DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Summary
This is a non-final office action for application 18/351,569 filed on 13 July 2023. Claims 1-20 are currently pending in this application.
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 7-11 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 7 is indefinite because the phrase, “the inner side in the radial direction” does not have sufficient antecedent basis.
Claims 8-11 are indefinite by virtue of their dependence on claim 7.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-12 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kelly et al. (US-8349214-B1), hereinafter “Kelly”.
Regarding Claim 1, Kelly discloses a combined reformer (fired reformer; see Col. 1 Line 26) comprising: a main body (elongated insulated housing; see Col. 5 Lines 3-4); a plurality of first catalyst tubes arranged inside the main body (reactor tubes containing a catalyst; see Col. 6 Lines 41-43) and configured to react at a first temperature (to promote the steam methane reforming reactions; see Col. 6 Lines 42-43); a plurality of second catalyst tubes arranged inside the main body (“oxygen transport membrane tubes 122”; see Col. 17 Line 25 and “catalyst particles are located in the intermediate porous layer”; see Col. 15 Lines 51-54), fluidly connected to the plurality of first catalyst tubes (outlet manifolds are connected to the oxygen transport membrane tubes to receive the heated combustion product stream. The outlet manifolds are connected to the inlets of the central reactor tubes; see Col. 6 Lines 52-55), and configured to react (catalyst selected to promote oxidation of the hydrogen containing stream; see Col. 15 Lines 55-56) at a second temperature higher than the first temperature (elevated operational temperature; see Col. 15 Line 42); a combustion section (combustion of the fuel within the duct burner; see Col. 5 Lines 55-56) configured to supply heat to the plurality of first catalyst tubes (heated combustion product stream to the inlet of the central reactor tube; see Col. 7 Lines 36-37) and the plurality of second catalyst tubes (oxygen transport membrane tubes to receive the heated combustion product stream; see Col. 6 Lines 53-54); and a first distributor (inlet plenum 158; see Col. 17 Line 18) connecting the plurality of first catalyst tubes and the plurality of second catalyst tubes and configured to distribute gas and steam discharged from the plurality of first catalyst tubes to the plurality of second catalyst tubes (…extends through the inlet plenum 158 to an inlet region 164 of the central reactor tube 124. The outlet openings 154 are in communication with an inlet region 164 of the central reactor tube 124 where the heated combustion product stream 36 from the oxygen transport membrane tubes 122 mixes with the reactant stream… contained within the central reactor tubes; see Col. Lines 27-34 and Fig. 10).
Regarding the limitations claiming “a first temperature” and “a second temperature higher than the first temperature”, these are functional limitations that do not further limit the structure of the apparatus, but merely set forth a manner of operating the apparatus. The Courts have held that apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art in terms of structure, not function. See In re Danley, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959); and Hewlett-Packard Co. V. Bausch and Lomb, Inc., 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (see MPEP §§ 2114 and 2173.05(g)). The manner of operating an apparatus does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art, if the prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim. See Ex Parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (BPAI 1987). Functional limitations that do not limit the structure need not be given further due consideration in determining patentability of an apparatus.
Regarding Claim 2, Kelly discloses the combined reformer of claim 1, wherein the plurality of first catalyst tubes are formed in a U-shape (U shaped pipe-line bends 137; see Col. 16 Lines 29-30 and Fig. 7) and each U-shaped first catalyst tube is provided with a preheating section where pre-reforming hydrocarbon gas flows parallel to combustion gas and is heated and a catalyst reforming section where the catalytic reforming takes place (each of the oxygen transport membrane tubes 122 consists of an inlet section 134 into which the hydrogen containing stream 34 is introduced and an outlet section 136 from which the heated combustion product stream is discharged. It is understood that reaction with the permeated oxygen and the hydrogen containing stream 34 occurs within both the inlet section 134 and the outlet section 136. The inlet and outlet sections 134 and 136 are parallel to one another; see Col. 16 Lines 20-28).
Regarding the limitations claiming “first tubes”, “second tubes”, “first distributor”, etc., these are relative terms that are interchangeable. Examiner notes this because Kelly discloses a structure analogous to the claimed structure, the only difference being the relative connections depending on which tubes are considered the “first tubes” and which are considered the “second tubes”.
Regarding Claim 3, Kelly discloses the combined reformer of claim 2, wherein the preheating section is located in one of two straight sections of the U-shaped tube (the oxygen containing stream can be preheated through indirect heat exchange with the heated retentate stream prior to being introduces to the retentate side of the at least one oxygen transport membrane; see Col. 4 Lines 18-21), and the catalyst reaction section is located in the other straight section of the U-shaped tube (reaction with permeated oxygen and the hydrogen containing stream 34 occurs within both the inlet section 134 and the outlet section 136; see Col. 16 Lines 24-27).
Regarding the limitation of the catalytic reaction being a reforming reaction, this is a functional limitation that does not further limit the structure of the apparatus, but merely sets forth the manner of operating the apparatus. The Courts have held that apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art in terms of structure, not function. See In re Danley, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959); and Hewlett-Packard Co. V. Bausch and Lomb, Inc., 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (see MPEP §§ 2114 and 2173.05(g)). The manner of operating an apparatus does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art, if the prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim. See Ex Parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (BPAI 1987).
