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 § 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) 1-3, 5 and 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carnell (US 2011/0174016) in view of Tsangaris (US 2010/0275781) and Stroder (WO 2019/042574) and Thom (US 2003/0180588) and Strahan (US 6,955,704) and McCartney (US 6,564,579).
Regarding claims 1, 2, 5 and 7, Carnell discloses a system comprising:
a hydrogen sulfide separator configured to:
receive a gaseous stream comprising hydrocarbon (such as natural gas, see abstract) and hydrogen sulfide (paragraph 21); and
separate the gaseous stream into a hydrogen sulfide-containing stream comprising hydrogen sulfide and a desulfurized gaseous flowback stream comprising hydrocarbons (as a result of separating H2S via a membrane which will produce a retentate/permeate stream, see paragraph 21);
a hydrocarbon fractionator (see paragraph 21 which discloses that sulfur removal takes place before the fractionation step) configured to:
receive the desulfurized gaseous flowback stream (paragraph 21);
fractionate the desulfurized gaseous flowback stream comprising hydrocarbon into a gaseous methane stream (see McCartney which is incorporated by reference in Carnell paragraph 25, and teaches that the methane coming out of the fractionator is gaseous methane, see col. 7 lines 24-30 of McCartney which discloses that the methane stream 48 coming out of the top of the fractionator is gaseous) comprising methane, an ethane stream comprising ethane and a natural gas liquid stream comprising propane, butane and pentane (see paragraph 24 which discloses fractioning the natural gas stream into a methane stream, ethane, and an LPG which includes C3+ hydrocarbons); and
fractionate the natural gas liquid stream into a propane stream comprising propane, a butane stream comprising butane and a pentane stream comprising pentane (see paragraph 25 which discloses that additional fractioning/columns can be used on the “heavy fractions” to obtain streams rich in propane, butane and heavier (pentane) hydrocarbons).
Carnell teaches a system for preparing a natural gas stream but is silent regarding what is done with the hydrogen sulfide that is separated via the membrane separator. More specifically, Carnell does not teach:
a hydrogen sulfide processor comprising a bioreactor/bioscrubber configured to:
receive the hydrogen sulfide-containing stream; and
convert hydrogen sulfide in the hydrogen sulfide-containing stream into hydrogen and sulfur to obtain a first hydrogen stream comprising hydrogen and a sulfur stream comprising sulfur.
Tsangaris also discloses a gas processing system.
Tsangaris teaches a hydrogen sulfide removal system that utilizes a biological process/bioscrubber such as Thiopaq (paragaragh 148). Tsangaris teaches such a system in order to produce a solid sulfur stream, along with water (see Fig. 15 which produces an elemental sulfur product along with a wastewater stream).
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to add the Thiopaq system of Tangaris to the system of Carnell in order to remove the sulfur from the H2S containing stream coming from the H2S membrane separator. Such a modification would eliminate H2S from being released to the atmosphere while also producing a solid sulfur product.
In addition, modified Carnell does not teach that this hydrogen sulfide processor also produces a hydrogen product.
Stroder also discloses a process for removing hydrogen sulfide from a stream (see abstract).
Stroder teaches that, like modified Carnell, H2S removal results in a solid sulfur product along with a water stream (page 6 line 21 – page 7 line 14). Stroder goes on to teach that the produced water can be utilized to produce hydrogen via electrolysis and that the produced hydrogen can be used for additional energy (page 7 lines 5-14) and that utilizing this waste water stream reduces the need for fresh water in a system as well as reducing the amount of wastewater produced.
As such, adding the electrolyzer of Stroder to the system of modified Carnell would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention in order to produce a valuable product (hydrogen) as well as reducing the amount of wastewater produced while simultaneously reducing the need for fresh water in a system.
Carnell teaches production of a methane stream but is silent regarding further process steps to utilize the methane. More specifically, modified Carnell does not teach:
a methane processor configured to:
receive the methane stream; and
convert methane in the methane stream into hydrogen and carbon to obtain a second hydrogen stream comprising hydrogen, and a carbon stream comprising carbon, and
a hydrogen power generator configured to:
receive at least one of the first hydrogen stream and the second hydrogen stream, and
react hydrogen from at least one of the first hydrogen stream and the second hydrogen stream with oxygen to generate electricity.
Thom discloses a methane processing system.
Thom teaches that methane can be cracked into hydrogen and carbon and this hydrogen can be sent to a fuel cell to produce power (paragraphs 11 and 14). Thom teaches that this use of methane is beneficial in that it is a way to produce electricity from the methane without producing CO2 (paragraphs 11-12).
