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 with traverse of Species 3, Claims 1, 4, 6, 11 and 28-32 in the reply filed on June 22, 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the grounds that “The Office Action improperly treats Mortensen's induction-heated reactor as equivalent to the claimed electric resistance-heated reactor. A person of ordinary skill in the art would not regard these reactor technologies as equivalent. Claim 1 does not merely require a reactor that uses electrical power. Rather, claim 1 specifically requires an electric resistance-heated reactor. To a person of ordinary skill in the art, a resistance-heated reactor is one in which the process heat required for the chemical reaction is generated by Joule heating in a resistive heating element. Mortensen discloses a different heating mechanism. In Mortensen, alternating current is supplied to an induction coil, which generates an alternating magnetic field that transfers energy to a separate material through electromagnetic induction. The process heat is therefore generated by induction heating, not resistance heating. The Office nevertheless concludes that Mortensen discloses a resistance-heated reactor because current flowing through the induction coil may produce some resistive heating of the coil. This reasoning conflates incidental electrical losses with the mechanism by which process heat is generated. Paragraph [0015] of Mortensen does not state that induction heating and resistance heating are synonymous. Rather, it states that certain forms of heating generated by electrical currents may be referred to as "ohmic," "resistive," or "Joule" heating. In Mortensen, however, those currents are generated by electromagnetic induction from an induction coil. Thus, the cited passage does not alter the fundamental fact that Mortensen discloses an induction-heated reactor, not an electric resistance-heated reactor. The relevant inquiry is not whether some component of the induction system experiences resistive heating. The relevant inquiry is whether the process heat for the RWGS reaction is generated by resistance heating. Mortensen discloses that it is generated by electromagnetic induction. Accepting the Office's reasoning would effectively eliminate the distinction between induction heating and resistance heating, since every practical induction-heating system necessarily contains conductors exhibiting resistive losses. Such a conclusion is inconsistent with the ordinary and customary meaning of these terms as understood by persons of ordinary skill in the art. Accordingly, Mortensen does not disclose or suggest the claimed electric resistance- heated reactor.
This is not found persuasive because even if, assuming arguendo, that Mortensen discloses inductive heating instead of resistance-heated reactor, Mortensen clearly discloses in paragraph [0020] that in addition to the induction heating, the catalyst material may be heated directly by ohmic/resistive heating due to the passage of electric current through the windings of the induction coil. Therefore, Mortensen broadly reasonably discloses that the reactor may be heated by resistive heating and hence, it is the examiner’s position that this may be reasonably broadly interpreted as an electric-resistance heated reactor, as claimed by the applicant. In view of this, the argument is not considered persuasive, and the rejection is thereby maintained. Claims 2-3, 5, 7-10 and 12-27 have been withdrawn as being directed to a non-elected invention.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 15 of copending Application No. 18/276341 in view of Mortensen et al. (WO2019/110265A1, rejection relied on US equivalent Pub. No. 2020/0377365, hereinafter Mortensen).
Claim 15 of copending application 18/276341 contains substantially similar limitations of claim 1 of instant invention except wherein said e-RWGS section comprises a structured catalyst comprising a macroscopic structure of electrically conductive material capable of catalysing both a reverse water gas-shift reaction and a methanation reaction, and wherein said e-RWGS section comprises an electric resistance-heated reactor for carrying out the reverse water gas shift reaction.
However, Mortensen teaches a system and process for reforming a hydrocarbon feed stream. The system comprises a post converter (#20), i.e. syngas stage, housing a second catalyst (#25) active in catalyzing steam methanation and reverse water gas shift reactions (see paragraphs [0052]-[0055]). A power source (#30) is provided and electrical lines (#31) are provided between the power source (#30) and the post converter (#20) and/or between the power source and the second catalyst (#25) within the post converter (#20). In the case, where the second catalyst (#25) is arranged to be heated by resistance heating, the electrical lines (#31) connect the power source and the second catalyst (#25) (see figure 1 and paragraphs [0066] and [0069]). This is considered equivalent to wherein the syngas stage comprises an electrically heated reverse water gas shift (e-RWGS) section, as claimed by the applicant.
Further, the post converter (#20) comprises a first feed comprising hydrogen (#4) and a second feed (#5) comprising carbon dioxide to the e-RWGS section, or a combined feed (#6) comprising hydrogen and carbon dioxide to the e-RWGS section (see paragraphs [0067] and [0070]). The e-RWGS section (#20, #25) is arranged to convert at least one of (i) at least a portion of said first feed (#4) and at least a portion of said second feed (#5), or (ii) at least a portion of said combined feed (#6), into a first syngas stream (#7), and feed the first syngas stream (#7), optionally in combination with a second syngas stream or further reformed to form a second syngas stream, to a synthesis stage (see paragraph [0067]). The e-RWGS section (#20, #25) comprises an electric resistance-heated reactor (#20, #30, #31) for carrying out the reverse water gas shift reaction (see figure 1 and paragraphs [0066] and [0069]).
