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 Invention II, Species 1, Claims 19-22 and 26 in the reply filed on August 2, 2026 is acknowledged. Further, applicant added claims 67-96 that narrow the scope of the elected claims.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 19 and 67 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 73 of copending Application No. 17/746921 in view of Davey et al. (US Pat. Pub. No. 2007/0299144, hereinafter Davey).
Claim 73 of copending application 17/746921 contains substantially similar limitations as claimed in claim 19 of instant invention except wherein the reaction unit is configured to conduct a reactive separation process, and wherein the reactor unit is a small-scale processing unit.
However, Davey teaches a small-scale, low capital intensity (CI) plant for converting a flare gas into methanol, the plant comprising:
a. an air inlet (#11, #13) for receiving a flow of air (see figures 1-3 and paragraph [0024]);
b. a flare gas inlet (#1) for receiving a flow of a flare gas (see figures 1-3 and paragraph [0025]);
c. a reformer (A) in fluid communication with the air inlet (#11, #13) and the flare gas inlet (#1); wherein the reformer (A) is configured to receive the flows of the flare gas (#13) and air (#11, #13) (see figures 1-3 and paragraphs [0024]-[0025]);
d. the reformer (A) in fluid communication with a reactor unit (E); wherein the reactor unit (E) is configured to receive a flow of syngas (#2, #7) from the reformer (A); and wherein the reactor unit (E) is configured to convert the syngas into methanol (see figures 1-3 and paragraph [0034]); and
e. the reactor unit (E) is configured to conduct a reactive separation process (see figures 1-3 and paragraph [0034]; Davey discloses that in unit E the methanol synthesis gas stream (stream 7) is converted by means of a catalyst into methanol and the methanol refined (stream 9) by distillation to the required purity. This is considered equivalent to the reactor unit being configured to conduct a reactive separation process, as claimed by the applicant.).
Examiner notes that although Davey does not explicitly disclose wherein the reactor unit is a small-scale processing unit, Davey discloses substantially the same small-scale low capital intensity plant with substantially the same reactor unit, as claimed by the applicant. Therefore, it is reasonably expected, absent evidence to the contrary, that Davey’s reactor unit will be capable of functioning in the same manner as claimed, as it has been held that when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims claimed functions are considered prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2112.01.
It would have been obvious by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify claim 73 of copending application 17/746921 and further have the reactor unit to further conduct a reactive separation process, as claimed by the applicant, with a reasonable expectation of success, as Davey teaches a small-scale plant for converting a flare gas into methanol, the plant comprising an air inlet for receiving a flow of air, a flare gas inlet for receiving a flow of a flare gas, a reformer in fluid communication with the air inlet and the flare gas inlet, wherein the reformer is configured to receive the flows of the flare gas and air, the reformer in fluid communication with a reactor unit, wherein the reactor unit is configured to receive a flow of syngas from the reformer, and wherein the reactor unit is configured to convert the syngas into methanol, and the reactor unit is configured to conduct a reactive separation process, whereby the methanol synthesis gas stream is converted by means of a catalyst into methanol and the methanol refined by distillation to the required purity (see figures 1-3 and paragraph [0034]).
Claim 73 of copending application 17/746921 contains substantially similar limitations as claimed in claim 67 of instant invention except wherein the reactor unit is a two-stage unit, wherein the reactor unit is configured to conduct a reactive separation process, and wherein the reactor unit is a small-scale processing unit.
However, Davey teaches a small-scale, low capital intensity (CI) plant for converting a flare gas into methanol, the plant comprising:
a. an air inlet (#11, #13) for receiving a flow of air (see figures 1-3 and paragraph [0024]);
b. a flare gas inlet (#1) for receiving a flow of a flare gas (see figures 1-3 and paragraph [0025]);
c. a reformer (A) in fluid communication with the air inlet (#11, #13) and the flare gas inlet (#1); wherein the reformer (A) is configured to receive the flows of the flare gas (#13) and air (#11, #13) (see figures 1-3 and paragraphs [0024]-[0025]);
d. the reformer (A) in fluid communication with a reactor unit (E); wherein the reactor unit (E) is a two-stage unit; wherein the reactor unit (E) is configured to receive a flow of the syngas (#2, #7) from the reformer (A); and wherein the reactor unit (E) is configured to convert the syngas into methanol (see figures 1-3 and paragraph [0034]; Davey discloses that in unit E the methanol synthesis gas stream (stream 7) is converted by means of a catalyst into methanol and the methanol refined (stream 9) by distillation to the required purity. Since unit E converts the synthesis gas stream into methanol and the methanol is further refined by distillation to the required purity, it is considered reasonably obvious, absent evidence to the contrary, that Davey’s unit E is reasonably a two-stage unit, as claimed by the applicant.); and
e. the reactor unit (E) is configured to conduct a reactive separation process (see figures 1-3 and paragraph [0034]; Davey discloses that in unit E the methanol synthesis gas stream (stream 7) is converted by means of a catalyst into methanol and the methanol refined (stream 9) by distillation to the required purity. This is considered equivalent to the reactor unit being configured to conduct a reactive separation process, as claimed by the applicant.).
Examiner notes that although Davey does not explicitly disclose wherein the reactor unit is a small-scale processing unit, Davey discloses substantially the same small-scale low capital intensity plant with substantially the same reactor unit, as claimed by the applicant. Therefore, it is reasonably expected, absent evidence to the contrary, that Davey’s reactor unit will be capable of functioning in the same manner as claimed, as it has been held that when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims claimed functions are considered prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2112.01.
It would have been obvious by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify claim 73 of copending application 17/746921 and further have the reactor unit to be a two-stage unit, and the reactor unit to further conduct a reactive separation process, as claimed by the applicant, with a reasonable expectation of success, as Davey teaches a small-scale plant for converting a flare gas into methanol, the plant comprising an air inlet for receiving a flow of air, a flare gas inlet for receiving a flow of a flare gas, a reformer in fluid communication with the air inlet and the flare gas inlet, wherein the reformer is configured to receive the flows of the flare gas and air, the reformer in fluid communication with a reactor unit, wherein the reactor unit is configured to receive a flow of syngas from the reformer, and wherein the reactor unit is configured to convert the syngas into methanol, and the reactor unit is configured to conduct a reactive separation process, whereby the methanol synthesis gas stream is converted by means of a catalyst into methanol and the methanol refined by distillation to the required purity (see figures 1-3 and paragraph [0034]).
Claim 71 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 73 of copending Application No. 17/746921 in view of Davey and further in view of Bromberg et al. (US Pat. Pub. No. 2014/0144397, hereinafter Bromberg).
Claim 73 of copending application 17/746921 contains substantially similar limitations as claimed in claim 71 of instant invention except wherein the reformer is an internal combustion engine reformer, wherein the reactor unit is configured to conduct a reactive separation process, and wherein the reactor unit is a small-scale processing unit.