Regarding Claim 4, Kelly discloses the combined reformer of claim 2, wherein the plurality of first catalyst tubes are configured such that the hydrocarbon gas flows in the same direction with a flow direction of the combustion gas in the preheating section and the hydrocarbon gas flows in the opposite direction to the flow direction of the combustion gas in the catalyst reforming section. Specifically, this claim is understood the indicate that gas flows in one direction in the “first” side/leg of the U-tube, and in the other side/leg of the U-tube, the gas flows in a direction opposite to the direction of gas flow in the “first” leg of the U-tube. This is understood to occur in the disclosure of Kelly, as the U-tube has an inlet section 134 and an outlet section 137, which are defined by parallel legs of the U-tube (see Fig. 7), indicating that gas flows into one leg, and out of the other, necessitating gas flow in opposite directions.
Regarding Claim 5, Kelly discloses the combined reformer of claim 2, wherein the first distributor comprises a first chamber (inlet region 164; see Col. 17 Line 28) connecting discharge ends of the plurality of one set of catalyst tubes (The outlet openings 154 are in communication with an inlet region 164; see Col. 17 Lines 28-29) and inlet ends of the plurality of the other set of catalyst tubes (inner feed tube 162… extends through the inlet plenum 158 to an inlet region 164 of the central reactor tube 124; see Col. 17 Lines 26-30).
Regarding the limitations claiming “first tubes”, “second tubes”, “first distributor”, etc., these are relative terms that are interchangeable. Examiner notes this because Kelly discloses a structure analogous to the claimed structure, the only difference being the relative connections depending on which tubes are considered the “first tubes” and which are considered the “second tubes”.
Regarding Claim 6, Kelly discloses the combined reformer of claim 5, wherein the first distributor is in a torus shape (see Fig. 10 Part 158).
Regarding Claim 7, Kelly discloses the combined reformer of claim 6, further comprising a synthesis gas discharge section arranged on the inner side in the radial direction of the first distributer (see Fig. 10, Parts 162 and 158), accommodating connection of discharge ends of the plurality of a set of catalyst tubes to discharge synthesis gas (synthesis gas stream 42 that is discharged from the central reactor tube 162; see Col. 17 Lines 35-36).
Regarding Claim 8, Kelly discloses the combined reformer of claim 7, further comprising a second distributor (outer feed tube 160; see Col. 17 Line 19) distributing the hydrocarbon gas and steam (a supplementary steam stream can be introduced into at least one of the hydrogen containing stream; see Col. 4 Lines 12-13) supplied to the plurality of catalyst tubes (outer feed tube 160 is connected to the inlet plenum… to feed the hydrogen containing stream… into the inlet sections 134 of the oxygen transport membrane tubes 122; see Col. 17 Lines 19-25), wherein the second distributor is arranged on the same side as the first distributor with respect to the main body (see Fig. 10 Parts 160 and 158).
Regarding Claim 9, Kelly discloses the combined reformer of claim 8, wherein the second distributor comprises one or more supply ports supplying the hydrocarbon gas and steam (outer feed tube 160 is connected to the inlet plenum… to feed the hydrogen containing stream; see Col. 17 Lines 19-25) and a second chamber (see Fig. 10 Part 160) connected to inlet ends of the plurality of first catalyst tubes (outer feed tube 160 is connected to the inlet plenum… to feed the hydrogen containing stream… into the inlet sections 134 of the oxygen transport membrane tubes 122; see Col. 17 Lines 19-25).
Regarding Claim 10, Kelly discloses the combined reformer of claim 9, wherein the synthesis gas discharge section extends through an inner side in the radial direction of the second distributor (see Fig. 10 Parts 162 and 160).
Regarding Claim 12, Kelly discloses the combined reformer of claim 2, wherein each U-shaped first catalyst tube extends along the longitudinal and circumferential directions of the main body (see Fig. 7 Parts 122).
Regarding Claim 17, Kelly discloses the combined reformer of claim 2. The limitation claiming, “wherein the hydrocarbon gas supplied to the plurality of first catalyst tubes comprises hydrocarbons with a carbon number of 2 or more, which is reformed into methane by reacting with the steam in the plurality of first catalyst tubes, the methane being reformed into synthesis gas including hydrogen and carbon monoxide by reacting with the steam in the plurality of second catalyst tubes” is a functional limitation that does not further limit the structure of the apparatus, but merely sets forth a manner of operating the apparatus. The Courts have held that apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art in terms of structure, not function. See In re Danley, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959); and Hewlett-Packard Co. V. Bausch and Lomb, Inc., 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (see MPEP §§ 2114 and 2173.05(g)). The manner of operating an apparatus does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art, if the prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim. See Ex Parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (BPAI 1987).