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 15 of copending application 18/276341 by further having the e-RWGS section to comprise a structured catalyst comprising a macroscopic structure of electrically conductive material capable of catalysing both a reverse water gas-shift reaction and a methanation reaction, and wherein said e-RWGS section comprises an electric resistance-heated reactor for carrying out the reverse water gas shift reaction, as claimed by the applicant, with a reasonable expectation of success, as Mortensen teaches a system and process for reforming a hydrocarbon feed stream comprising a post converter, i.e. syngas stage, housing a second catalyst active in catalyzing steam methanation and reverse water gas shift reactions, a power source and electrical lines provided between the power source and the post converter and/or between the power source and the second catalyst within the post converter, whereby in the case, where the second catalyst is arranged to be heated by resistance heating, the electrical lines connect the power source and the second catalyst, wherein the post converter further comprises a first feed comprising hydrogen and a second feed comprising carbon dioxide to the e-RWGS section, or a combined feed comprising hydrogen and carbon dioxide to the e-RWGS section, and the e-RWGS section is arranged to convert at least one of (i) at least a portion of said first feed and at least a portion of said second feed, or (ii) at least a portion of said combined feed, into a first syngas stream, and feed the first syngas stream, optionally in combination with a second syngas stream or further reformed to form a second syngas stream, to a synthesis stage, and the e-RWGS section comprises an electric resistance-heated reactor for carrying out the reverse water gas shift reaction, thereby obtaining a compact catalytic arranged to provide heat for the reactions, and thus for a compact post converter (see figure 1 and paragraphs [0032], [0052]-[0055], [0066]-[0067] and [0069]-[0070]).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 12 of copending Application No. 18/727613 in view of Singh.
Claim 12 of copending application no. 18/727613 contains substantially similar structural limitations as in claim 1 of instant invention except a synthesis gas stage.
However, Singh teaches a system for producing high octane fuel from carbon dioxide and water. The reverse water gas shift reaction has been shown to be a feasible method to convert carbon dioxide to carbon monoxide with close to 100% equilibrium conversion. This opens up the possibility to produce high quality syngas of any desirable composition from hydrogen and carbon dioxide (see paragraph [0033]). In the system, a hydrogen feed (#6) is transferred through line (#116) and mixed with carbon dioxide (#1) to produce a H2:CO2 mixture (#11) suitable for optimum performance of the reverse water gas shift reactor (RWGS) (#13) for converting the carbon dioxide and hydrogen mixture to carbon monoxide and water (#113, #22), i.e. syngas stream (see paragraphs [0039]- [0040]). Further, the carbon monoxide and water gas mixture (#113, #22), i.e. syngas stream, is then fed directly to a Fisher-Tropsch (“FT”) reactor (#33), i.e. synthesis stage, to produce C10-C20 hydrocarbons, i.e. product stream (see figure 3 and paragraph [0044]).
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 12 of copending application 18/727613 by further taking the first product gas comprising CO for further processing to a synthesis stage, as claimed by the applicant, with a reasonable expectation of success, as Singh teaches a system for producing high octane fuel from carbon dioxide and water, whereby a hydrogen feed is transferred through line and mixed with carbon dioxide to produce a H2:CO2 mixture suitable for optimum performance of the reverse water gas shift reactor (RWGS) for converting the carbon dioxide and hydrogen mixture to carbon monoxide and water, i.e. syngas stream, and further, the carbon monoxide and water gas mixture, i.e. syngas stream, is then fed directly to a Fisher-Tropsch (“FT”) reactor (#33), i.e. synthesis stage, to produce C10-C20 hydrocarbons, i.e. product stream, thereby obtaining a feasible method to convert carbon dioxide to carbon monoxide with close to 100% equilibrium conversion, which opens up the possibility to produce high quality syngas of any desirable composition from hydrogen and carbon dioxide, and hence, obtaining an efficient way to produce sulfur-free, high octane gasoline or high cetane diesel which can immediately replace the currently used gasoline and diesel distilled from petroleum oil without time-consuming technical developments and major infrastructural changes (see figure 3 and paragraphs [0033], [0035], [0039]-[0040] and [0044]).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claims 1 and 33 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12, 201,954 in view of Singh et al. (US Pat. Pub. No. 2012/0201717, hereinafter Singh).
Claim 1 of US Pat. No. 12,201,954 discloses substantially similar limitations as in claim 1 of instant invention except a synthesis stage.
However, Singh teaches a system for producing high octane fuel from carbon dioxide and water. The reverse water gas shift reaction has been shown to be a feasible method to convert carbon dioxide to carbon monoxide with close to 100% equilibrium conversion. This opens up the possibility to produce high quality syngas of any desirable composition from hydrogen and carbon dioxide (see paragraph [0033]). In the system, a hydrogen feed (#6) is transferred through line (#116) and mixed with carbon dioxide (#1) to produce a H2:CO2 mixture (#11) suitable for optimum performance of the reverse water gas shift reactor (RWGS) (#13) for converting the carbon dioxide and hydrogen mixture to carbon monoxide and water (#113, #22), i.e. syngas stream (see paragraphs [0039]- [0040]). Further, the carbon monoxide and water gas mixture (#113, #22), i.e. syngas stream, is then fed directly to a Fisher-Tropsch (“FT”) reactor (#33), i.e. synthesis stage, to produce C10-C20 hydrocarbons, i.e. product stream (see figure 3 and paragraph [0044]).