However, Davey teaches a small-scale, low capital intensity (CI) plant for converting a flare gas into methanol, the plant comprising:
a. an air inlet (#11, #13) for receiving a flow of air (see figures 1-3 and paragraph [0024]);
b. a flare gas inlet (#1) for receiving a flow of a flare gas (see figures 1-3 and paragraph [0025]);
c. a reformer (A) in fluid communication with the air inlet (#11, #13) and the flare gas inlet (#1); wherein the reformer (A) is configured to receive the flows of the flare gas (#13) and air (#11, #13) (see figures 1-3 and paragraphs [0024]-[0025]);
d. the reformer (A) in fluid communication with a reactor unit (E); wherein the reactor unit (E) is configured to receive a flow of syngas (#2, #7) from the reformer (A); and wherein the reactor unit (E) is configured to convert the syngas into methanol (see figures 1-3 and paragraph [0034]); and
e. the reactor unit (E) is configured to conduct a reactive separation process (see figures 1-3 and paragraph [0034]; Davey discloses that in unit E the methanol synthesis gas stream (stream 7) is converted by means of a catalyst into methanol and the methanol refined (stream 9) by distillation to the required purity. This is considered equivalent to the reactor unit being configured to conduct a reactive separation process, as claimed by the applicant.).
Examiner notes that although Davey does not explicitly disclose wherein the reactor unit is a small-scale processing unit, Davey discloses substantially the same small-scale low capital intensity plant with substantially the same reactor unit, as claimed by the applicant. Therefore, it is reasonably expected, absent evidence to the contrary, that Davey’s reactor unit will be capable of functioning in the same manner as claimed, as it has been held that when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims claimed functions are considered prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2112.01.
It would have been obvious by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify claim 73 of copending application 17/746921 and further have the reactor unit to further conduct a reactive separation process, as claimed by the applicant, with a reasonable expectation of success, as Davey teaches a small-scale plant for converting a flare gas into methanol, the plant comprising an air inlet for receiving a flow of air, a flare gas inlet for receiving a flow of a flare gas, a reformer in fluid communication with the air inlet and the flare gas inlet, wherein the reformer is configured to receive the flows of the flare gas and air, the reformer in fluid communication with a reactor unit, wherein the reactor unit is configured to receive a flow of syngas from the reformer, and wherein the reactor unit is configured to convert the syngas into methanol, and the reactor unit is configured to conduct a reactive separation process, whereby the methanol synthesis gas stream is converted by means of a catalyst into methanol and the methanol refined by distillation to the required purity (see figures 1-3 and paragraph [0034]).
Davey fails to disclose wherein the reformer is an internal combustion engine reformer.
However, Bromberg teaches a reformer system that utilizes an engine to generate hydrogen-rich gas for liquid fuel production. The hydrogen-rich gas is supplied to a chemical reactor, which converts the gas into a liquid fuel, such as methanol (see paragraph [0008]). Reciprocating engines can provide a means to considerably reduce the cost of very small scale reformer-liquid fuel production systems. A substantial elimination of system components can be achieved if the fuel is reformed in the reciprocating engine. The percentage cost reduction is greatest for systems that produce methanol. These reformers are referred to as “engine reformers” (see paragraph [0034]). Bromberg further teaches a fuel manufacturing plant (#10) which utilizes an engine-based reformer (#20) which receives a gaseous hydrocarbon fuel (#21), such as natural gas, and an oxidant (#22) such as air, i.e. air inlet, to convert the hydrocarbon fuel and air to syngas (#40). The syngas (#40) is then fed into a chemical reactor (#50), i.e. reaction unit, which converts the syngas to a liquid fuel, such as methanol (see figure 13 and paragraphs [0038]-[0039]).
It would have been obvious by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify Claim 73 of copending application 17/746921, in view of Davey, by substituting a known reformer for another known reformer, such as an internal combustion engine reformer, as claimed by the applicant, with a reasonable expectation of success, as Bromberg teaches a reformer system and fuel manufacturing plant that utilizes an engine to generate hydrogen-rich gas for liquid fuel production, wherein the fuel manufacturing plant utilizes an engine-based reformer which receives a gaseous hydrocarbon fuel, such as natural gas, and an oxidant such as air, i.e. air inlet, to convert the hydrocarbon fuel and air mixture to syngas, and the syngas is then fed into a chemical reactor, i.e. reaction unit, which converts the syngas to a liquid fuel, such as methanol, and Bromberg further teaches that reciprocating engines can provide a means to considerably reduce the cost of very small scale reformer-liquid fuel production systems, whereby a substantial elimination of system components can be achieved if the fuel is reformed in the reciprocating engine, and the percentage cost reduction is greatest for systems that produce methanol (see paragraphs [0034] and [0038]-[0039]).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claim Objections
Claims 78-79 and 93-94 are objected to because of the following informalities: incorrect grammar.
Claim 78 recites: “The plant of claim 19, where in the liquid product…” The correct word should be “wherein”.
Claim 79 recites: “The plant of claim 67, where in the liquid product…” The correct word should be “wherein”.
Claim 93 recites: “The plant of claim 71, where in the liquid product…” The correct word should be “wherein”.
Claim 94 recites: “The plant of claim 72, where in the liquid product…” The correct word should be “wherein”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 19-22, 26, 78-81 and 86-96 are 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.
Claim 19 recites the limitation: “…the reformer in fluid communication with a reactor unit; wherein the reactor unit is configured to receive a flow of the syngas from the reformer…” There is no mention of a syngas previously in claim 19. Therefore, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
For purposes of examination, examiner will interpret claim 19 as reciting: “…the reformer in fluid communication with a reactor unit; wherein the reactor unit is configured to receive a flow of syngas from the reformer…”
Claim 78 recites the limitation “The plant of claim 19, wherein the liquid product comprises methanol.” There is no mention of a liquid product previously in claim 19. Therefore, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 79 recites the limitation: “The plant of claim 67, wherein the liquid product comprises refined grade methanol.” There is no mention of a liquid product previously in claim 67. Therefore, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 80 recites the limitation: “The plant of claim 71, wherein the liquid product comprises ammonia.” There is no mention of a liquid product previously in claim 71. Therefore, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 81 recites the limitation: “The plant of claim 19, wherein the liquid product consists essentially of ammonia.” There is no mention of a liquid product previously in claim 19. Therefore, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 86 recites the limitation: “The plant of claim 19, wherein the plant is an onsite plant; wherein the capacity for the plant is less than about 1,000bpd; and wherein the liquid product comprises methanol.” There is no mention of a liquid product previously in claim 19. Therefore, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 87 recites the limitation: “The plant of claim 71, wherein the plant is an onsite plant; wherein the capacity for the plant is less than about 1,000bpd; and wherein the liquid product comprises methanol.” There is no mention of a liquid product previously in claim 71. Therefore, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 88 recites the limitation: “The plant of claim 19, wherein the plant is an onsite plant; wherein the capacity for the plant is less than about 1,000bpd; and wherein the liquid product consists of refined grade methanol.” There is no mention of a liquid product previously in claim 19. Therefore, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 89 recites the limitation: “The plant of claim 71, wherein the plant is an onsite plant; wherein the capacity for the plant is less than about 1,000bpd; and wherein the liquid product consists of refined grade methanol.” There is no mention of a liquid product previously in claim 71. Therefore, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 90 recites the limitation: “The plant of claim 71, wherein the capacity for the plant is less than about 1,000bpd; and wherein the liquid product consists essentially of ammonia.” There is no mention of a liquid product previously in claim 71. Therefore, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 91 recites the limitation: “The plant of claim 71, wherein the capacity for the plant is less than about 1,000bpd; and wherein the liquid product essentially of methanol.” There is no mention of a liquid product previously in claim 71. Therefore, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 92 recites the limitation: “The plant of claim 20, wherein the capacity for the plant is less than about 1,000bpd; and wherein the liquid product comprises ammonia.” There is no mention of a liquid product previously in claim 20. Therefore, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 93 recites the limitation: “The plant of claim 71, wherein the liquid product comprises methanol…” There is no mention of a liquid product previously in claim 71. Therefore, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 94 recites the limitation: “The plant of claim 72, wherein the liquid product consists of refined grade methanol.” There is no mention of a liquid product previously in claim 72. Therefore, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 95 recites the limitation: “The plant of claim 21, wherein the liquid product comprises ammonia.” There is no mention of a liquid product previously in claim 21. Therefore, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 96 recites the limitation: “The plant of claim 71, wherein the liquid product consists essentially of ammonia.” There is no mention of a liquid product previously in claim 71. Therefore, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 80 recites: “The plant of claim 71, wherein the liquid product consists essentially of ammonia.” This limitation is considered indefinite because it is unclear as to what applicant refers to. The plant of claim 71 discloses that the reactor unit is configured to convert the syngas into methanol. Therefore, it is unclear as to how the liquid product may comprise ammonia if methanol appears to be the liquid product generated from the conversion of syngas in the reactor unit of claim 71.