Regarding Claim 18, Kelly discloses the combined reformer of claim 2. The limitation claiming, “wherein the hydrocarbon gas supplied to the plurality of first catalyst tubes includes methane and carbon dioxide, the methane being reformed into synthesis gas including hydrogen and carbon monoxide by reacting with the steam in the plurality of first catalyst tubes and by reacting with the carbon dioxide in the plurality of second catalyst tubes” is a functional limitation that does not further limit the structure of the apparatus, but merely sets forth a manner of operating the apparatus. The Courts have held that apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art in terms of structure, not function. See In re Danley, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959); and Hewlett-Packard Co. V. Bausch and Lomb, Inc., 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (see MPEP §§ 2114 and 2173.05(g)). The manner of operating an apparatus does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art, if the prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim. See Ex Parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (BPAI 1987).
Regarding Claim 19, the limitations of this claim do not exceed those of claims 1 and 8. Please refer to the rejections of claims 1 and 8 as the rejection of claim 19 follows the same rationale.
Regarding Claim 20, Kelly discloses the combined reformer of claim 19. The remaining limitations of claim 20 do not exceed those of claim 2. Please refer to the rejection of claim 2 as the claim 20 rejection follows the same rationale.
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.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kelly et al. (US-8349214-B1), hereinafter “Kelly”.
Regarding Claim 11, Kelly discloses the combined reformer of claim 8. The limitation claiming, “wherein the combustion section is arranged on the opposite side of the first distributor and the second distributor with respect to the main body” is a mere arrangement of parts that does not present new or unexpected results. The courts have held that a mere rearrangement of parts is unpatentable if it does not modify the operation of the device. See In reJapikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) and In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975). Therefore, this arrangement would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kelly et al. (US-8349214-B1), hereinafter “Kelly”, in view of Takao (JP-H0733402-A).
Regarding Claim 13, Kelly discloses the combined reformer of claim 12.
Kelly does not explicitly teach a spiral guide plate. However, Takao discloses a spiral guide plate (the guide fins 33 provided in a spiral shape inside the combustion tube 32, and the guide fins 33 provided on the inner surface side of the straightening plate 34; see [0042]) to guide the combustion gas (generating a spiral flow in the high-temperature combustion gas; see [0031]). When modifying Kelly with the guide plates of Takao, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the guide plate would be passing through the plurality of U-shaped catalyst tubes because Takao discloses the guide fins being spirally mounted in the combustion tube, and the combustion in Kelly occurs in part of the U-shaped tube (combusted within the oxygen transport membrane element; see Abstract). Therefore, it would naturally follow to mount the guide fins of Takao in a spiral shape through the combustion tube of Kelly, which are the U-shaped tubes.
Kelly and Takao are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of reforming apparatuses. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Kelly by incorporating the teachings of Takao and providing spiral guide plates. Doing so would have generated a spiral flow in the combustion gas (see Takao [0031]).
Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kelly et al. (US-8349214-B1), hereinafter “Kelly”, in view of Takao (JP-H0733402-A) and Sakai (US-7517373-B2).
Regarding Claim 14, Kelly and Takao together disclose the combined reformer of claim 13.
Modified Kelly does not explicitly teach guide plate holes. However, Sakai discloses wherein a plurality of catalyst tubes are inserted through holes in the guide plate (two parallel metal plates are arranged with a clearance provided therebetween… In a location through which the reaction tube passes… the reaction tube is passed through both metal plates; see Col. 6 Lines 50-55).
Kelly and Sakai are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of reforming apparatuses. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kelly by incorporating the teachings of Sakai and disposing reaction tubes through the guide plates. Doing so would have aided in guiding fluid (see Sakai, Col. 6 Lines 55-59).
Regarding Claim 15, Kelly and Takao together disclose the combined reformer of claim 14. Takao further discloses wherein the guide plate is composed of a plurality of sub-plates (guide fins 33; see [0031] and Fig. 1 Part 33). Sakai then discloses the sub-plates being divided at each section passing through each reaction tube (two parallel metal plates are arranged with a clearance provided therebetween… In a location through which the reaction tube passes… the reaction tube is passed through both metal plates; see Col. 6 Lines 50-55). This modification would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because it would have formed a gap between the plates which would allow fluid to flow (see Sakai, Col. 6 Lines 55-59).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kelly et al. (US-8349214-B1), hereinafter “Kelly”, in view of Wook (KR-20220062981-A).
Regarding Claim 16, Kelly discloses the combined reformer of claim 2. Kelly does not disclose fins. However, Takao discloses wherein the reaction tubes comprise fins provided on the surface thereof (guide fins 33 are spirally mounted inside the combustion cylinder; see [0031]). Modified Kelly does not disclose the fins on the outer surface of the tube in the longitudinal direction. However, Wook discloses fins provided on the outer surface of a reformer in the longitudinal direction (fins spaced apart from each other on the outer surface… and formed along the longitudinal direction; see [0008]).
Kelly and Wook are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of reforming apparatuses. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kelly by incorporating the teachings of Wook and disposing fins in the longitudinal direction on the outer surface of the reforming tubes. Doing so would have enabled an effective absorption of heat from the heat source to maintain an appropriate high temperature required for reforming (see Wook [0025]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALYSSA LEE KUYKENDALL whose telephone number is (571)270-3806. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday 9:00am-5:00pm.
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.
/A.L.K./Examiner, Art Unit 1774
/CLAIRE X WANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1774
Prosecution Insights