DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, in the reply filed on August 4th, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 13-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on August 4th, 2026.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Paragraph [0003] of the Specification recites, “Heat is transferred from to the exhaust stream to the compressed gas stream” (emphasis added), and Paragraph 4 recites, “transferring heat from to the exhaust stream to the compressed gas stream (emphasis added). The phrase “from to” should be edited for clarity.
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 1-5 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, line 8 recites the limitation, “transferring heat from to the exhaust stream to the compressed gas stream” (emphasis added). The phrase “from to” makes it unclear in which direction heat is transferred. The Specification recites embodiments where heat is transferred from the exhaust stream to the compressed gas stream (e.g., Specification, [0038], At block 210, heat is transferred from the exhaust stream 104 to the compressed gas stream 102.”) and where heat is transferred from the compressed gas stream to the exhaust stream (e.g., Specification, [0008], “The first heat exchanger is configured to transfer heat from the gas stream exiting the compressor to the exhaust stream exiting the electric generator to heat the exhaust stream.”; [0048], “after transferring heat from the compressed gas stream to the exhaust stream”). The following lines 9-10 recite, “after transferring heat from the compressed gas stream to the exhaust stream, transferring heat from the exhaust stream to a working fluid;”. While this is not itself an indefinite limitation, it is unclear whether the claim requires both heat transfer from the exhaust stream to the compressed gas stream and from the compressed gas stream to the exhaust stream. For assessing the scope and meaning of the claim for prior art purposes, the limitation “transferring heat from to the exhaust stream to the compressed gas stream” will be interpreted to be either “transferring heat from the exhaust stream to the compressed gas stream” or “transferring heat to the exhaust stream from the compressed gas stream”, as individual claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification. See MPEP § 2111.
Claims 2-5 are indefinite due to their dependence on the indefinite claim 1 and because they do not cure the indefiniteness of “from to” as recited therein.
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.
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 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Corbetta (U.S. 2023/0064046 A1), in view of Balan (U.S. 2005/0210881 A1), and further in view of Allam (U.S. Patent No. 6,117,916, 2000).
Regarding claim 6, Corbetta teaches a method (Corbetta, [0098]-[0119]) comprising:
pressurizing, by a compressor, an air stream comprising oxygen to produce a compressed air stream (Corbetta, Fig. 1, compressor 101, [0100], [0104], compressor delivers compressed air);
reacting, within a combustion chamber, a first portion of a fuel stream comprising hydrogen atoms in the presence of the oxygen of the compressed air stream to produce an exhaust stream (Corbetta, Fig. 1, [0104], “The fuel gas including the CO2-depleted synthesis gas 108 and the natural gas 106 meets compressed air delivered by the compressor 101 in the combustor 102; the combustion fumes…);
flowing the exhaust stream to a turbine of an electric generator, thereby causing the turbine to rotate and generating, by the electric generator, electric power in response to rotation of the turbine (Corbetta, Fig. 1, [0104], “…the combustion fumes expands in the gas turbine 103 which drives the generator 104; hot exhaust gas 110 are discharged by the turbine 103.”; [0105], electric energy produced by the generator 104);
transferring, by a second heat exchanger1 (Corbetta, [0019]), heat from the exhaust stream to a water stream (Corbetta, Fig. 2, [0112], “FIG. 2 illustrates an embodiment where a heat recovery steam generator 130 is provided at the output of the turbine 103.”), which differs from the claimed working fluid;
boiling the water stream to produce a steam stream (Corbetta, Fig. 2, [0112], heat recovery steam generator 130);
converting, within a reforming unit, a second portion of the fuel stream in the presence of oxygen and steam to produce a syngas stream (Corbetta, Fig. 1, [0111], fuel stream fed to pre-reformer 204 after desulfurization; Table 1 illustrates that natural gas is the gas employed in both portions of the fuel stream), wherein at least a portion of the steam is sourced from the steam stream (Corbetta, [0112], used during start-up);
converting, within a shift reactor, at least a portion of carbon monoxide of the syngas stream into carbon dioxide and producing additional hydrogen, thereby producing a shifted syngas stream (Corbetta, [0099], Fig. 1, [0099], “The processing in the purification stage 207 includes removal of CO2 and may include e.g. shift and methanation.”);
separating the shifted syngas stream to produce a carbon dioxide stream and a hydrogen stream (Corbetta, Fig. 1, [0099], reformed gas 225 undergoes shift and CO2 removal to generate a stream 211 of CO2 and a stream 210 of hydrogen-containing gas); and
reacting the hydrogen stream with nitrogen to produce an ammonia stream (Corbetta, [0017]-[0018], [0027], [0119], Table 1), wherein at least a portion of the electrical power generated by the electric generator is used to conver the second portion of the fuel stream (Corbetta, Fig. 1, [0105], “The electric energy produced by the generator 104 can be internally used by the reforming process, to power various items and auxiliaries including pumps and compressors for example.”).
Corbetta does not explicitly teach transferring, by a first heat exchanger, heat from the exhaust stream exiting the electric generator to the compressed air stream. However, Balan teaches transferring, by a heat exchanger, heat from an exhaust stream exiting an electric generator in a reforming process to a compressed air stream used in the combustion (Balan, Fig. 5, [0040]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have transferred, by a first heat exchanger, heat from the exhaust stream exiting the electric generator to the compressed air stream because Balan teaches that doing so avoids the costs of conventional heaters or regenerative heat exchangers to raise a temperature of the oxidant while cooling the exhaust before discharge (Balan, [0039]). A person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation that doing so would similarly reduce the cost of Corbetta’s method.