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 1 of US Pat. No. 12,201,954 by further taking the first product gas comprising CO for further processing to a synthesis stage, as claimed by the applicant, with a reasonable expectation of success, as Singh teaches a system for producing high octane fuel from carbon dioxide and water, whereby a hydrogen feed is transferred through line and mixed with carbon dioxide to produce a H2:CO2 mixture suitable for optimum performance of the reverse water gas shift reactor (RWGS) for converting the carbon dioxide and hydrogen mixture to carbon monoxide and water, i.e. syngas stream, and further, the carbon monoxide and water gas mixture, i.e. syngas stream, is then fed directly to a Fisher-Tropsch (“FT”) reactor (#33), i.e. synthesis stage, to produce C10-C20 hydrocarbons, i.e. product stream, thereby obtaining a feasible method to convert carbon dioxide to carbon monoxide with close to 100% equilibrium conversion, which opens up the possibility to produce high quality syngas of any desirable composition from hydrogen and carbon dioxide, and hence, obtaining an efficient way to produce sulfur-free, high octane gasoline or high cetane diesel which can immediately replace the currently used gasoline and diesel distilled from petroleum oil without time-consuming technical developments and major infrastructural changes (see figure 3 and paragraphs [0033], [0035], [0039]-[0040] and [0044]).
Claim 1 of US Pat. No. 12,201,954 contains substantially similar structure limitations as claimed in Claim 33 of instant invention, thereby reading on the subject matter of the claimed invention.
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 1, 4, 6, 11 and 28-32 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 1 recites: “…(ii) at least a portion of said combined feed, into the first syngas stream, and feed the first syngas stream, optionally in combination with a second syngas stream or further reformed to form a second gas stream…” The term “optional” is considered indefinite because it is unclear if the structural limitation is or is not a necessary part of the subject matter of the invention.
Claim 28 recites: “…optionally, supplying at least a part of a third feed comprising hydrocarbons, to the e- RWGS section; - converting at least a portion of said first feed and at least a portion of said second feed, or at least a portion of said combined feed, into a first syngas stream, in said e-RWGS section; - feeding said first syngas stream to the synthesis stage; -converting said syngas stream into at least a product stream and, optionally, at least a hydrocarbon-containing off-gas stream in said synthesis stage.”
The term “optional” is considered indefinite because it is unclear if the structural limitation is or is not a necessary part of the subject matter of the invention.
Claims 4, 6, 11 and 29-33 are rejected because they depend on rejected claim 1.
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 1, 6, 28 and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mortensen et al. (WO2019/110265A1, rejection relied on US equivalent Pub. No. 2020/0377365, hereinafter Mortensen) in view of Singh et al. (US Pat. Pub. No. 2012/0201717, hereinafter Singh).
In regards to Claim 1, Mortensen discloses a plant (#100), said plant comprising:
a syngas stage (#20 post converter), said syngas stage (#20) comprising an electrically heated reverse water gas shift (e-RWGS) section (post converter #20 housing a second catalyst #25 active in catalyzing steam methanation and reverse water gas shift reactions) (see figure 1 and paragraphs [0066] and [0069]; Mortensen discloses a power source #30 is provided and electrical lines #31 are provided between the power source #30 and the post converter #20 and/or between the power source and the second catalyst #25 within the post converter #20. In the case, where the second catalyst #25 is arranged to be heated by resistance heating, the electrical lines #31 connect the power source and the second catalyst #25. This is considered equivalent to wherein the syngas stage comprises an electrically heated reverse water gas shift (e-RWGS) section, as claimed by the applicant.); and
a synthesis stage (see paragraph [0067]; product synthesis gas #7 may undergo further processing downstream of the post converter #20);
said plant (#100) comprising:
a first feed comprising hydrogen (#4) to the e-RWGS section, and a second feed (#5) comprising carbon dioxide to the e-RWGS section (see paragraph [0070]); or
(ii) a combined feed (#6) comprising hydrogen and carbon dioxide to the e-RWGS section (see figure 1 and paragraph [0070]);
wherein said e-RWGS section (#20, #25) is arranged to convert at least one of (i) at least a portion of said first feed (#4) and at least a portion of said second feed (#5), or (ii) at least a portion of said combined feed (#6), into a first syngas stream (#7), and feed the first syngas stream (#7), optionally in combination with a second syngas stream or further reformed to form a second syngas stream, to the synthesis stage (see paragraph [0067]),
wherein said e-RWGS section (#20, #25) comprises a structured catalyst comprising a macroscopic structure of electrically conductive material capable of catalysing both a reverse water gas shift reaction and a methanation reaction (see paragraphs [0052]-[0055]; Mortensen discloses wherein the second catalyst comprises a macroscopic support comprising an electrically conductive material capable of catalysing both a reverse water gas shift reaction and a methanation reaction.), and
wherein said e-RWGS section (#20, #25) comprises an electric resistance-heated reactor (#20, #30, #31) for carrying out the reverse water gas shift reaction (see figure 1 and paragraphs [0066] and [0069]).
Mortensen discloses wherein the product synthesis gas (#7) may undergo further processing downstream of the post converter (#20), but does not explicitly disclose a synthesis stage.
