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
Amendment to the Specification and to claims, filed on 9/3/2025, obviates objections made in the previous Office action of 6/3/2025.
Claims 2 and 16-17 are canceled. Claims 21 and 22 are newly added. Thus, claims 1, 3-15, and 18-22 are pending currently.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 8, first paragraph, through page 9, line 3, with respect to the rejection of claims 1 and 9 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, new grounds of rejection are made in view of newly found prior art reference US 7.976,698 to Fischer et al. (hereinafter “Fischer”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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.
Claims 1, 4, 6-9, 12,14, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US Patent 7,976,698 to Fischer et al. (hereinafter Fischer).
With respect to claims 1 and 9, Fischer discloses a process for purifying hydrogen that is contained in hydrocarbon-containing compounds employing a TSA process (col. 5, lines 20-62). The process comprises (following Figure 3 and its corresponding description on col. 6, line 56 through col. 7, line 42):
Passing a feed 110 comprising hydrogen and hydrocarbons C2+ to at least one adsorber 104a or 104b (see col. 4, lines 1-8, col. 5, lines 54-58, and col. 6, lines 56-61 );
Hydrocarbons are captured by the adsorbent and purified hydrogen product stream (claimed “enriched hydrogen stream”) is passed through the adsorber 111a or 111b (see col. 6, lines 61-65);
The purified hydrogen product stream 111 is preheated via the heat exchanger 127 and further heated via a furnace 128 and then passes through a catalyst reduction zone 102 (see col. 6, line 64 to col. 7, line 3);
A portion of the hot gas 115 (this is still the same claimed “enriched hydrogen stream”) from the catalyst reduction zone is heat exchanged 127 to the optimal temperature for regeneration of adsorbent(col. 7, line 5-9) (equivalent to claimed “purge stream”); and
The hot gas 115 is then used to regenerate adsorbent (claimed desorbing the hydrocarbons); and
The hot gas is then freed of the undesirable impurities that it contains following the regeneration state with capture masses in at least one piece of capture equipment 105 and the gas itself is directed to at least one of adsorption sections 104a or 104b (equivalent to claimed “separating the contaminated stream into a hydrogen stream and a hydrocarbon stream”) (see col. 7, lines 3-17);
Wherein the adsorption is carried out at a pressure P1 of between 0.1 MPa and 5 MPa and desorption is carried out a pressure P2 of preferably between 0.1 MPa and 5 MPa (see col. 7, lines 43-56).
With respect to claim 4, Fischer discloses separation zone comprises a heat exchanger (127) (equivalent to claimed “cooler”) and a capture equipment (105)(equivalent to claimed “separation vessel”).
With respect to claims 6 and 12, the adsorbents used in the process are preferably selected from zeolites, activated carbons, activated alumina or silica gel (col. 6, lines 1-4).
With respect to claim 7, the adsorption zone comprises at least two vessels each containing adsorbent (104a + 104b and lines 61-64).
With respect to claims 8 and 14, the two vessels alternate between adsorption and desorption cycle (see col. 7, lines 20-29).
With respect to claim 21, Fischer does not disclose use of a compressor.
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.
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.
Claims 3, 5, 10, 11,13 and 15, 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent 7,976,698 to Fischer et al. (hereinafter Fischer).
The teachings of Fischer are as discussed above.
With respect to claims 3 and 10, Fischer does not disclose combing the hydrogen stream with the feed stream. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to have combined the hydrogen, recovered from separation of the contaminated stream, with the feed stream to further purify the hydrogen.
With respect to claims 5 and 11, Fischer does not disclose using a blower to combine the hydrogen stream with the feed stream. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Fischer by including a blower to combine hydrogen stream with the feed stream because it is widely known to those skilled in the art that there would be a loss of hydrogen partial pressure during its processing and that using a blower would assist with raising the pressure of the hydrogen so that the hydrogen would mix with the feed and would match the inlet pressure of the reactor.
With respect to claim 13, Fischer does not explicitly disclose cooling the contaminant stream before the separation step. However, Fischer discloses removing undesirable impurities such as chlorine, water etc. after the desorption step (see col.7, lines 5-12). It is apparent from Fischer’s process of separating hydrogen from hydrocarbons that the desorbed stream would contain C2+ hydrocarbons. It is known to those skilled in the art that these hydrocarbons and other contaminants would be in the vapor phase and that cooling the desorbed stream would make the separation of hydrogen easier from the liquid hydrocarbons (cooled hydrocarbons). Therefore, it is implied in Fischer that the desorbed stream is cooled to remove C2+ hydrocarbons from hydrogen.
With respect to claims 15, Fischer disclose an apparatus for separating hydrogen from hydrocarbons as discussed under 35 USC 102 rejection as applied to claims 1 and 9. Fischer does not disclose a line configured to combine the hydrogen stream with the feed stream and a blower to combine the hydrogen stream with the feed stream. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to have provided a line to combine the hydrogen, recovered from separation of the contaminated stream, with the feed stream to further purify the hydrogen. Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Fischer by including a blower to combine hydrogen stream with the feed stream because it is widely known to those skilled in the art that there would be a loss of hydrogen partial pressure during its processing and that using a blower would assist with raising the pressure of the hydrogen so that the hydrogen would mix with the feed and would match the inlet pressure of the reactor.
With respect to claim 18, the adsorbents used in the process are preferably selected from zeolites, activated carbons, activated alumina or silica gel (col. 6, lines 1-4).
With respect to claim 19, Fischer does not explicitly disclose a cooler configured to cool the contaminated stream. However, Fischer discloses removing undesirable impurities such as chlorine, water etc. after the desorption step (see col.7, lines 5-12). It is apparent from Fischer’s process of separating hydrogen from hydrocarbons that the desorbed stream would contain C2+ hydrocarbons. It is known to those skilled in the art that these hydrocarbons and other contaminants would be in the vapor phase and that cooling the desorbed stream would make the separation of hydrogen easier from the liquid hydrocarbons (cooled hydrocarbons). Therefore, it is implied in Fischer that the desorbed stream is sent to a cooler to remove C2+ hydrocarbons from hydrogen.
With respect to claim 20, the adsorption comprises two vessels which alternate between adsorption and desorption cycle (see col. 7, lines 20-29).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 22 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Fischer discloses the purity of hydrogen-rich gas after the desorption phase is 95.5% with a content of compounds that have more than two carbon atoms that is less than 0.5 mol% (see col. 9, lines 44-46). Thus, Fischer’s disclosure of 95.5% hydrogen purity does not meet claimed hydrogen recovery of at least 98%.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IN SUK C BULLOCK whose telephone number is (571)272-5954. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 AM-4:30 PM.
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.
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.
/IN SUK C BULLOCK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1772