at least a first rotary apparatus in a sequence, and wherein said stream of fluidic medium is further heated in at least a second rotary apparatus in the sequence by inputting an additional amount of thermal energy into the stream of preheated fluidic medium propagating through said second rotary apparatus, would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. Mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 124 USPQ 378, 380 (CCPA 1960). Further, it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Regarding claim 17, Goldstein in view of Seppala discloses all the limitations in the claims as set forth above including Seppala discloses aforesaid configuration enables carrying out highly customized chemical processes, wherein reaction time, temperature and/or gaseous feedstock residence time in reaction zone may be tailored to achieve best selectivity/conversion ratios ([0095]).
Seppala does not explicitly disclose a temperature essentially equal to or exceeding about 1700 °C. However, as selectivity and conversion ratios are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the temperature and/or gaseous feedstock residence time, the precise temperature would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed temperature cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the temperature in the method of Goldstein to obtain the desired balance between the selectivity and conversion ratios (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Regarding claim 18, Goldstein in view of Seppala discloses all the limitations in the claims as set forth above and Goldstein further discloses the gas mix enters reactor 904, where fast rotation of rotor 905 with rotor blades 906 continuously adds energy to the gas mix (Pg. 29 par. 1). This energy is initially in the form of high velocity of the gas, accelerated by blades 906 (Pg. 29 par. 1). As the velocity of the gas drops (mostly through friction between the gas and stator blades 907), this energy converts into heat, and the generated heat sustains steam methane reforming reaction (Pg. 29 par. 1 meeting limitation “the additional amount of thermal energy is added to the stream of fluidic medium propagating through said at least second rotary apparatus in the sequence by virtue of introducing the reactive compound or a mixture of compounds into said stream”), since the gas mix is the reactive compound.
Regarding claim 19, Goldstein in view of Seppala discloses all the limitations in the claims as set forth above and Goldstein further discloses the reacting gas, i.e. reactive compound, is compressed by centrifugal compressor 901, comprising an impeller 902, sitting on shaft 706, and a diffuser 903 (Pg. 27 par. 4). A cylindrical pressure vessel 904 is attached to compressor 901, so that the compressed gas exiting compressor 901 enters it from the left (Pg. 27 par. 4).
Regarding claim 21-25, Goldstein in view of Seppala discloses all the limitations in the claims as set forth above including the reacting gas, i.e. feed gas, is compressed by centrifugal compressor 901, comprising an impeller 902, sitting on shaft 706, and a diffuser 903 (Pg. 27 par. 4). A cylindrical pressure vessel 904 is attached to compressor 901, so that the compressed gas exiting compressor 901 enters it from the left (Pg. 27 par. 4). Goldstein further discloses further discloses in one preferred embodiment of the invention is a system for industrial syngas production from methane by steam reforming (Pg. 12 par. 2). In such system, the main reaction is CH4 + H2O =CO+ 3H2 (Pg. 12 par. 2). Therefore, the reacting gas, i.e. feed gas, is a hydrocarbon-containing gas comprising methane and steam (H2O).
Regarding claim 29, Goldstein in view of Seppala discloses all the limitations in the claims as set forth above and further discloses cylindrical pressure vessel 904 is attached to compressor 901, so that the compressed gas exiting compressor 901 enters it from the left (Pg. 27 par. 4). Pressure inside reactor tube 904: 40 bar (Pg. 28 par. 1).
Regarding claim 30, Goldstein in view of Seppala discloses all the limitations in the claims as set forth above including shaft 706 is driven by engine 707 (Pg. 29 par. 1). Engine 707 may be anything of the following: an electrical motor (Pg. 25 par. 2). If Engine 707 is an electrical motor, the amount of electrical energy conducted as the input energy is 100 percent.
Regarding claim 31, Goldstein in view of Seppala discloses all the limitations in the claims as set forth above and Goldstein further discloses Engine 707 may be anything of the following: an electrical motor, a gas turbine, a steam turbine, a nuclear powered turbine, an engine, driven by mechanical energy of falling water or wind etc. (Pg. 25 par. 2).
Regarding claim 32, Goldstein in view of Seppala discloses all the limitations in the claims as set forth above and Goldstein further discloses the gas turbine can be combined with an electrical generator, connected to the grid and vary its power output to the grid depending on the current electricity demand or price (Pg. 25 par. 2).