However, Singh teaches a system for producing high octane fuel from carbon dioxide and water. The reverse water gas shift reaction has been shown to be a feasible method to convert carbon dioxide to carbon monoxide with close to 100% equilibrium conversion. This opens up the possibility to produce high quality syngas of any desirable composition from hydrogen and carbon dioxide (see paragraph [0033]). In the system, a hydrogen feed (#6) is transferred through line (#116) and mixed with carbon dioxide (#1) to produce a H2:CO2 mixture (#11) suitable for optimum performance of the reverse water gas shift reactor (RWGS) (#13) for converting the carbon dioxide and hydrogen mixture to carbon monoxide and water (#113, #22), i.e. syngas stream (see paragraphs [0039]- [0040]). Further, the carbon monoxide and water gas mixture (#113, #22), i.e. syngas stream, is then fed directly to a Fisher-Tropsch (“FT”) reactor (#33), i.e. synthesis stage, to produce C10-C20 hydrocarbons, i.e. product stream (see figure 3 and paragraph [0044]).
Since Mortensen clearly discloses that the product synthesis gas may undergo further processing downstream of the post converter, i.e. RWGS, 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 Mortensen by further taking the product synthesis gas for further processing to a synthesis stage, as claimed by the applicant, with a reasonable expectation of success, as Singh teaches a system for producing high octane fuel from carbon dioxide and water, whereby a hydrogen feed is transferred through line and mixed with carbon dioxide to produce a H2:CO2 mixture suitable for optimum performance of the reverse water gas shift reactor (RWGS) for converting the carbon dioxide and hydrogen mixture to carbon monoxide and water, i.e. syngas stream, and further, the carbon monoxide and water gas mixture, i.e. syngas stream, is then fed directly to a Fisher-Tropsch (“FT”) reactor (#33), i.e. synthesis stage, to produce C10-C20 hydrocarbons, i.e. product stream, thereby obtaining a feasible method to convert carbon dioxide to carbon monoxide with close to 100% equilibrium conversion, which opens up the possibility to produce high quality syngas of any desirable composition from hydrogen and carbon dioxide, and hence, obtaining an efficient way to produce sulfur-free, high octane gasoline or high cetane diesel which can immediately replace the currently used gasoline and diesel distilled from petroleum oil without time-consuming technical developments and major infrastructural changes (see figure 3 and paragraphs [0033], [0035], [0039]-[0040] and [0044]).
In regards to Claim 6, Mortensen discloses wherein the content of methane in the synthesis gas stream sent to the synthesis stage is less than 5% (see paragraph [0077], Table 1, Example; Mortensen discloses a synthesis gas stream leaving the post converter #20, i.e. e-RWGS, containing a total flow of 6545, and the total flow containing CO2: 1286, methane: 28, H2: 1602, CO: 2287, H2O: 1342.
Therefore, % methane= 28/6545 x100=0.4%, which falls inside the claimed range of less than 5%, as claimed by the applicant, thereby making the claimed range prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2144.05.).
In regards to Claim 28, Mortensen discloses a method for producing a product stream, said method comprising the steps of:
- providing a plant (#100) as defined in claim 1 (see figure 1 and paragraph [0066]);
- supplying at least a part of the first feed comprising hydrogen (#4) to the e-RWGS section (#20, #25); and supplying at least a part of the second feed (#5) comprising carbon dioxide to the e- RWGS section (#20, #25) (see figure 1 and paragraphs [0066]-[0067]);
- or supplying a combined feed comprising hydrogen and carbon dioxide (#6) to the e-RWGS section (#20, #25) (see figure 1 and paragraphs [0066]-[0067] and [0070]);
- optionally, supplying at least a part of a third feed comprising hydrocarbons, to the e- RWGS section;
- converting at least a portion of said first feed (#4) and at least a portion of said second feed (#5),or at least a portion of said combined feed (#6), into a first syngas stream (#7), in said e-RWGS section (#20, #25) (see figure 1 and paragraphs [0066]-[0068] and [0070]); and
- feeding said first syngas stream (#7) to the synthesis stage (see paragraph [0067]).
Mortensen is silent in regards to wherein the first syngas stream is fed to the synthesis stage and converting said syngas stream into at least a product stream, and optionally, at least a hydrocarbon-containing off-gas stream in said synthesis stage.
However, Singh teaches a system for producing high octane fuel from carbon dioxide and water. The reverse water gas shift reaction has been shown to be a feasible method to convert carbon dioxide to carbon monoxide with close to 100% equilibrium conversion. This opens up the possibility to produce high quality syngas of any desirable composition from hydrogen and carbon dioxide (see paragraph [0033]). In the system, a hydrogen feed (#6) is transferred through line (#116) and mixed with carbon dioxide (#1) to produce a H2:CO2 mixture (#11) suitable for optimum performance of the reverse water gas shift reactor (RWGS) (#13) for converting the carbon dioxide and hydrogen mixture to carbon monoxide and water (#113, #22), i.e. syngas stream (see paragraphs [0039]- [0040]). Further, the carbon monoxide and water gas mixture (#113, #22), i.e. syngas stream, is then fed directly to a Fisher-Tropsch (“FT”) reactor (#33), i.e. synthesis stage, to produce C10-C20 hydrocarbons, i.e. product stream, and optionally, at least a hydrocarbon-containing off-gas stream (#28) in said synthesis stage (see figure 3 and paragraphs [0044] and [0047]).
