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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-11, in the reply filed on 10/20/2025 is acknowledged. Claims 12-16 are withdrawn.
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 4 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.
Regarding claim 4, the claim requires the “temperature of the heated syngas stream is between 15 °C and 30 °C higher than the dew point of the heated syngas stream.” However, this limitation is unclear because it is not apparent how the “heated syngas stream” can have a dew point that is between 15 to 30 °C higher than itself (i.e. the heated syngas stream). In the interest of compact prosecution and in view of the instant specification, a syngas stream (i.e. a stream comprising hydrogen and carbon dioxide) that has been heated is considered to meet the limitation “heated syngas stream” and therefore possess a dew point satisfying the limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 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.
Claims 1 and 3-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abbott (US20110137089A1; cited in IDS dated 11/21/2024).
Regarding claim 1, Abbott teaches a process for heating and converting a synthesis gas stream into a shifted gas stream (Abstract; [0007]-[0008]).
Abbott describes a process where raw synthesis gas (10) is fed to a sour shift reactor (42) comprising a header arrangement (40) that serves to transfer heat to the catalyst bed (Abstract; Fig. 2; [0045]). Abbott teaches a heated raw synthesis gas stream (50) is obtained that is mixed with steam (12) and that the resulting mixture is fed to the catalyst (46) which provides a hot-shifted synthesis gas stream (52) that is cooled with heat exchanger (20) for use in generating superheated steam (Fig. 2; [0045]). Abbott teaches the hot-shifted synthesis gas stream is optionally further passed through two heat exchangers (24 and 26) or sent to by-pass stream (30) to allow for some of the raw synthesis gas to bypass the shift reactor (Fig. 2; [0045]).
PNG
media_image1.png
725
959
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (Figure 1. Reproduced Fig. 2 from Abbott (US20110137089A1). )] Abbott further teaches the raw material synthesis gas stream can be heated prior to entering the reactor and that the raw material synthesis gas stream can be mixed with by-pass streams containing shifted streams, raw material gas streams, and catalyst by-pass streams, to form a combined stream that can then be subjected to one or more water-gas shift stages to further increase the hydrogen content in the syngas ([0019]-[0021]; Claims 5, 8-10, 13-14).
From the above, Abbot describes 1) mixing a raw material gas stream, which contains shifted gas, with a heat exchanger that provides a stream comprising shifted syngas and warmed syngas, 2) providing the hot syngas to a shift reactor containing a catalyst to produce a shifted syngas stream that is hot, and 3) passing the hot shifted syngas over a heat exchanger to generate superheated steam and a syngas stream that has been cooled. This process meets the limitation of “the first mode of operation” as claimed.
Abbott further teaches that the shift reactor achieves a conversion of about 0-50% of the hot raw synthesis gas, while teaching an example where about 43.6% of the carbon monoxide component is converted ([0020]; [0051]). Abbott achieving partial conversion of a syngas stream is equivalent to obtaining a “partially shifted syngas stream.” The term “partially shifted” is not given a special definition in the instant specification and the accepted meaning for the term within the art was applied to the interpretation of the claim, where partial conversion means obtaining less than 100% conversion of reactants to products.
Further, Abbott teaches the shift streams obtained from partial conversion (i.e. not 100% of conversion) are used in the process as described above, which includes transferring heat between the partially shifted gas stream and the syngas stream with heat exchangers (40, 20, 24, 26), feeding the warmed syngas to the reactor, and subsequently transferring heat from the partially shifted syngas stream with a heat exchanger (20) (Fig. 2; [0010]-[0016]; [0045]). Abbott teaches the heat exchanger media may be gas, steam, or water, and that the heat exchanger media functions by removing heat from the gas streams in the process ([0015]) . Accordingly, steam and water are considered to meet the limitation of “a preheating fluid”, as the instant specification describes superheated steam and cooled steam as comprising the preheating fluid (see at least [0043] in the instant specification).
From the above, Abbot describes partially shifted syngas streams and transferring heat from the partially shift streams with a heat exchanger comprising water as the medium, which meets the limitation of “the second mode of operation” as claimed.
Regarding claim 3, Abbott teaches the ratio of steam (i.e. water) to feed syngas in the syngas feed stream ranges from 0.245-0.402 (Table 1) and that the syngas feed can be dry ([0034]). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05 (I). In the instant case, the range taught by Abbott (steam to syngas feed 0.245-0.402) overlaps with the claimed range (water to dry gas ratio of between 0.2 and 0.6). Therefore, the range in Abbott renders obvious the claimed range.
Regarding claim 4, Abbott teaches a heated syngas stream is obtained ([0020]-[0021]). As described above in the 112(b) section, a “heated syngas stream” would be expected to have the properties of a “heated syngas stream” and that it is unclear how the material could have properties different from itself. Therefore, the heated syngas stream of Abbott is considered to meet the limitation required by the claim.
Regarding claim 5, Abbott teaches the sour shift reactor where the heated syngas is reacted can be adiabatic ([0024]).
Regarding claim 6, Abbott teaches the temperature of shifted gas leaving the sour shift reactor ranges from 412-487 °C (Table 1; [0054]). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05 (I). In the instant case, the range taught by Abbott (shifted gas stream ranges from 412-487 °C) overlaps with the claimed range (temperature of the shifted gas is greater than 350 °C). Therefore, the range in Abbott renders obvious the claimed range.