Claim 81 recites: “The plant of claim 19, wherein the liquid product consists essentially of ammonia.” This limitation is considered indefinite because it is unclear as to what applicant refers to. The plant of claim 19 discloses that the reactor unit is configured to convert the syngas into methanol. Therefore, it is unclear as to how the liquid product may consist essentially of ammonia if methanol appears to be the liquid product generated from the conversion of syngas in the reactor unit of claim 19.
Claim 90 recites: “The plant of claim 71, wherein the liquid product consists essentially of ammonia.” This limitation is considered indefinite because it is unclear as to what applicant refers to. The plant of claim 71 discloses that the reactor unit is configured to convert the syngas into methanol. Therefore, it is unclear as to how the liquid product may consist essentially of ammonia if methanol appears to be the liquid product generated from the conversion of syngas in the reactor unit of claim 71.
Claim 92 recites: “The plant of claim 20, wherein the capacity for the plant is less than about 1,000bpd; and wherein the liquid product comprises ammonia.” This limitation is considered indefinite because it is unclear as to what applicant refers to. The plant of claim 20 discloses that the reactor unit is configured to convert the syngas into methanol. Therefore, it is unclear as to how the liquid product may consist essentially of ammonia if methanol appears to be the liquid product generated from the conversion of syngas in the reactor unit of claim 20.
Claim 95 recites: “The plant of claim 21, wherein the capacity for the plant is less than about 1,000bpd; and wherein the liquid product comprises ammonia.” This limitation is considered indefinite because it is unclear as to what applicant refers to. The plant of claim 21 discloses that the reactor unit is configured to convert the syngas into methanol. Therefore, it is unclear as to how the liquid product may consist essentially of ammonia if methanol appears to be the liquid product generated from the conversion of syngas in the reactor unit of claim 21.
Claim 96 recites: “The plant of claim 71, wherein the liquid product consists of essentially ammonia…” This limitation is considered indefinite because it is unclear as to what applicant refers to. The plant of claim 71 discloses that the reactor unit is configured to convert the syngas into methanol. Therefore, it is unclear as to how the liquid product may consist essentially of ammonia if methanol appears to be the liquid product generated from the conversion of syngas in the reactor unit of claim 71.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 78, 86, 87 and 93 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 78 recites the limitation “The plant of claim 19, wherein a liquid product comprises methanol.” This limitation fails to further limit the subject matter of claim 19 because claim 19 already discloses that the reactor unit is configured to convert the syngas to methanol.
Claim 86 recites the limitation: “…wherein a liquid product comprises methanol.” This limitation fails to further limit the subject matter of claim 19 because claim 19 already discloses that the reactor unit is configured to convert the syngas to methanol.
Claim 87 recites the limitation: “…wherein a liquid product comprises methanol.” This limitation fails to further limit the subject matter of claim 71 because claim 71 already discloses that the reactor unit is configured to convert the syngas to methanol.
Claim 93 recites the limitation: “…wherein a liquid product comprises methanol.” This limitation fails to further limit the subject matter of claim 71 because claim 71 already discloses that the reactor unit is configured to convert the syngas to methanol.
Applicant may cancel the claims, amend the claims to place the claims in proper dependent form, rewrite the claims in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claims complies with the statutory requirements.
Claims 20-22 and 26 are rejected because they depend on rejected claim 19.
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 (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 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 19, 67, 75-76, 78-79, 81-82, 84, 86 and 88 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davey et al. (US Pat. Pub. No. 2007/0299144, hereinafter Davey).
In regard to Claim 19, Davey discloses a small-scale, low capital intensity (CI) plant for converting a flare gas into methanol, the plant comprising:
a. an air inlet (#11, #13) for receiving a flow of air (see figures 1-3 and paragraph [0024]);
b. a flare gas inlet (#1) for receiving a flow of a flare gas (see figures 1-3 and paragraph [0025]);
c. a reformer (A) in fluid communication with the air inlet (#11, #13) and the flare gas inlet (#1); wherein the reformer (A) is configured to receive the flows of the flare gas (#13) and air (#11, #13) (see figures 1-3 and paragraphs [0024]-[0025]);
d. the reformer (A) in fluid communication with a reactor unit (E); wherein the reactor unit (E) is configured to receive a flow of syngas (#2, #7) from the reformer (A); and wherein the reactor unit (E) is configured to convert the syngas into methanol (see figures 1-3 and paragraph [0034]); and
e. the reactor unit (E) is configured to conduct a reactive separation process (see figures 1-3 and paragraph [0034]; Davey discloses that in unit E the methanol synthesis gas stream (stream 7) is converted by means of a catalyst into methanol and the methanol refined (stream 9) by distillation to the required purity. This is considered equivalent to the reactor unit being configured to conduct a reactive separation process, as claimed by the applicant.).
Examiner notes that although Davey does not explicitly disclose wherein the reactor unit is a small-scale processing unit, Davey discloses substantially the same small-scale low capital intensity plant with substantially the same reactor unit, as claimed by the applicant. Therefore, it is reasonably expected, absent evidence to the contrary, that Davey’s reactor unit will be capable of functioning in the same manner as claimed, as it has been held that when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims claimed functions are considered prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2112.01.