Since Mortensen clearly discloses that the product synthesis gas may undergo further processing downstream of the post converter, i.e. RWGS, 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 Mortensen by further taking the product synthesis gas for further processing and feeding it to a synthesis stage and converting said syngas stream into at least a product stream and optionally, at least a hydrocarbon-containing off-gas stream in said synthesis gas stage, as claimed by the applicant, with a reasonable expectation of success, as Singh teaches a system for producing high octane fuel from carbon dioxide and water, whereby a hydrogen feed is transferred through line and mixed with carbon dioxide to produce a H2:CO2 mixture suitable for optimum performance of the reverse water gas shift reactor (RWGS) for converting the carbon dioxide and hydrogen mixture to carbon monoxide and water, i.e. syngas stream, and further, the carbon monoxide and water gas mixture, i.e. syngas stream, is then fed directly to a Fisher-Tropsch (“FT”) reactor (#33), i.e. synthesis stage, to produce C10-C20 hydrocarbons, i.e. product stream, and at least a hydrocarbon-containing off-gas stream in said synthesis stage, thereby obtaining a feasible method to convert carbon dioxide to carbon monoxide with close to 100% equilibrium conversion, which opens up the possibility to produce high quality syngas of any desirable composition from hydrogen and carbon dioxide, and hence, obtaining an efficient way to produce sulfur-free, high octane gasoline or high cetane diesel which can immediately replace the currently used gasoline and diesel distilled from petroleum oil without time-consuming technical developments and major infrastructural changes (see figure 3 and paragraphs [0033], [0035], [0039]-[0040] and [0044]).
Examiner notes that the optional limitations presented in the claim do not need to be disclosed by the combination of Mortensen, in view of Singh, in order to arrive at the claimed invention.
In regards to Claim 32, Mortensen discloses wherein the synthesis stage (#33) is a Fischer-Tropsch (F-T) stage arranged to convert said syngas stream (#113, #22) into at least a hydrocarbon product stream (C10-C20 hydrocarbons) and a hydrocarbon-containing off-gas stream (#28) in the form of an F-T tail gas stream (see figure 3 and paragraph [0047]).
Claims 4, 11 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mortensen, in view of Singh, and further in view of Mortensen et al. (DK201700696A1, hereinafter ‘696).
In regards to Claim 4, Mortensen, in view of Singh, discloses the plant as recited in claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein said syngas stage comprises a reforming section arranged in parallel to said e-RWGS section, wherein said plant comprises a third feed comprising hydrocarbons to said reforming section, and wherein said reforming section is arranged to convert at least a portion of said third feed into said second syngas stream, and wherein the first syngas stream from the e-RWGS section is arranged to be combined with said second syngas stream from the reforming section to provide a combined syngas stream, and said combined syngas stream is arranged to be fed to the synthesis stage.
However, ‘696 teaches a system and process for production of synthesis gas. The system comprises a synthesis gas generation reactor (#10), i.e. reforming section, being arranged for producing a first synthesis gas, i.e. second synthesis gas, from a first hydrocarbon feed stream, a heat exchange reforming reactor (#20), i.e. e-RWGS section, comprising a pressure shell housing at least one reformer tube (#23) and arranged for reforming a second hydrocarbon feed stream by contacting the second hydrocarbon feed stream with a reforming catalyst for producing a second synthesis gas, i.e. first synthesis gas. The heat exchange reforming reactor (#20), i.e. e-RWGS section, is in parallel with the synthesis gas generation reactor (#10), i.e. reforming section. The combination of a synthesis gas generation reactor (#10) producing a first synthesis gas in parallel arrangement with a heat exchange reforming reactor (#20) having a feed conduit for supplying a CO2 rich gas into one or more of the reformer tubes, renders it possible to change the H/C and O/C ratios of the product synthesis gas to a gas which would have been considered critical with respect to carbon formation in a typical steam reformer configuration, without being critical in the concept of the invention. Thus, the H2/CO ratio of the resulting synthesis gas may be lower than the H2/CO ratio possible with only a synthesis gas generation reactor and a heat exchanger reforming reactor (see figure 1 and page 4, line 28 to page 5, line 19). When the system comprises a feed conduit for supplying a CO2 rich gas into one or more of the reformer tubes, steam methane reforming/methanation reactions as well as reverse water gas shift reaction take place over the reformer catalyst within the heat exchange reforming reactor (#20), i.e. e-RWGS section (see figure 1 and page 5, line 30 to page 6, line 1).
‘696 further teaches the synthesis gas generation reactor (#10) comprises a first inlet (#1), i.e. third feed comprising hydrocarbons, for feeding the first hydrocarbon feed stream, together with carbon dioxide (#4) into the synthesis gas generation reactor (#10), and an outlet (#11) for outletting the first synthesis gas, i.e. second syngas stream (see figure 1 and page 7, lines 14-18). The heat exchange reforming reactor (#20) receives the second hydrocarbon feed stream (#9) comprises a feed conduit for supplying a CO2 rich gas (#13) to the at least one reformer tube within the heat exchange reforming reactor (#20) for conversion into the product synthesis gas, i.e. first syngas stream. A part (#11b) of the first synthesis gas bypasses the heat exchange reforming reactor (#20) and may be combined with the product synthesis gas (#12), i.e. first syngas stream, to a second product synthesis gas (#15), i.e. combined syngas stream, and the second product synthesis gas (#15), i.e. combined syngas stream, may undergo further processing (see figure 1 and page 12, lines 5-27 and page 13, lines 1-7).