Corbetta does not explicitly teach that the second heat exchanger transfers heat from the exhaust stream to a working fluid, which in turn transfers heat to the water stream to boil the water. Rather, Corbetta provides an example using a tube heat exchanger: “The hot medium and the cold medium traverse two separate sides of a heat exchanger, for example inside and outside tubes of a tube heat exchanger. So for example the heat exhaust gas traverses a first side of the heat exchanger and the process fluid traverses a second side of said heat exchanger, and heat is transferred from the exhaust gas to the process fluid while they traverse the first side and second side of the heat exchangers” (Corbetta, [0019]). However, a heat exchanger that instead uses a working fluid to transfer heat from a hot side to a cold side is known to be suitable for recovering heat from reforming process streams and supplying the heat to water streams, as taught by Allam (Allam, Col. 4, lines 3-25; Col. 6, lines 7-31).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have substituted the tube heat exchanger taught by Corbetta for a heat exchanger using a working fluid to transfer heat from the exhaust stream to the water stream to boil the water stream. Substitution of equivalents known for the same purpose has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. See Smith v. Hayashi, 209 USPQ 754. See also MPEP § 2144.06.II. In the instant case, a heat exchanger using a working fluid was known to be suitable for transferring heat to water streams in reforming processes (Allam, Col. 4, lines 3-25; Col. 6, lines 7-31), so it would have been obvious to employ such a heat exchanger.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Corbetta (U.S. 2023/0064046 A1), in view of Balan (U.S. 2005/0210881 A1), and further in view of Allam (U.S. Patent No. 6,117,916, 2000), as applied to claim 6, further in view of Marion (U.S. Patent No. 3,868,817, 1975), and further evidenced by Vande Sande (2012/0125812 A1).
Regarding claim 7, modified Corbetta renders the method of claim 6 obvious, as discussed above, wherein the compressor is coupled to the electric generator (Corbetta, [0100], the compressor 101 is a component of the gas turbine generator 100). Corbetta does not explicitly teach that the compressor comprises an impeller coupled to a shaft, wherein the shaft of the compressor is coupled to the turbine wheel of the electric generator and rotates with the turbine wheel, wherein the rotation of the impeller of the compressor causes the air stream to pressurize. However, Marion teaches such a configuration in a gas turbine (Marion, Col. 2, line 65 - Col. 3, line 2, “Shaft power from the expansion turbine may be used to operate an electric generator, to compress air for introduction into the combustion chamber of said gas turbine, and to compress CO2 for the noncatalytic thermal shift.”). While Marion does not explicitly teach that an impeller is connected to the shaft, Marion’s turbocompressor (Marion, Col. 8, lines 29-40) would necessarily function in the claimed manner, as Vande Sande clarifies (Vande Sande, [0002], “In a turbocompressor, one or more impellers are directly connected to a shaft.”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Corbetta’s method so that the compressor comprises an impeller coupled to a shaft, wherein the shaft of the compressor is coupled to the turbine wheel of the electric generator and rotates with the turbine wheel, wherein the rotation of the impeller of the compressor causes the air stream to pressurize. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (see MPEP 2143.A.). The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 - 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143.B.). In the instant case, coupling an impeller to the shaft of the compressor to the turbine wheel as claimed would yield the predictable result of compressing the air as already required by Corbetta (Corbetta, [0100]).
Potential Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-5 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Claims 8-12 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Corbetta (U.S. 2023/0064046 A1), Balan (U.S. 2005/0210881 A1), Allam (U.S. Patent No. 6,117,916, 2000), Marion (U.S. Patent No. 3,868,817, 1975), and Vande Sande (2012/0125812 A1) are considered to be the closest prior art to the instant claims.
Regarding claim 1 and its dependent claims 2-5, Corbetta, Balan, Allam, and Marion, and evidenced by Vande Sande, together render all of the limitations shared by claims 1 and 7 obvious for reasons discussed in the rejection of claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. 103 above. However, claim 7 does not recite the following limitations or equivalents present in claim 1:
“transferring heat from to the exhaust stream to the compressed gas stream;
after transferring heat from the compressed gas stream to the exhaust stream, transferring heat from the exhaust stream to a working fluid”.
Notwithstanding the indefiniteness of “transferring heat from to the exhaust stream” discussed in the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) above, none of the cited prior art references teach or suggest transferring heat from the compressed gas stream to the exhaust stream with or without an intermediate working fluid, only vice-versa, as discussed in the rejection of claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. 103 above.
Regarding claim 8 and its dependent claims 9-12, modified Corbetta renders the method of claim 7 obvious, as discussed above, but none of the cited prior art references teach or suggest flowing at least a portion of the steam stream to a second turbine wheel of a second electric generator, thereby causing the portion of the steam stream to expand while flowing across the second turbine wheel and the second turbine wheel to rotate; and generating, by the second electric generator, electrical power in response to rotation of the second turbine wheel.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZACHARY J. BAUM whose telephone number is (571)270-0895. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30-5:00.
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, Anthony Zimmer can be reached at 571-270-3590. 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.
/ZACHARY JOHN BAUM/Examiner, Art Unit 1736
1 The phrase “second heat exchanger” is used herein in accordance with the claim language, rather than to denote the presence of a requisite “first heat exchanger” in Corbetta’s disclosure.
Prosecution Insights