In regard to Claim 67, Davey discloses a small-scale, low capital intensity (CI) plant for converting a flare gas into methanol, the plant comprising:
a. an air inlet (#11, #13) for receiving a flow of air (see figures 1-3 and paragraph [0024]);
b. a flare gas inlet (#1) for receiving a flow of a flare gas (see figures 1-3 and paragraph [0025]);
c. a reformer (A) in fluid communication with the air inlet (#11, #13) and the flare gas inlet (#1); wherein the reformer (A) is configured to receive the flows of the flare gas (#13) and air (#11, #13) (see figures 1-3 and paragraphs [0024]-[0025]);
d. the reformer (A) in fluid communication with a reactor unit (E); wherein the reactor unit (E) is a two-stage unit; wherein the reactor unit (E) is configured to receive a flow of the syngas (#2, #7) from the reformer (A); and wherein the reactor unit (E) is configured to convert the syngas into methanol (see figures 1-3 and paragraph [0034]; Davey discloses that in unit E the methanol synthesis gas stream (stream 7) is converted by means of a catalyst into methanol and the methanol refined (stream 9) by distillation to the required purity. Since unit E converts the synthesis gas stream into methanol and the methanol is further refined by distillation to the required purity, it is considered reasonably obvious, absent evidence to the contrary, that Davey’s unit E is reasonably a two-stage unit, as claimed by the applicant.); and
e. the reactor unit (E) is configured to conduct a reactive separation process (see figures 1-3 and paragraph [0034]; Davey discloses that in unit E the methanol synthesis gas stream (stream 7) is converted by means of a catalyst into methanol and the methanol refined (stream 9) by distillation to the required purity. This is considered equivalent to the reactor unit being configured to conduct a reactive separation process, as claimed by the applicant.).
Examiner notes that although Davey does not explicitly disclose wherein the reactor unit is a small-scale processing unit, Davey discloses substantially the same small-scale low capital intensity plant with substantially the same reactor unit, as claimed by the applicant. Therefore, it is reasonably expected, absent evidence to the contrary, that Davey’s reactor unit will be capable of functioning in the same manner as claimed, as it has been held that when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims claimed functions are considered prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2112.01.
In regard to Claim 75, Davey discloses the plant of claim 19. Although Davey does not explicitly disclose wherein the CI for the plant is from about $110,000/bpd to $45,000bpd, Davey discloses substantially the same small-scale low capital intensity plant, as claimed by the applicant. Therefore, it is reasonably expected, absent evidence to the contrary, that Davey’s plant will be capable of functioning in the same manner as claimed, as it has been held that when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims claimed functions are considered prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2112.01.
In regard to Claim 76, Davey discloses the plant of claim 67. Although Davey does not explicitly disclose wherein the capacity for the plant is less than about 1,000bpd, Davey discloses substantially the same small-scale low capital intensity plant, as claimed by the applicant. Therefore, it is reasonably expected, absent evidence to the contrary, that Davey’s plant will be capable of functioning in the same manner as claimed, as it has been held that when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims claimed functions are considered prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2112.01.
In regard to Claim 78, Davey discloses wherein a liquid product comprises methanol (see paragraph [0034]).
In regard to Claim 79, Davey discloses wherein a liquid product consists of refined grade methanol (see paragraph [0034]).
In regard to Claim 81, Davey discloses the plant of claim 19. Davey further discloses wherein the liquid product consists essentially of ammonia (see figure 1 and paragraph [0035]; Davey discloses wherein in unit F, the ammonia synthesis gas (stream 8) is compressed and is converted by a catalyst into ammonia (stream 10).).
In regard to Claim 82, Davey discloses the plant as claimed in claim 67. Davey discloses wherein the plant is an onsite plant and located adjacent to a source of flare gas (see figure 1 and paragraphs [0024]-[0025]; Davey discloses the conversion of a flare gas, such as natural gas, to methanol using a source of natural gas. In view of this, it is considered reasonably obvious, absent evidence to the contrary, that Davey’s plant is an onsite plant and is located adjacent to a source of flare gas, as claimed by the applicant.).
In regard to Claim 84, Davey discloses the plant as claimed in claim 19. Although Davey does not explicitly disclose wherein the source of flare gas is a landfill, changing the type of source of flare gas to another type of source of flare gas is a mere engineering design choice to maximize the production of valuable material from different sources of gases and is considered prima facie obvious, and also since Davey’s plant is reasonably capable of functioning in the same manner with a different type of source of flare gas, absent evidence to the criticality or new or unexpected results. See MPEP 2144.04.
In regard to Claim 86, Davey discloses the plant of claim 19. Davey further disclose wherein a liquid product comprises methanol (see paragraph [0034]).
Examiner notes that although Davey does not explicitly disclose wherein the plant is an onsite plant, and wherein the capacity of the plant is less than about 1,000bpd, Davey discloses substantially the same small-scale low capital intensity plant, as claimed by the applicant. Therefore, it is reasonably expected, absent evidence to the contrary, that Davey’s plant will be capable of functioning in the same manner as claimed, as it has been held that when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims claimed functions are considered prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2112.01.
In regard to Claim 88, Davey discloses the plant of claim 19. Davey further disclose wherein a liquid product consists of refined grade methanol (see paragraph [0034]).
Examiner notes that although Davey does not explicitly disclose wherein the plant is an onsite plant, and wherein the capacity of the plant is less than about 1,000bpd, Davey discloses substantially the same small-scale low capital intensity plant, as claimed by the applicant. Therefore, it is reasonably expected, absent evidence to the contrary, that Davey’s plant will be capable of functioning in the same manner as claimed, as it has been held that when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims claimed functions are considered prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2112.01.
Claims 71, 77, 80, 83, 87, 89-91, 93 and 96 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davey in view of Bromberg et al. (US Pat. Pub. No. 2014/0144397, hereinafter Bromberg).
In regard to Claim 71, Davey discloses a small-scale, low capital intensity (CI) plant for converting a flare gas into methanol, the plant comprising:
a. an air inlet (#11, #13) for receiving a flow of air (see figures 1-3 and paragraph [0024]);
b. a flare gas inlet (#1) for receiving a flow of a flare gas (see figures 1-3 and paragraph [0025]);
c. a reformer (A) in fluid communication with the air inlet (#11, #13) and the flare gas inlet (#1); wherein the reformer (A) is configured to receive the flows of the flare gas (#13) and air (#11, #13) (see figures 1-3 and paragraphs [0024]-[0025]);
d. the reformer (A) in fluid communication with a reactor unit (E); wherein the reactor unit (E) is configured to receive a flow of the syngas (#2, #7) from the reformer (A); and wherein the reactor unit (E) is configured to convert the syngas into methanol (see figures 1-3 and paragraph [0034]); and
e. the reactor unit (E) is configured to conduct a reactive separation process (see figures 1-3 and paragraph [0034]; Davey discloses that in unit E the methanol synthesis gas stream (stream 7) is converted by means of a catalyst into methanol and the methanol refined (stream 9) by distillation to the required purity. This is considered equivalent to the reactor unit being configured to conduct a reactive separation process, as claimed by the applicant.).
Examiner notes that although Davey does not explicitly disclose wherein the reactor unit is a small-scale processing unit, Davey discloses substantially the same small-scale low capital intensity plant with substantially the same reactor unit, as claimed by the applicant. Therefore, it is reasonably expected, absent evidence to the contrary, that Davey’s reactor unit will be capable of functioning in the same manner as claimed, as it has been held that when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims claimed functions are considered prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2112.01.
Davey fails to disclose wherein the reformer is an internal combustion engine reformer.