In view of this, 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 Mortensen, in view of Singh, by further having the syngas stage to comprises a reforming section arranged in parallel to said e-RWGS section, wherein said plant comprises a third feed comprising hydrocarbons to said reforming section, and wherein said reforming section is arranged to convert at least a portion of said third feed into said second syngas stream, and wherein the first syngas stream from the e-RWGS section is arranged to be combined with said second syngas stream from the reforming section to provide a combined syngas stream, and said combined syngas stream is arranged to be fed to the synthesis stage, as claimed by the applicant, with a reasonable expectation of success, as ‘696 teaches a system and process for production of synthesis gas comprising a synthesis gas generation reactor, i.e. reforming section, being arranged for producing a first synthesis gas, i.e. second synthesis gas, from a first hydrocarbon feed stream, and a heat exchange reforming reactor, i.e. e-RWGS section, comprising a pressure shell housing at least one reformer tube and arranged for reforming a second hydrocarbon feed stream by contacting the second hydrocarbon feed stream with a reforming catalyst for producing a second synthesis gas, i.e. first synthesis gas, wherein the heat exchange reforming reactor, i.e. e-RWGS section, is in parallel with the synthesis gas generation reactor, i.e. reforming section, whereby the combination of a synthesis gas generation reactor producing a first synthesis gas in parallel arrangement with a heat exchange reforming reactor having a feed conduit for supplying a CO2 rich gas into one or more of the reformer tubes, renders it possible to change the H/C and O/C ratios of the product synthesis gas to a gas which would have been considered critical with respect to carbon formation in a typical steam reformer configuration, without being critical in the concept of the invention, and thus, the H2/CO ratio of the resulting synthesis gas may be lower than the H2/CO ratio possible with only a synthesis gas generation reactor and a heat exchanger reforming reactor (see figure 1 and page 4, line 28 to page 5, line 19).
In regards to Claim 11, Mortensen, in view of Singh and ‘696, discloses the plant as recited in claim 4. ‘696 further teaches wherein at least a portion of said second feed comprising carbon dioxide is fed to the reforming section (#10) (see figure 1 and page 7, lines 14-18; ‘696 teaches wherein the synthesis gas generation reactor comprises a first inlet (#1), i.e. third feed comprising hydrocarbons, for feeding the first hydrocarbon feed stream, together with carbon dioxide (#4), i.e. at least a portion of said second feed, into the synthesis gas generation reactor (#10), and an outlet (#11) for outletting the first synthesis gas, i.e. second syngas stream.).
In view of this, 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 Mortensen, in view of Singh, by further having at least a portion of said second feed comprising carbon dioxide to be fed to the reforming section, as claimed by the applicant, with a reasonable expectation of success, as ‘696 teaches a system and process for production of synthesis gas comprising a synthesis gas generation reactor, i.e. reforming section, being arranged for producing a first synthesis gas, i.e. second synthesis gas, from a first hydrocarbon feed stream and a CO2 rich gas stream, and a heat exchange reforming reactor, i.e. e-RWGS section, comprising a pressure shell housing at least one reformer tube and arranged for reforming a second hydrocarbon feed stream by contacting the second hydrocarbon feed stream with a reforming catalyst for producing a second synthesis gas, i.e. first synthesis gas, wherein the heat exchange reforming reactor, i.e. e-RWGS section, is in parallel with the synthesis gas generation reactor, i.e. reforming section, whereby the combination of a synthesis gas generation reactor producing a first synthesis gas in parallel arrangement with a heat exchange reforming reactor having a feed conduit for supplying a CO2 rich gas into one or more of the reformer tubes, renders it possible to change the H/C and O/C ratios of the product synthesis gas to a gas which would have been considered critical with respect to carbon formation in a typical steam reformer configuration, without being critical in the concept of the invention, and thus, the H2/CO ratio of the resulting synthesis gas may be lower than the H2/CO ratio possible with only a synthesis gas generation reactor and a heat exchanger reforming reactor (see figure 1 and page 4, line 28 to page 5, line 19).
In regards to Claim 29, Mortensen, in view of Singh, discloses the method as recited in claim 28, but fails to disclose wherein said syngas stage comprises a reforming section arranged in parallel to said e-RWGS section, said method comprising the additional steps of: providing a third feed comprising hydrocarbons to said reforming section and converting at least a portion of said third feed into a second syngas stream in said reforming section, and combining said second syngas stream with said first syngas stream to provide a combined syngas stream and feeding said combined syngas stream to the synthesis stage.
However, ‘696 teaches a system and process for production of synthesis gas. The system comprises a synthesis gas generation reactor (#10), i.e. reforming section, being arranged for producing a first synthesis gas, i.e. second synthesis gas, from a first hydrocarbon feed stream, a heat exchange reforming reactor (#20), i.e. e-RWGS section, comprising a pressure shell housing at least one reformer tube (#23) and arranged for reforming a second hydrocarbon feed stream by contacting the second hydrocarbon feed stream with a reforming catalyst for producing a second synthesis gas, i.e. first synthesis gas. The heat exchange reforming reactor (#20), i.e. e-RWGS section, is in parallel with the synthesis gas generation reactor (#10), i.e. reforming section. The combination of a synthesis gas generation reactor (#10) producing a first synthesis gas in parallel arrangement with a heat exchange reforming reactor (#20) having a feed conduit for supplying a CO2 rich gas into one or more of the reformer tubes, renders it possible to change the H/C and O/C ratios of the product synthesis gas to a gas which would have been considered critical with respect to carbon formation in a typical steam reformer configuration, without being critical in the concept of the invention. Thus, the H2/CO ratio of the resulting synthesis gas may be lower than the H2/CO ratio possible with only a synthesis gas generation reactor and a heat exchanger reforming reactor (see figure 1 and page 4, line 28 to page 5, line 19). When the system comprises a feed conduit for supplying a CO2 rich gas into one or more of the reformer tubes, steam methane reforming/methanation reactions as well as reverse water gas shift reaction take place over the reformer catalyst within the heat exchange reforming reactor (#20), i.e. e-RWGS section (see figure 1 and page 5, line 30 to page 6, line 1).