Regarding claim 43, Goldstein in view of Seppala discloses all the limitations in the claims as set forth above and Goldstein further discloses another embodiment of the invention is a plant, producing either of hydrogen… utilizing mechanically powered syngas production facility (Pg. 30 par. 2) and in one preferred embodiment of the invention is a system for industrial syngas production from methane by steam reforming (Pg. 12 par. 2).
Regarding claim 44, Goldstein in view of Seppala discloses all the limitations in the claims as set forth above and Goldstein further discloses another embodiment of the invention is a plant, producing either of hydrogen… utilizing mechanically powered syngas production facility (Pg. 30 par. 2) and in one preferred embodiment of the invention is a system for industrial syngas production from methane by steam reforming (Pg. 12 par. 2).
Claims 11-12, 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goldstein et al (WO 2014/209643, cited in IDS 08/11/2025) in view of Seppala et al (US 20140243569 A1, cited in IDS 12/13/2022), and in further view of Kang et al. (US 10584052 B2).
Regarding claim 11, Goldstein in view of Seppala discloses all the limitations in the claims as set forth above and Goldstein further discloses if engine 707 is a gas turbine, it may use the same gas feed for both combustion and methane source for steam reforming (Pg. 25 par 2). If a fossil fuel based power source is used, the CO2 created in the combustion of the fossil fuel may be added as an input for steam reforming to decrease H2/CO ratio of the reaction product (Pg. 25 par. 2).
Goldstein in view of Seppala does not disclose “arranging an additional heating apparatus downstream of the at least one rotary apparatus and introducing a reactive compound or a mixture of reactive compounds to the stream of fluidic medium propagating through said additional heating apparatus, whereupon the amount of thermal energy is added to said stream of fluidic medium through exothermic reaction(s)”.
Kang discloses methods for enhancing waste heat recovery using a pre-reformer combined with oxygen and fuel preheating for combustion (Col 1 lines 8-10) comprising the steps of feeding a non-pre-reformed hydrocarbon fuel gas stream to a pre-reformer forming a pre-reformed hydrocarbon fuel gas stream, feeding the pre-reformed hydrocarbon fuel gas stream to burners of the furnace, combusting oxidant and the pre-reformed hydrocarbon fuel gas with the burners to produce flue gas, heating air through heat exchange with the flue gas at a recuperator, and transferring heat from heated air to pre-reformer tubes of the pre-reformer (Col 2 lines 25-33).
While Kang does not disclose the pre-reformer is a rotary apparatus, natural gas is fed to the pre-reformer and heavier or higher hydrocarbons in the hydrocarbon fuel are broken down to light hydrocarbons, herein methane, and some of the methane is further broken down to CO and H2, in the presence of steam to produce a pre-reformed fuel gas for use as fuel (Col 7 lines 1-6). The pre-reformed fuel gas includes hydrogen, carbon oxides, methane and steam (Col 7 lines 6-8). Thus, the temperature of the product gas may be increased in the furnace (Col 7 lines 9-11).
Thus, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to arrange an additional heating apparatus downstream of the at least one rotary apparatus and introducing a reactive compound or a mixture of reactive compounds to the stream of fluidic medium propagating through said additional heating apparatus, whereupon the amount of thermal energy is added to said stream of fluidic medium through exothermic reaction in the method of Goldstein in order to increase the temperature of the gas and use waste heat as taught by Kang.
Regarding claim 12 and 14, Goldstein in view of Seppala discloses all the limitations in the claims as set forth above but is silent to “wherein the reactive compound or a mixture of reactive compounds is introduced to the stream of fluidic medium preheated to a predetermined temperature” and “wherein preheating of the stream of fluidic medium to the predetermined temperature is implemented in the rotary apparatus”.
Kang discloses methods for enhancing waste heat recovery using a pre-reformer combined with oxygen and fuel preheating for combustion (Col 1 lines 8-10). Disclosed embodiments are systems and methods for enhancing waste heat recovery using a pre-reformer combined with oxygen and fuel preheating for combustion in an oxygen-fuel pre-heated furnace (Col 6 lines 38-41). For a same temperature to which the fuel gas is preheated , the pre - reformed natural gas (which inherently contains relatively lower amounts of heavier hydrocarbons) is less susceptible to coking than is non-pre-reformed natural gas (Col 6 lines 12-16). Thus, the useful life of the burner in performance of the invention is longer than in conventional fuel pre-heating methods for a given same temperature to which the fuel gas is heated (Col 6 19-22). The pre-reformer disclosed by Kang is interpreted as the claimed rotary apparatus.