However, Bromberg teaches a reformer system that utilizes an engine to generate hydrogen-rich gas for liquid fuel production. The hydrogen-rich gas is supplied to a chemical reactor, which converts the gas into a liquid fuel, such as methanol (see paragraph [0008]). Reciprocating engines can provide a means to considerably reduce the cost of very small scale reformer-liquid fuel production systems. A substantial elimination of system components can be achieved if the fuel is reformed in the reciprocating engine. The percentage cost reduction is greatest for systems that produce methanol. These reformers are referred to as “engine reformers” (see paragraph [0034]). Bromberg further teaches a fuel manufacturing plant (#10) which utilizes an engine-based reformer (#20) which receives a gaseous hydrocarbon fuel (#21), such as natural gas, and an oxidant (#22) such as air, i.e. air inlet, to convert the hydrocarbon fuel and air to syngas (#40). The syngas (#40) is then fed into a chemical reactor (#50), i.e. reaction unit, which converts the syngas to a liquid fuel, such as methanol (see figure 13 and paragraphs [0038]-[0039]).
It would have been obvious by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify the plant as disclosed by Davey by substituting a known reformer for another known reformer, such as an internal combustion engine reformer, as claimed by the applicant, with a reasonable expectation of success, as Bromberg teaches a reformer system and fuel manufacturing plant that utilizes an engine to generate hydrogen-rich gas for liquid fuel production, wherein the fuel manufacturing plant utilizes an engine-based reformer which receives a gaseous hydrocarbon fuel, such as natural gas, and an oxidant such as air, i.e. air inlet, to convert the hydrocarbon fuel and air mixture to syngas, and the syngas is then fed into a chemical reactor, i.e. reaction unit, which converts the syngas to a liquid fuel, such as methanol, and Bromberg further teaches that reciprocating engines can provide a means to considerably reduce the cost of very small scale reformer-liquid fuel production systems, whereby a substantial elimination of system components can be achieved if the fuel is reformed in the reciprocating engine, and the percentage cost reduction is greatest for systems that produce methanol (see paragraphs [0034] and [0038]-[0039]).
In regard to Claim 77, Davey in view of Bromberg, discloses the plant of claim 71. Although Davey, as modified above, does not explicitly disclose wherein the capacity for the plant is from about 2bpd to 900bpd, Davey, as modified above, discloses substantially the same small-scale low capital intensity plant, as claimed by the applicant. Therefore, it is reasonably expected, absent evidence to the contrary, that Davey’s plant, as modified above, will be capable of functioning in the same manner as claimed, as it has been held that when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims claimed functions are considered prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2112.01.
In regard to Claim 80, Davey discloses wherein the liquid product comprises ammonia (see paragraph [0035]; Davey discloses wherein in unit F, the ammonia synthesis gas (stream 8) is compressed and is converted by a catalyst into ammonia (stream 10).).
In regard to Claim 83, Davey in view of Bromberg, discloses the plant of claim 71. Although Davey, as modified above, does not explicitly disclose wherein the source of flare gas is an oil well, changing the type of source of flare gas to another type of source of flare gas is a mere engineering design choice to maximize the production of valuable material from different sources of gases and is considered prima facie obvious, and also since Davey’s plant, as modified above, is reasonably capable of functioning in the same manner with a different type of source of flare gas, absent evidence to the criticality or new or unexpected results. See MPEP 2144.04.
In regard to Claim 87, Davey further disclose wherein a liquid product comprises methanol (see paragraph [0034]).
Examiner notes that although Davey, as modified above, does not explicitly disclose wherein the plant is an onsite plant, and wherein the capacity of the plant is less than about 1,000bpd, Davey, as modified above, discloses substantially the same small-scale low capital intensity plant, as claimed by the applicant. Therefore, it is reasonably expected, absent evidence to the contrary, that Davey’s plant, as modified above, will be capable of functioning in the same manner as claimed, as it has been held that when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims claimed functions are considered prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2112.01.
In regard to Claim 89, Davey further discloses wherein a liquid product consists of refined grade methanol (see paragraph [0034]).
Examiner notes that although Davey, as modified above, does not explicitly disclose wherein the plant is an onsite plant, and wherein the capacity of the plant is less than about 1,000bpd, Davey, as modified above, discloses substantially the same small-scale low capital intensity plant, as claimed by the applicant. Therefore, it is reasonably expected, absent evidence to the contrary, that Davey’s plant, as modified above, will be capable of functioning in the same manner as claimed, as it has been held that when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims claimed functions are considered prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2112.01.
In regard to Claim 90, Davey further discloses wherein a liquid product consists essentially of ammonia (see figure 1 and paragraph [0035]; Davey discloses wherein in unit F, the ammonia synthesis gas (stream 8) is compressed and is converted by a catalyst into ammonia (stream 10).).
Examiner notes that although Davey, as modified above, does not explicitly disclose wherein the plant is an onsite plant, and wherein the capacity of the plant is less than about 1,000bpd, Davey, as modified above, discloses substantially the same small-scale low capital intensity plant, as claimed by the applicant. Therefore, it is reasonably expected, absent evidence to the contrary, that Davey’s plant, as modified above, will be capable of functioning in the same manner as claimed, as it has been held that when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims claimed functions are considered prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2112.01.
In regard to Claim 91, Davey further discloses wherein a liquid product consists essentially of methanol (see paragraph [0034]).
Examiner notes that although Davey, as modified above, does not explicitly disclose wherein the plant is an onsite plant, and wherein the capacity of the plant is less than about 1,000bpd, Davey, as modified above, discloses substantially the same small-scale low capital intensity plant, as claimed by the applicant. Therefore, it is reasonably expected, absent evidence to the contrary, that Davey’s plant, as modified above, will be capable of functioning in the same manner as claimed, as it has been held that when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims claimed functions are considered prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2112.01.
In regard to Claim 93, Davey further discloses wherein the liquid product comprises methanol (see figure 1 and paragraph [0034]). Although Davey, as modified above, does not explicitly disclose wherein the source of flare gas is a landfill, changing the type of source of flare gas to another type of source of flare gas is a mere engineering design choice to maximize the production of valuable material from different sources of gases and is considered prima facie obvious, and also since Davey’s plant, as modified above, is reasonably capable of functioning in the same manner with a different type of source of flare gas, absent evidence to the criticality or new or unexpected results. See MPEP 2144.04.
In regard to Claim 96, Davey further discloses wherein a liquid product consists essentially of ammonia (see figure 1 and paragraph [0035]; Davey discloses wherein in unit F, the ammonia synthesis gas (stream 8) is compressed and is converted by a catalyst into ammonia (stream 10).). Although Davey, as modified above, does not explicitly disclose wherein the source of flare gas is a landfill, changing the type of source of flare gas to another type of source of flare gas is a mere engineering design choice to maximize the production of valuable material from different sources of gases and is considered prima facie obvious, and also since Davey’s plant, as modified above, is reasonably capable of functioning in the same manner with a different type of source of flare gas, absent evidence to the criticality or new or unexpected results. See MPEP 2144.04.
Claims 20, 22, 68, 70, 85, 92 and 95 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davey in view of Wynn, N. (US Pat. Pub. No. 2014/0005285, hereinafter Wynn).
In regard to Claims 20 and 22, Davey discloses the plant as recited in claim 19, but fails to disclose wherein the reactive separation process comprises a sweep, wherein the sweep comprises a gaseous sweep.
However, Wynn teaches a methanol production process and system that includes a sweep-based membrane separation step using a membrane that is selective to carbon dioxide over hydrogen. Carbon dioxide recovered from the membrane separation step is recycled back to the methanol production process, resulting in sequestration of carbon dioxide and production of additional methanol (see paragraph [0001]).