‘696 further teaches the synthesis gas generation reactor (#10) comprises a first inlet (#1), i.e. third feed comprising hydrocarbons, for feeding the first hydrocarbon feed stream, together with carbon dioxide (#4) into the synthesis gas generation reactor (#10), and an outlet (#11) for outletting the first synthesis gas, i.e. second syngas stream (see figure 1 and page 7, lines 14-18). The heat exchange reforming reactor (#20) receives the second hydrocarbon feed stream (#9) comprises a feed conduit for supplying a CO2 rich gas (#13) to the at least one reformer tube within the heat exchange reforming reactor (#20) for conversion into the product synthesis gas, i.e. first syngas stream. A part (#11b) of the first synthesis gas bypasses the heat exchange reforming reactor (#20) and may be combined with the product synthesis gas (#12), i.e. first syngas stream, to a second product synthesis gas (#15), i.e. combined syngas stream, and the second product synthesis gas (#15), i.e. combined syngas stream, may undergo further processing (see figure 1 and page 12, lines 5-27 and page 13, lines 1-7).
In view of this, 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 Mortensen, in view of Singh, by further having the syngas stage to comprises a reforming section arranged in parallel to said e-RWGS section, providing a third feed comprising hydrocarbons to said reforming section and converting at least a portion of said third feed into a second syngas stream in said reforming section, and combining said second syngas stream with said first syngas stream to provide a combined syngas stream and feeding said combined syngas stream to the synthesis stage, as claimed by the applicant, with a reasonable expectation of success, as ‘696 teaches a system and process for production of synthesis gas comprising a synthesis gas generation reactor, i.e. reforming section, being arranged for producing a first synthesis gas, i.e. second synthesis gas, from a first hydrocarbon feed stream, and a heat exchange reforming reactor, i.e. e-RWGS section, comprising a pressure shell housing at least one reformer tube and arranged for reforming a second hydrocarbon feed stream by contacting the second hydrocarbon feed stream with a reforming catalyst for producing a second synthesis gas, i.e. first synthesis gas, wherein the heat exchange reforming reactor, i.e. e-RWGS section, is in parallel with the synthesis gas generation reactor, i.e. reforming section, whereby the combination of a synthesis gas generation reactor producing a first synthesis gas in parallel arrangement with a heat exchange reforming reactor having a feed conduit for supplying a CO2 rich gas into one or more of the reformer tubes, renders it possible to change the H/C and O/C ratios of the product synthesis gas to a gas which would have been considered critical with respect to carbon formation in a typical steam reformer configuration, without being critical in the concept of the invention, and thus, the H2/CO ratio of the resulting synthesis gas may be lower than the H2/CO ratio possible with only a synthesis gas generation reactor and a heat exchanger reforming reactor (see figure 1 and page 4, line 28 to page 5, line 19).
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mortensen, in view of Singh and ‘696, and further in view of Heidel et al. (US Pat. Pub. No. 2019/0359894, hereinafter Heidel).
In regards to Claim 30, Mortensen, in view of Singh and ‘696, discloses the method of claim 29, but fails to disclose wherein at least a portion of said hydrocarbon-containing off-gas stream is fed to the reforming section as said third feed comprising hydrocarbons or in addition to said third feed comprising hydrocarbons.
However, Heidel teaches a method and system for producing fuel from hydrogen and carbon dioxide. The system comprises a synthetic fuel production subsystem comprising a syngas generation reactor (SGR) operated to produce a syngas product stream by one or more of a reverse water gas shift (RWGS) reaction, a steam methane reforming (SMR) reaction and a direct methane reforming (DMR) reaction (see paragraph [0016]). The step of processing the hydrogen and carbon dioxide containing feed streams can comprise operating an SGR unit, and the SGR reactant feed stream can comprise at least one or a carbon dioxide reactant feed stream, a hydrogen reactant feed stream, a CH4 reactant feed stream, i.e. third feed comprising hydrocarbons, and/or a Fischer-Tropsch light end hydrocarbon reactant feed stream, i.e. hydrocarbon-containing off-gas stream (see figure 18 and paragraphs [0024] and [0048]).
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 method as disclosed by Mortensen, in view of Singh and ‘696, by further having at least a portion of said hydrocarbon-containing off-gas stream being fed to the reforming section as said third feed comprising hydrocarbons or in addition to said third feed comprising hydrocarbons, as claimed by the applicant, with a reasonable expectation of success, as Heidel teaches a method and system for producing fuel from hydrogen and carbon dioxide, wherein the system comprises a synthetic fuel production subsystem comprising a syngas generation reactor (SGR) operated to produce a syngas product stream by one or more of a reverse water gas shift (RWGS) reaction, a steam methane reforming (SMR) reaction and a direct methane reforming (DMR) reaction (see paragraph [0016]), wherein the step of processing the hydrogen and carbon dioxide containing feed streams can comprise operating an SGR unit, and the SGR reactant feed stream can comprise at least one or a carbon dioxide reactant feed stream, a hydrogen reactant feed stream, a CH4 reactant feed stream, i.e. third feed comprising hydrocarbons, and/or a Fischer-Tropsch light end hydrocarbon reactant feed stream, i.e. hydrocarbon-containing off-gas stream, thereby obtaining a system which is more cost effective than other conventional systems (see figure 18 and paragraphs [0024], [0048] and [0193]-[0194]).