Thus, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the reactive compound or a mixture of reactive compounds to be introduced to the stream of fluidic medium preheated to a predetermined temperature, and the preheating of the stream of fluidic medium to the predetermined temperature is implemented in the rotary apparatus in the method of Goldstein in order to enhance the useful performance life of the burner as taught by Kang.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goldstein et al (WO 2014/209643, cited in IDS 08/11/2025) in view of Seppala et al (US 20140243569 A1, cited in IDS 12/13/2022), and Kang et al. (US 10584052 B2), and in further view of Fournier (US 20020050097 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Goldstein in view of Kang discloses all the limitations in the claims as set forth above but is silent to “wherein the reactive compound or a mixture of reactive compounds is introduced to the stream of fluidic medium preheated to a temperature essentially equal to or exceeding about 1700 °C”.
Fournier discloses a process and apparatus for the production of reformed gases (abstract). The overall process of the present invention is divided into two stages, Stage I and Stage II ([0088]). In the Stage I mixing and combustion process, a predetermined quantity of burner oxygen and burner natural gas is near stoichiometric proportion are mixed and combusted using a first stage mixer ([0088]). Depending on the Stage I mixer (burner) design, the peak temperatures of the Stage I oxygen-natural gas products of combustion (33% CO and 66.6% H2O) are relatively high and can vary anywhere from about 3500 °F to about 4500 °F ([0097]), which is equivalent to 1926 °C to 2482 °C.
Thus, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the reactive compound or a mixture of reactive compounds is introduced to the stream of fluidic medium preheated to a temperature essentially equal to or exceeding about 1700 °C in the method of Goldstein in view of Kang in order for the stream of fluidic medium to be preheated for the combustion reaction as taught by Fournier.
Claims 27-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goldstein et al (WO 2014/209643, cited in IDS 08/11/2025) in view of Seppala et al (US 20140243569 A1, cited in IDS 12/13/2022), and in further view of Morar et al (“Review: Important contributions in development and improvement of the heat integration techniques”).
Regarding claim 27 and 28, Goldstein in view of Seppala discloses all the limitations in the claims as set forth above but does not disclose “further comprising generation of a heated medium outside the rotary apparatus through a process of heat transfer between the stream of heated fluidic medium generated in the rotary apparatus and a process stream bypassing the rotary apparatus” or “comprising generation of the heated medium, provided as a hydrocarbon-containing gas, outside the rotary apparatus through a process of heat transfer between the stream of heated fluidic medium other than said hydrocarbon- containing gas generated in the rotary apparatus and the process stream provided as the hydrocarbon-containing gas bypassing the rotary apparatus”.
The reuse of excess process heat, however, is a routine convention in the field of chemical engineering, also known as process heat integration. As detailed in the introduction of Morar, the design of a heat exchanger network for a chemical process is a routine step in the design of a chemical process that results from analysis of the energy balance of the process, or in other words, determining where energy enters and leaves the process, and ensuring that the amount leaving the process is equal to the amount that enters to maximize energy usage within the process- by this analysis, it is readily apparent where in the process excess energy may be directed in order to ensure maximum process efficiency and reduce the heating and cooling duty of the process, thereby reducing process operation costs.
Morar even discloses that "...it is possible to save an important part from the necessary energy required by a plant through specific actions and therefore resulting saving related to capital and operational costs up to 15-45%". Such an energy balance analysis considers where process units require heat, such as in the case of an endothermic reaction requiring energy in order to proceed, and, by the use of heat exchangers, byproduct heat from one process gas stream may be used to provide heat to another, effectively 'recycling' heat from one process step to another.
Accordingly, given that Goldstein discloses the invention is a plant, producing either of hydrogen, methanol, ammonia, or another product, utilizing mechanically powered syngas production facility with optional waste heat re-use (Pg. 30 par. 3), prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to design a heat exchange network that would effectuate heat transfer between the stream of heated fluidic medium generated in the rotary apparatus and a process stream, or between the stream of heated fluidic medium and a process stream provided as a hydrocarbon-containing gas bypassing the rotary apparatus, as such heat integration would reduce the heating duty of Goldstein in view of Seppala, thereby improving the energy efficiency of the production of hydrogen and reducing the cost of the process associated with temperature control as suggested by Morar.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
/N.L.Q./Examiner, Art Unit 1738
/MICHAEL FORREST/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1738
Prosecution Insights