Wynn further teaches the methanol production process and system comprises a feed stream of natural gas (#201), i.e. flare gas, and steam (#202), are fed into a reformer (#203) resulting in the production of syngas (#204). The syngas (#204) is then compressed and carried to a methanol synthesis reactor (#207), i.e. reaction unit, to produce a reaction product stream (#208) containing methanol and unreacted syngas. The reaction product stream (#208) is then condensed to separate a condensed stream (#210) containing methanol and water and an overhead stream (#211) containing unreacted syngas and enriched in hydrogen and inerts, and a portion of the overhead stream (#211) is passed as a methanol synthesis loop syngas (#213) to a membrane unit (#214) that includes membranes (#215) selective for carbon dioxide over hydrogen, methane and nitrogen. Methanol synthesis loop syngas (#213) flows as a sweep gas across the permeate side of the membranes and a carbon dioxide-containing gas (#216) flows across the feed side (see figure 2 and paragraphs [0066], [0068], [0070]-[0071] and [0080]).
It would have been obvious by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify the plant as disclosed by Davey by substituting a known reactive separation process for another known reactive separation process, such as wherein the reactive separation process comprises a sweep and the sweep comprises a gaseous sweep, as claimed by the applicant, with a reasonable expectation of success, as Wynn teaches a methanol production process and system that includes a sweep-based membrane separation step using a membrane that is selective to carbon dioxide over hydrogen, the methanol production process and system comprises a feed stream of natural gas, i.e. flare gas, and steam, are fed into a reformer resulting in the production of syngas, wherein the syngas is then compressed and carried to a methanol synthesis reactor, i.e. reaction unit, to produce a reaction product stream containing methanol and unreacted syngas, whereby the reaction product stream is then condensed to separate a condensed stream containing methanol and water and an overhead stream containing unreacted syngas and enriched in hydrogen and inerts, and a portion of the overhead stream is passed as a methanol synthesis loop syngas to a membrane unit that includes membranes selective for carbon dioxide over hydrogen, methane and nitrogen, and the methanol synthesis loop syngas flows as a sweep gas across the permeate side of the membranes and a carbon dioxide-containing gas flows across the feed side, whereby the carbon dioxide recovered from the membrane separation step is recycled back to the methanol production process, resulting in sequestration of carbon dioxide and production of additional methanol (see figure 2 and paragraphs [0066], [0068], [0070]-[0071] and [0080]).
In regard to Claims 68 and 70, Davey discloses the plant as recited in claim 67, but fails to disclose wherein the reactive separation process comprises a sweep, wherein the sweep comprises a gaseous sweep.
However, Wynn teaches a methanol production process and system that includes a sweep-based membrane separation step using a membrane that is selective to carbon dioxide over hydrogen. Carbon dioxide recovered from the membrane separation step is recycled back to the methanol production process, resulting in sequestration of carbon dioxide and production of additional methanol (see paragraph [0001]).
Wynn further teaches the methanol production process and system comprises a feed stream of natural gas (#201), i.e. flare gas, and steam (#202), are fed into a reformer (#203) resulting in the production of syngas (#204). The syngas (#204) is then compressed and carried to a methanol synthesis reactor (#207), i.e. reaction unit, to produce a reaction product stream (#208) containing methanol and unreacted syngas. The reaction product stream (#208) is then condensed to separate a condensed stream (#210) containing methanol and water and an overhead stream (#211) containing unreacted syngas and enriched in hydrogen and inerts, and a portion of the overhead stream (#211) is passed as a methanol synthesis loop syngas (#213) to a membrane unit (#214) that includes membranes (#215) selective for carbon dioxide over hydrogen, methane and nitrogen. Methanol synthesis loop syngas (#213) flows as a sweep gas across the permeate side of the membranes and a carbon dioxide-containing gas (#216) flows across the feed side (see figure 2 and paragraphs [0066], [0068], [0070]-[0071] and [0080]).
It would have been obvious by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify the plant as disclosed by Davey by substituting a known reactive separation process for another known reactive separation process, such as wherein the reactive separation process comprises a sweep and the sweep comprises a gaseous sweep, as claimed by the applicant, with a reasonable expectation of success, as Wynn teaches a methanol production process and system that includes a sweep-based membrane separation step using a membrane that is selective to carbon dioxide over hydrogen, the methanol production process and system comprises a feed stream of natural gas, i.e. flare gas, and steam, are fed into a reformer resulting in the production of syngas, wherein the syngas is then compressed and carried to a methanol synthesis reactor, i.e. reaction unit, to produce a reaction product stream containing methanol and unreacted syngas, whereby the reaction product stream is then condensed to separate a condensed stream containing methanol and water and an overhead stream containing unreacted syngas and enriched in hydrogen and inerts, and a portion of the overhead stream is passed as a methanol synthesis loop syngas to a membrane unit that includes membranes selective for carbon dioxide over hydrogen, methane and nitrogen, and the methanol synthesis loop syngas flows as a sweep gas across the permeate side of the membranes and a carbon dioxide-containing gas flows across the feed side, whereby the carbon dioxide recovered from the membrane separation step is recycled back to the methanol production process, resulting in sequestration of carbon dioxide and production of additional methanol (see figure 2 and paragraphs [0066], [0068], [0070]-[0071] and [0080]).
In regard to Claim 85, Davey, in view of Wynn, discloses the plant as claimed in claim 68. Although Davey, as modified above, does not explicitly disclose wherein the source of flare gas is a biogas, changing the type of source of flare gas to another type of source of flare gas is a mere engineering design choice to maximize the production of valuable material from different sources of gases and is considered prima facie obvious, and also since Davey’s plant, as modified above, is reasonably capable of functioning in the same manner with a different type of source of flare gas, absent evidence to the criticality or new or unexpected results. See MPEP 2144.04.
In regard to Claim 92, Davey, in view of Wynn, discloses the plant of claim 20. Davey further discloses wherein the liquid product comprises ammonia (see figure 1 and paragraph [0035]; Davey discloses wherein in unit F, the ammonia synthesis gas (stream 8) is compressed and is converted by a catalyst into ammonia (stream 10).).
Examiner notes that although Davey, as modified above, is silent in regard to wherein the capacity for the plant is less than about 1,000bpd, Davey, as modified above, discloses substantially the same small-scale low capital intensity plant, as claimed by the applicant. Therefore, it is reasonably expected, absent evidence to the contrary, that Davey’s plant, as modified above, will be capable of functioning in the same manner as claimed, as it has been held that when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims claimed functions are considered prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2112.01.
Claims 72, 74 and 94 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davey in view of Bromberg, and further in view of Wynn.
In regard to Claims 72 and 74, Davey, in view of Bromberg, discloses the plant as recited in claim 71, but fails to disclose wherein the reactive separation process comprises a sweep, wherein the sweep comprises a gaseous sweep.
However, Wynn teaches a methanol production process and system that includes a sweep-based membrane separation step using a membrane that is selective to carbon dioxide over hydrogen. Carbon dioxide recovered from the membrane separation step is recycled back to the methanol production process, resulting in sequestration of carbon dioxide and production of additional methanol (see paragraph [0001]).