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to add the methane decomposition system and fuel cell unit of Thom to the system of modified Carnell in order to produce electricity from the methane without producing CO2.
Additionally, Carnell teaches cleaning natural gas that is recovered from an oil well (paragraph 2) and teaches a membrane separator to remove the hydrogen sulfide (as discussed above). Carnell, however, does not teach the additional steps that are claimed. More specifically, Carnell does not teach a hydrogen sulfide separator which includes:
a filtration unit;
a heater fluidly connected to the filtration unit; and
a separation unit fluidly connected to the heater.
Strahan also discloses a system to remove natural gas from an oil well (see abstract).
Strahan, like Carnell, teaches utilizing a membrane (membrane 20) to remove hydrogen sulfide from a gas stream from an oil well (col. 3 lines 4-10 which discloses utilizing a membrane separator to remove hydrogen sulfide). Strahan goes on to teach:
a filtration unit (such as separator 46 which is a coalescing filter separator to remove 99% of small oil and water aerosols, col. 3 lines 49-58);
a heater (50) fluidly connected to the filtration unit (via line 52); and
a separation unit (membrane separator 20) fluidly connected to the heater (via lines 62, 72 and 74).
Strahan teaches such a configuration in order to remove oil/water aerosols and adjust the temperature with the heater to ensure the proper operating temperature for the membrane separator (col. 3 lines 59-64) to ensure proper pre-treatment of a contaminant laden gas stream coming from an oil well (col. 2 lines 1-13).
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to add the pretreatment configuration of Strahan to the system of modified Carnell in order to ensure proper pre-treatment of a contaminant laden gas stream coming from an oil well by removing oil/water aerosols and adjusting the gas stream to the proper temperature for membrane separation.
Furthermore, Carnell, as modified above, teaches producing a gaseous methane stream from the fractionator, but goes on to teach that the methane stream is then condensed back to a liquid. More specifically, Carnell does not teach a system which does not condense the methane stream after the fractionator.
However, the modifications made above to Carnell, specifically the inclusion of the hydrogen generating processor of Thom, suggest that a gaseous methane stream is preferred for this process (see paragraph 13 of Thom which expressly states the desire for this process to proceed with gaseous methane). As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to remove the condensing structure of modified Carnell to produce a gaseous stream as this is the phase of methane that is preferred by the hydrogen producing system of Thom.
Regarding claim 3, Carnell, as modified above, further discloses an ethane power generator configured to receive the ethane stream and react ethane in the ethane stream with oxygen to generate electricity (see paragraph 25 which discloses generating power via gas turbine with ethane).
Regarding claim 8. Carnell, as modified above, further discloses the power generation system is a mobile system (see Fig. 1 which illustrates the process of Carnell being on a ship).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carnell (US 2011/0174016) in view of Tsangaris (US 2010/0275781) and Stroder (WO 2019/042574) and Thom (US 2003/0180588) and Strahan (US 6,955,704) and McCartney (US 6,564,579) and further in view of Mitariten (US 2012/0264197).
Regarding claim 6, Carnell, as modified by Tsangaris above, teaches a bioscrubber to remove the H2S from the gas stream, but does not teach a biofilter.
Mitariten also discloses a system for removing hydrogen sulfide from a natural gas stream (see abstract).
Mitariten, like Tsangaris, teaches removal of hydrogen sulfide from a gas stream and then converts the hydrogen sulfide to sulfur and a waste water stream (see biofilter 24 which removes hydrogen sulfide from gas stream 22 and then produces a water stream comprising a sulfur stream, see paragraph 41 which gives a description of sulfur removal from the gas stream). Mitariten teaches such a configuration to remove sulfur from a gas stream, similar to that of modified Carnell.
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to replace the bioscrubber of modified Carnell with the biofilter of Mitariten as such a modification is nothing more than a simple substitution of one known hydrogen sulfide remove step (bioscrubber) for another (biofilter) to yield entirely predictable results. Furthermore, there is nothing in the record that suggests the biofilter produces any results other than what is expected.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/30/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. On pages 8-9, Applicant argues that Carnell does not teach a gaseous methane stream that is fed to the methane processor. The Office notes that although Carnell does teach condensing a produced gaseous stream from the fractionator (as described in the rejection above), a new ground of rejection is presented above that modifies modified Carnell and meets the new claim limitations regarding a gaseous methane stream being fed to the methane processor.
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
Prosecution Insights