Regarding claim 7, Abbott teaches the process includes a bypass stream (dotted line 30) that can be comprised of raw synthesis gas, heated raw synthesis gas, and steam where the bypass stream bypasses the second heat exchanger (20) in the process (Fig. 2; [0020]; [0022];[0035]; [0045]). Abbott describes the heat exchange fluids include steam ([0015]), meeting the limitation of including preheating fluid in the bypass stream.
Abbot further teaches the temperature of the hot partially shifted syngas stream (i.e. the stream leaving the shift reactor) is measured (Table 1; [0045]). Abbot further teaches the flow of the synthesis gas through the reactor, and tubes of the system should be controlled to maintain the temperature of the catalyst ([0018]; [0045]).
Regarding claim 8, Abbott teaches the heat exchangers (i.e. including the second heat exchanger) can be passed super-heated steam generated from the hot shifted gas to provide a cooled stream and a raw synthesis gas that can be fed back to the reactor and preheated ([0044]; [0019]-[0020]; [0015]). Abbott teaches the raw synthesis gas used in the process contains sulfur compounds and teaches an example where the composition of the gas in mol% is H2=31.19%, CO=35.84%, CO2=14.42%, N2=0.88%, CH4 =0.38%, H2O=16.49%, and H2S+COS=0.79% ([0044]; [0049]). The instant invention describes “a circulation gas” as comprising inert gas, reducing gas, and a sulfur agent (see claim 11), where inert gas can include nitrogen, reducing gas includes hydrogen and/or carbon monoxide, and a sulfur agent that includes hydrogen sulfide (see [0039] in the instant specification). Therefore, the gas stream of Abbott comprising N2, H2, CO, and H2S+COS meets the limitation.
Regarding claim 9, Abbott teaches the method of claim 8.
Abbott further teaches the process includes a bypass stream (dotted line 30) that can be comprised of raw synthesis gas, heated raw synthesis gas, and steam where the bypass stream bypasses the second heat exchanger (20) in the process (Fig. 2; [0020]; [0022];[0035]; [0045]). Abbott describes the heat exchange fluids include steam ([0015]), meeting the limitation of including preheating fluid in the bypass stream.
Abbot further teaches the temperature of the hot partially shifted syngas stream (i.e. the stream leaving the shift reactor) is measured (Table 1; [0045]). Abbot further teaches the flow of the synthesis gas through the reactor, and tubes of the system should be controlled to maintain the temperature of the catalyst ([0018]; [0045]).
Regarding claim 10, Abbott teaches the method of claim 8.
Abbott further teaches the raw synthesis gas used in the process contains sulfur compounds and teaches an example where the composition of the gas in mol% is H2=31.19%, CO=35.84%, CO2=14.42%, N2=0.88%, CH4 =0.38%, H2O=16.49%, and H2S+COS=0.79% ([0044]; [0049]). The instant invention describes “a circulation gas” as comprising inert gas, reducing gas, and a sulfur agent, where inert gas can be nitrogen (see claim 11 and [0038] in instant specification). Therefore, the gas stream of Abbott comprising N2 meets the limitation.
Regarding claim 11, Abbott teaches the method of claim 8.
Abbott teaches the raw synthesis gas used in the process contains sulfur compounds and teaches an example where the composition of the gas in mol% is H2=31.19%, CO=35.84%, CO2=14.42%, N2=0.88%, CH4 =0.38%, H2O=16.49%, and H2S+COS=0.79% ([0044]; [0049]). The instant invention describes “a reducing gas” as including hydrogen and/or carbon monoxide while hydrogen sulfide (see [0039] in instant specification) and carbonyl sulfide (COS) taught by Abbott includes sulfur and meets the limitation of a sulfur agent.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abbott (US20110137089A1; cited in IDS dated 11/21/2024) in view of Lee et al. (US20110027170A1).
Regarding claim 2, Abbott teaches the method of claim 1 and the claim further requires “the temperature of the preheating fluid is between 250 and 500 °C” to which Abbott does not explicitly state the temperature of the preheating fluid.
Lee teaches a process of operating a water-gas shift reactor with syngas feeds where the syngas is preheated with a heat exchanger that has a temperature of 170-270 °C (Abstract; [0013]-[0016]; [0046]; [0050]). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05 (I). In the instant case, the range taught by Lee (preheater at 170-270 °C) overlaps with the claimed range (preheating fluid is between 250 and 500 °C). Therefore, the range in Lee renders obvious the claimed range.
Advantageously, maintaining a preheater at these temperatures ensures the reforming reactor isn’t overheated and serves to increase the conversion of carbon monoxide ([0049]).
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 operate a preheater at 170-270 °C in the method of Abbott in order to ensure the reactor doesn’t overheat and to increase the conversion of carbon monoxide in the syngas, as taught by Lee.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jordan Wayne Taylor whose telephone number is (571)272-9895. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7:30 AM - 5 PM EST; Second Fridays Off.
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, Sally A. Merkling can be reached on (571)272-6297. 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.
/JORDAN W TAYLOR/Examiner, Art Unit 1738