Wynn further teaches the methanol production process and system comprises a feed stream of natural gas (#201), i.e. flare gas, and steam (#202), are fed into a reformer (#203) resulting in the production of syngas (#204). The syngas (#204) is then compressed and carried to a methanol synthesis reactor (#207), i.e. reaction unit, to produce a reaction product stream (#208) containing methanol and unreacted syngas. The reaction product stream (#208) is then condensed to separate a condensed stream (#210) containing methanol and water and an overhead stream (#211) containing unreacted syngas and enriched in hydrogen and inerts, and a portion of the overhead stream (#211) is passed as a methanol synthesis loop syngas (#213) to a membrane unit (#214) that includes membranes (#215) selective for carbon dioxide over hydrogen, methane and nitrogen. Methanol synthesis loop syngas (#213) flows as a sweep gas across the permeate side of the membranes and a carbon dioxide-containing gas (#216) flows across the feed side (see figure 2 and paragraphs [0066], [0068], [0070]-[0071] and [0080]).
It would have been obvious by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify the plant as disclosed by Davey, in view of Bromberg, by substituting a known reactive separation process for another known reactive separation process, such as wherein the reactive separation process comprises a sweep and the sweep comprises a gaseous sweep, as claimed by the applicant, with a reasonable expectation of success, as Wynn teaches a methanol production process and system that includes a sweep-based membrane separation step using a membrane that is selective to carbon dioxide over hydrogen, the methanol production process and system comprises a feed stream of natural gas, i.e. flare gas, and steam, are fed into a reformer resulting in the production of syngas, wherein the syngas is then compressed and carried to a methanol synthesis reactor, i.e. reaction unit, to produce a reaction product stream containing methanol and unreacted syngas, whereby the reaction product stream is then condensed to separate a condensed stream containing methanol and water and an overhead stream containing unreacted syngas and enriched in hydrogen and inerts, and a portion of the overhead stream is passed as a methanol synthesis loop syngas to a membrane unit that includes membranes selective for carbon dioxide over hydrogen, methane and nitrogen, and the methanol synthesis loop syngas flows as a sweep gas across the permeate side of the membranes and a carbon dioxide-containing gas flows across the feed side, whereby the carbon dioxide recovered from the membrane separation step is recycled back to the methanol production process, resulting in sequestration of carbon dioxide and production of additional methanol (see figure 2 and paragraphs [0066], [0068], [0070]-[0071] and [0080]).
In regard to Claim 94, Davey, in view of Bromberg and Wynn, discloses the plant as recited in claim 72. Davey further discloses wherein the liquid product consists of refined grade methanol (see figure 1 and paragraph [0045]). Although Davey, as modified above, does not explicitly disclose wherein the source of flare gas is a landfill, changing the type of source of flare gas to another type of source of flare gas is a mere engineering design choice to maximize the production of valuable material from different sources of gases and is considered prima facie obvious, and also since Davey’s plant, as modified above, is reasonably capable of functioning in the same manner with a different type of source of flare gas, absent evidence to the criticality or new or unexpected results. See MPEP 2144.04.
Claims 20-21, 68-69 and 95 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davey in view of Li et al. (Methanol synthesis in a high-pressure membrane reactor with liquid sweep, hereinafter Li).
In regard to Claims 20-21, Davey discloses the plant as recited in claim 19, but fails to disclose wherein the reactive separation process comprises a sweep, wherein the sweep comprises a liquid sweep.
However, Li teaches a methanol synthesis membrane reactor for carrying out the conversion of syngas to methanol within the membrane reactor. A novel high-pressure membrane reactor employing a liquid sweep was applied to the methanol synthesis reaction, aiming to increase the per single-pass conversion. A methanol synthesis catalyst was used for the reaction, loaded in the membrane reactor (MS) shell-side, while the tube-side was swept with a high boiling point organic solvent, i.e. liquid sweep, with high solubility towards methanol. The membrane reactor showed improved carbon conversion when compared to the conventional packed-bed reactor operating under the same conditions (see abstract).
In this work, a membrane with the desired characteristics serves as an interface contactor in between the methanol synthesis environment in the shell-side and a liquid sweep solvent flow in the membrane permeate-side. By removing in situ the methanol generated, this allows the reactor conversion to reach beyond equilibrium. In the proposed process, the separation selectivity is provided by the sweep liquid used and not the membrane, and thus commercial off-the-self inorganic membranes can be utilized, which require no further major developmental effort beyond modifying the hydrophobicity of their surface (see page 104, right column, 1st paragraph).
It would have been obvious by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify the plant as disclosed by Davey by substituting a known reactive separation process for another known reactive separation process, such as wherein the reactive separation process comprises a sweep and the sweep comprises a liquid sweep, as claimed by the applicant, with a reasonable expectation of success, as Li teaches a methanol synthesis membrane reactor for carrying out the conversion of syngas to methanol within the membrane reactor, wherein a novel high-pressure membrane reactor employing a liquid sweep was applied to the methanol synthesis reaction, aiming to increase the per single-pass conversion, whereby a methanol synthesis catalyst was used for the reaction, loaded in the membrane reactor (MS) shell-side, while the tube-side was swept with a high boiling point organic solvent, i.e. liquid sweep, with high solubility towards methanol, wherein the membrane reactor showed improved carbon conversion when compared to the conventional packed-bed reactor operating under the same conditions, and by removing in situ the methanol generated, this allows the reactor conversion to reach beyond equilibrium (see abstract and page 104, right column, 1st paragraph).
In regard to Claims 68-69, Davey discloses the plant as recited in claim 67, but fails to disclose wherein the reactive separation process comprises a sweep, wherein the sweep comprises a liquid sweep.
However, Li teaches a methanol synthesis membrane reactor for carrying out the conversion of syngas to methanol within the membrane reactor. A novel high-pressure membrane reactor employing a liquid sweep was applied to the methanol synthesis reaction, aiming to increase the per single-pass conversion. A methanol synthesis catalyst was used for the reaction, loaded in the membrane reactor (MS) shell-side, while the tube-side was swept with a high boiling point organic solvent, i.e. liquid sweep, with high solubility towards methanol. The membrane reactor showed improved carbon conversion when compared to the conventional packed-bed reactor operating under the same conditions (see abstract).
In this work, a membrane with the desired characteristics serves as an interface contactor in between the methanol synthesis environment in the shell-side and a liquid sweep solvent flow in the membrane permeate-side. By removing in situ the methanol generated, this allows the reactor conversion to reach beyond equilibrium. In the proposed process, the separation selectivity is provided by the sweep liquid used and not the membrane, and thus commercial off-the-self inorganic membranes can be utilized, which require no further major developmental effort beyond modifying the hydrophobicity of their surface (see page 104, right column, 1st paragraph).
It would have been obvious by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify the plant as disclosed by Davey by substituting a known reactive separation process for another known reactive separation process, such as wherein the reactive separation process comprises a sweep and the sweep comprises a liquid sweep, as claimed by the applicant, with a reasonable expectation of success, as Li teaches a methanol synthesis membrane reactor for carrying out the conversion of syngas to methanol within the membrane reactor, wherein a novel high-pressure membrane reactor employing a liquid sweep was applied to the methanol synthesis reaction, aiming to increase the per single-pass conversion, whereby a methanol synthesis catalyst was used for the reaction, loaded in the membrane reactor (MS) shell-side, while the tube-side was swept with a high boiling point organic solvent, i.e. liquid sweep, with high solubility towards methanol, wherein the membrane reactor showed improved carbon conversion when compared to the conventional packed-bed reactor operating under the same conditions, and by removing in situ the methanol generated, this allows the reactor conversion to reach beyond equilibrium (see abstract and page 104, right column, 1st paragraph).