Claim 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mortensen, in view of Singh, and further in view of Heidel.
In regards to Claim 31, Mortensen, in view of Singh, discloses the method of claim 28, but fails to disclose wherein at least a portion of said third feed comprising hydrocarbons is external to said plant.
However, Heidel teaches a method and system for producing fuel from hydrogen and carbon dioxide. The system comprises a synthetic fuel production subsystem comprising a syngas generation reactor (SGR) operated to produce a syngas product stream by one or more of a reverse water gas shift (RWGS) reaction, a steam methane reforming (SMR) reaction and a direct methane reforming (DMR) reaction (see paragraph [0016]). The step of processing the hydrogen and carbon dioxide containing feed streams can comprise operating an SGR unit, and the SGR reactant feed stream can comprise at least one or a carbon dioxide reactant feed stream, a hydrogen reactant feed stream, a CH4 reactant feed stream, i.e. third feed comprising hydrocarbons, and/or a Fischer-Tropsch light end hydrocarbon reactant feed stream. Sometimes using a CH4 stream, i.e. third feed comprising hydrocarbons external to said plant, may be more economic when renewable electricity is unavailable or expensive to produce the syngas product stream (see figure 18 and paragraphs [0024], [0048] and [0194]).
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 method as disclosed by Mortensen, in view of Singh and ‘696, by further having at least a portion of said third feed comprising hydrocarbons to be external to said plant, as claimed by the applicant, with a reasonable expectation of success, as Heidel teaches a method and system for producing fuel from hydrogen and carbon dioxide, wherein the system comprises a synthetic fuel production subsystem comprising a syngas generation reactor (SGR) operated to produce a syngas product stream by one or more of a reverse water gas shift (RWGS) reaction, a steam methane reforming (SMR) reaction and a direct methane reforming (DMR) reaction (see paragraph [0016]), wherein the step of processing the hydrogen and carbon dioxide containing feed streams can comprise operating an SGR unit, and the SGR reactant feed stream can comprise at least one or a carbon dioxide reactant feed stream, a hydrogen reactant feed stream, a CH4 reactant feed stream, i.e. third feed comprising hydrocarbons, and/or a Fischer-Tropsch light end hydrocarbon reactant feed stream, since sometimes using a CH4 stream, i.e. third feed comprising hydrocarbons external to said plant, may be more economic when renewable electricity is unavailable or expensive to produce the syngas product stream (see figure 18 and paragraphs [0024], [0048] and [0194]).
Claim 33 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mortensen in view of Singh, and further in view of Mortensen et al. (EP3574991A1, hereinafter ‘991).
In regards to Claim 33, Mortensen, in view of Singh, discloses the plant as recited in claim 1, but fails to disclose the plant comprising a pressure shell housing the structured catalyst with at least two conductors electrically connected to the structured catalyst and to an electrical power supply placed outside the pressure shell, wherein the electrical power supply is dimensioned to heat at least part of said structured catalyst to a temperature of at least 500ºC by passing an electrical current through the macroscopic structure of electrically conductive material.
However, ‘991 teaches a reactor system (#100) for carrying out steam reforming, methanation and water gas shift reaction to produce synthesis gas. The reactor system (#100) comprises a pressure shell (#20) housing a structured catalyst (#10) with at least two conductors (#40, #40’) electrically connected to the structured catalyst (#10) and to an electrical power supply placed outside the pressure shell (#20), wherein the electrical power supply is dimensioned to heat at least part of said structured catalyst (#10) to a temperature of at least 500ºC by passing an electrical current through the macroscopic structure (#5) of electrically conductive material (see figure 1a and paragraphs [0076], [0080] and [0087]-[0090]).
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 Mortensen, in view of Singh, by further having the plant to comprise a pressure shell housing the structured catalyst with at least two conductors electrically connected to the structured catalyst and to an electrical power supply placed outside the pressure shell, wherein the electrical power supply is dimensioned to heat at least part of said structured catalyst to a temperature of at least 500ºC by passing an electrical current through the macroscopic structure of electrically conductive material, as claimed by the applicant, with a reasonable expectation of success, as ‘991 teaches a reactor system for carrying out steam reforming, methanation and water gas shift reaction to produce synthesis gas comprising a pressure shell housing a structured catalyst with at least two conductors electrically connected to the structured catalyst and to an electrical power supply placed outside the pressure shell, wherein the electrical power supply is dimensioned to heat at least part of said structured catalyst to a temperature of at least 500ºC by passing an electrical current through the macroscopic structure of electrically conductive material, thereby obtaining a reactor system having a reduced size compared to an SMR and hence, the amount of catalytically active material required by the reactor system is reduced (see figure 1a and paragraphs [0007], [0076], [0080] and [0087]-[0090]).
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
Prosecution Insights