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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 6, 7, 9, 12, 13, 14, 17, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rinaldi (EP 3789344) and in view of Ereev et al. “Standardized cost estimation for new technologies”.
Rinaldi describes a system and method for processing a gas (title) that includes feeding a gas stream at 501 into manifold 13 (see Fig. 1 and para. 89). The manifold includes many tubes 13i, which then feed into tubes 5 and then 4 (see Fig. 2 and para. 89). Figure 2 shows a plurality of flow paths (see 5 in Fig. 2). 4 in Fig. 2 are catalyst tubes in a heating chamber. 4 can be considered a plurality of reactor trains (see Fig. 2) because the specification explains that the reactor trains may comprise a “number of separate and distinct reactors” (see published specification, para. 41), so that each catalyst tube can be considered a reactor.
When needed, Rinaldi describes regenerating a catalyst (para. 73). During regeneration, while one or some of certain tubes are being regenerated, the process is not stopped and the remaining tubes are still in operation (para. 56), while the flow of streams are modulated (para. 55). The tubes are separately regulated using different feeds and different valves (para. 99).
During the regeneration phase, at least one or more catalyst tubes may be excluded (para. 100, 0144), but it does not alter the flow of the nominal gas flow to the catalyst (para. 63). This is done by adjusting the number of catalyst tubes in operates as a function of the flow rate required in the output (para. 63). The final composition is set by the user along with the flow rate (para. 96). Therefore, although Rinaldi does not specifically state that in some embodiments, the volume of feed is not varied by more than 10% after isolating the regenerated catalyst tube, (Rinaldi also recites other embodiments where there is a greater reduction of flow as well), it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have determined the optimum value of a cause effective variable such as product composition through routine experimentation in the absence of a showing of criticality. In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
As to operating within battery limits, Ereev describes a process for operating a plant that is within battery limits (see Fig. 1 “ISBL”) and outside battery limits (see Fig. 1, “OSBL”, Off-site). Ereev explains that production costs differ, specifically, that costs inside battery limits are associated with the direct cost of production (page 33, right col, para. 1) and the outside battery limits are expenses for the other features of the process outside of the battery limits (see page 33, right col, last para).
Since Rinaldi shows that their process takes place within the process plant and does not require off-site manufacturing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the process of Rinaldi is within the battery limits, as described by Ereev. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to maintain the process within the battery limits in Rinaldi because Ereev explains that off-site process features/outside battery limits in their process would require additional cost.
As to Claim 2, Rinaldi teaches that the feed gas is a mixture of gases (para. 59).
As to Claims 6 and 7, Rinaldi teaches the use of at least three catalyst tubes (abstract).
As to Claim 9, Rinaldi explains that during the regeneration phase, at least one or more catalyst tubes may be excluded (para. 100, 0144), but it does not alter the flow of the nominal gas flow to the catalyst (para. 63). This is done by adjusting the number of catalyst tubes in operates as a function of the flow rate required in the output (para. 63). The final composition is set by the user along with the flow rate (para. 96). Therefore, although Rinaldi does not specifically state that in some embodiments, the volume of feed is not varied by more than 7% after isolating the regenerated catalyst tube, (Rinaldi also recites other embodiments where there is a greater reduction of flow as well), it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have determined the optimum value of a cause effective variable such as product composition through routine experimentation in the absence of a showing of criticality. In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
As to Claims 13 and 18, Rinaldi explains that certain catalyst tubes may requires that some of their catalysts are replaced (para. 144). Although Rinaldi does not specifically state that the catalyst tubes that requires catalyst replacement are offline from 3-14 days, since Rinaldi explains that their process functions even when certain catalysts are offline (see above), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the process is operable when a catalyst reactor is offline from 3-14 days.
As to Claim 14, Rinaldi teaches that the catalyst can be a nickel-based catalyst (para. 130).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 5, 8, 10, 11, 16, 19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
REASONS FOR ALLOWANCE
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: Rinaldi (EP 3789344). Rinaldi describes a system and method for processing a gas (title) that includes feeding a gas stream at 501 into manifold 13 (see Fig. 1 and para. 89). The manifold includes many tubes 13i, which then feed into tubes 5 and then 4 (see Fig. 2 and para. 89). Figure 2 shows a plurality of flow paths (see 5 in Fig. 2). 4 in Fig. 2 are catalyst tubes in a heating chamber. 4 can be considered a plurality of reactor trains (see Fig. 2) because the specification explains that the reactor trains may comprise a “number of separate and distinct reactors” (see published specification, para. 41), so that each catalyst tube can be considered a reactor.
When needed, Rinaldi describes regenerating a catalyst (para. 73). During regeneration, while one or some of certain tubes are being regenerated, the process is not stopped and the remaining tubes are still in operation (para. 56), while the flow of streams are modulated (para. 55). The tubes are separately regulated using different feeds and different valves (para. 99).
During the regeneration phase, at least one or more catalyst tubes may be excluded (para. 100, 0144), but it does not alter the flow of the nominal gas flow to the catalyst (para. 63). This is done by adjusting the number of catalyst tubes in operates as a function of the flow rate required in the output (para. 63). The final composition is set by the user along with the flow rate (para. 96). The reference does not describe that the reactors are either microstructures or microchannel reactors (Claims 4 and 5) or that the reaction is a Fischer-Tropsch reactor (Claims 8, 16, 19) or that the feed material is CO and H2 (Claim 10) or that the feed material is a synthesis gas (Claim 11).
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHENG HAN DAVIS whose telephone number is (571)270-5823. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5:30.
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, Fung Coris can be reached at 571-270-5713. 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.
/SHENG H DAVIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1732 July 13, 2026
Prosecution Insights