In regard to Claim 95, Davey, in view of Li, discloses the plant of claim 21. Davey further discloses wherein the liquid product comprises ammonia (see figure 1 and paragraph [0035]; Davey discloses wherein in unit F, the ammonia synthesis gas (stream 8) is compressed and is converted by a catalyst into ammonia (stream 10).).
Although Davey, as modified above, does not explicitly disclose wherein the source of flare gas is a landfill, changing the type of source of flare gas to another type of source of flare gas is a mere engineering design choice to maximize the production of valuable material from different sources of gases and is considered prima facie obvious, and also since Davey’s plant, as modified above, is reasonably capable of functioning in the same manner with a different type of source of flare gas, absent evidence to the criticality or new or unexpected results. See MPEP 2144.04.
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davey in view of Roesch et al. (US Pat. Pub. No. 2018/0258019, hereinafter Roesch).
In regard to Claim 26, Davey discloses the plant as recited in claim 19, but fails to disclose further comprising a methanol refining unit.
However, Roesch teaches a method and system for the co-production of hydrogen and methanol by reforming of hydrocarbons to synthesis gas. A hydrocarbon feed stream (#101), such as natural gas, is introduced into a synthesis gas (syngas) reactor (#103), i.e. reformer, and thus produces a synthesis gas. The syngas stream is further split into a first (#126) and second (#127) stream and the second stream (#127) is introduced into a methanol synthesis loop reactor (#110), thereby producing a crude methanol stream. The crude methanol is separated from the unreacted synthesis gas by means of a gas liquid separation device (not shown), i.e. reactive separation. The separated crude methanol may be sent to a methanol distillation unit (#111), i.e. methanol refining unit, to make a high purity methanol as a product (#114) (see figure 3 and paragraphs [0056]-[0059]).
It would have been obvious by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify the plant as disclosed by Davey by further including a methanol refining unit, as claimed by the applicant, with a reasonable expectation of success, as Roesch teaches a method and system for the co-production of hydrogen and methanol by reforming of hydrocarbons to synthesis gas, wherein a hydrocarbon feed stream, such as natural gas, is introduced into a synthesis gas reactor, i.e. reformer, and thus produces a synthesis gas, whereby the syngas stream is further split into a first and second stream and the second stream is introduced into a methanol synthesis loop reactor, thereby producing a crude methanol stream which is further separated from the unreacted synthesis gas by means of a gas liquid separation device, i.e. reactive separation, and the separated crude methanol may be sent to a methanol distillation unit, i.e. methanol refining unit, to make a high purity methanol as a product (see figure 3 and paragraphs [0056]-[0059]).
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davey in view of Wynn, and further in view of Roesch.
In regard to Claim 26, Davey, in view of Wynn, discloses the plant as recited in claims 20 or 22, but fails to disclose further comprising a methanol refining unit.
However, Roesch teaches a method and system for the co-production of hydrogen and methanol by reforming of hydrocarbons to synthesis gas. A hydrocarbon feed stream (#101), such as natural gas, is introduced into a synthesis gas (syngas) reactor (#103), i.e. reformer, and thus produces a synthesis gas. The syngas stream is further split into a first (#126) and second (#127) stream and the second stream (#127) is introduced into a methanol synthesis loop reactor (#110), thereby producing a crude methanol stream. The crude methanol is separated from the unreacted synthesis gas by means of a gas liquid separation device (not shown), i.e. reactive separation. The separated crude methanol may be sent to a methanol distillation unit (#111), i.e. methanol refining unit, to make a high purity methanol as a product (#114) (see figure 3 and paragraphs [0056]-[0059]).
It would have been obvious by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify the plant as disclosed by Davey, in view of Wynn, by further including a methanol refining unit, as claimed by the applicant, with a reasonable expectation of success, as Roesch teaches a method and system for the co-production of hydrogen and methanol by reforming of hydrocarbons to synthesis gas, wherein a hydrocarbon feed stream, such as natural gas, is introduced into a synthesis gas reactor, i.e. reformer, and thus produces a synthesis gas, whereby the syngas stream is further split into a first and second stream and the second stream is introduced into a methanol synthesis loop reactor, thereby producing a crude methanol stream which is further separated from the unreacted synthesis gas by means of a gas liquid separation device, i.e. reactive separation, and the separated crude methanol may be sent to a methanol distillation unit, i.e. methanol refining unit, to make a high purity methanol as a product (see figure 3 and paragraphs [0056]-[0059]).
Claims 72-73 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davey, in view of Bromberg, and further in view of Li.
In regard to Claims 72-73, Davey, in view of Bromberg, discloses the plant as recited in claim 71, but fails to disclose wherein the reactive separation process comprises a sweep, wherein the sweep comprises a liquid sweep.
However, Li teaches a methanol synthesis membrane reactor for carrying out the conversion of syngas to methanol within the membrane reactor. A novel high-pressure membrane reactor employing a liquid sweep was applied to the methanol synthesis reaction, aiming to increase the per single-pass conversion. A methanol synthesis catalyst was used for the reaction, loaded in the membrane reactor (MS) shell-side, while the tube-side was swept with a high boiling point organic solvent, i.e. liquid sweep, with high solubility towards methanol. The membrane reactor showed improved carbon conversion when compared to the conventional packed-bed reactor operating under the same conditions (see abstract).
In this work, a membrane with the desired characteristics serves as an interface contactor in between the methanol synthesis environment in the shell-side and a liquid sweep solvent flow in the membrane permeate-side. By removing in situ the methanol generated, this allows the reactor conversion to reach beyond equilibrium. In the proposed process, the separation selectivity is provided by the sweep liquid used and not the membrane, and thus commercial off-the-self inorganic membranes can be utilized, which require no further major developmental effort beyond modifying the hydrophobicity of their surface (see page 104, right column, 1st paragraph).
It would have been obvious by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify the plant as disclosed by Davey, in view of Bromberg, by substituting a known reactive separation process for another known reactive separation process, such as wherein the reactive separation process comprises a sweep and the sweep comprises a liquid sweep, as claimed by the applicant, with a reasonable expectation of success, as Li teaches a methanol synthesis membrane reactor for carrying out the conversion of syngas to methanol within the membrane reactor, wherein a novel high-pressure membrane reactor employing a liquid sweep was applied to the methanol synthesis reaction, aiming to increase the per single-pass conversion, whereby a methanol synthesis catalyst was used for the reaction, loaded in the membrane reactor (MS) shell-side, while the tube-side was swept with a high boiling point organic solvent, i.e. liquid sweep, with high solubility towards methanol, wherein the membrane reactor showed improved carbon conversion when compared to the conventional packed-bed reactor operating under the same conditions, and by removing in situ the methanol generated, this allows the reactor conversion to reach beyond equilibrium (see abstract and page 104, right column, 1st paragraph).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JELITZA M PEREZ whose telephone number is (571)272-8139. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00am-6:00pm.
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, Claire Wang can be reached at (571) 270-1051. 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.
/JELITZA M PEREZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1774
