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/Restriction
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
I. Claims 1-15, drawn to a method of processing, classified in C01B3/382.
II. Claims 16-20, drawn to a system of steam cracking, classified in B01J 19/2475.
The inventions are independent or distinct, each from the other because:
Inventions I and II are related as process and apparatus for its practice. The inventions are distinct if it can be shown that either: (1) the process as claimed can be practiced by another and materially different apparatus or by hand, or (2) the apparatus as claimed can be used to practice another and materially different process. (MPEP § 806.05(e)). In this case the apparatus can be used to practice another and materially different process, such as water purification or NOx purification.
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply:
The above noted inventions designated by Groups I and II have acquired a separate status in the art as evidenced by their different classification, they have acquired a separate status in the art due to their recognized divergent subject matter, and a completed search of both inventions would necessitate different fields of search. For at least these reasons, a concerted search of both groups of inventions would impose an undue burden upon the office.
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of an invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention.
The election of an invention may be made with or without traverse. To reserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
During a telephone conversation with Sean Dean on 06/18/2026 a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of Group I, claims 1-15. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 16-20 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
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(s) 1-8 and 10-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harale et al. US 20210395083, in view of Jones US 20230287284.
Regarding claims 1 and 8, the Harale et al. reference teaches a system with a pre-reforming unit 204 and a membrane reformer unit 202 (Para [0053]). The pre-reformer is fed with steam to crack long hydrocarbon molecules into a methane rich gas stream (See Fig. 2 and Para [0065] [0102]). The feed that is cracked in the pre-reformer comprises LPG, naphtha, kerosene, diesel oil, heavier oils, other refined petroleum products, natural gas, or mixture of hydrocarbons (C1 to C5) (Para [0066]). Since complete conversion to methane would not be expected, some olefin product besides methane would be expected in the methane rich stream entering the membrane reformer.
Harale teaches that “hydrocarbons” react with steam over a reforming catalyst (Para [0075]). The reference teaches removing any remaining “hydrocarbons” from the hydrogen discharged from the membrane reformer (Para [0052]). These teachings indicate that the stream 208 (See Fig. 2 and Para [0056]) includes a tail gas (methane component) and an olefin product (other hydrocarbons besides syngas). The methane is converted to hydrogen and carbon dioxide in the membrane reformer 202. This syngas from methane is generated by a catalyst that is on the outside of the tubular membrane in a region between the membrane reactor wall and the tubular membrane. (Para [0058]). The generation of methane within this region in the membrane reformer is considered to read on providing the syngas into a reaction vessel to a region external to a tubular membrane.
Steam is provided to the membrane reformer (“steam may flow in the methane-rich mixture 208 from the pre-reformer 204 to the reformer 202. In addition, steam or supplemental steam may be added via a steam conduit (from an external steam supply source) directly to the membrane reformer 202 or to a feed conduit to the membrane reformer 202. Supplemental steam may be added to increase the steam-to-carbon ratio in the reformer 202 to increase conversion of methane or to avoid (or reduce) carbon deposition, and the like” See Para [0056]).
The catalyst for reforming methane also performs a water gas shift reaction (Para [0122]). The reforming reaction is within the membrane reactor thus the WGS reaction occurs within the reaction vessel as claimed. The CO2 generated from the water gas shift is exited from the retentate side of the tubular membrane and the hydrogen is diffused into the membrane and discharged from the bore (permeate) side (Para [0125])
The Harale reference does not teach generating heat for the steam cracking using H2 as fuel.
Jones teaches a system and method for producing hydrogen gas for cracking operations (Abstract). The reference teaches generating hydrogen and combining it with other hydrogen sources within the system to form a hydrogen fuel used to heat a steam cracking furnace (Para [0015] and Fig. 2). The reference teaches a method to economically produce the total hydrogen cracker fuel requirement from clean burning hydrogen (Para [0018]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary level of skill in the art to use the hydrogen produced in the process of Harale for heating the steam cracker. One would be motivated to do so in an effort to use clean burning hydrogen from within the process as a resource to heat an endothermic process (See Jones Para [0018]). In addition to the reduced carbon emissions this would reduce the burden of importing an external resource (like electricity for an electric heater or oil/fuel for a burner) for heating.
Regarding claims 2, 3 and 11, Harale teaches that “hydrocarbons” react with steam over a reforming catalyst (Para [0075]). The reference teaches removing any remaining “hydrocarbons” from the hydrogen discharged from the membrane reformer (Para [0052]). These teachings indicate that the stream 208 (See Fig. 2 and Para [0056]) includes a tail gas (methane component) and an olefin product (other hydrocarbons besides syngas). The methane is converted to hydrogen and carbon dioxide in the membrane reformer 202. Steam is provided to the membrane reformer (“steam may flow in the methane-rich mixture 208 from the pre-reformer 204 to the reformer 202. In addition, steam or supplemental steam may be added via a steam conduit (from an external steam supply source) directly to the membrane reformer 202 or to a feed conduit to the membrane reformer 202. Supplemental steam may be added in certain instances, for example, to increase the steam-to-carbon ratio in the reformer 202 to increase conversion of methane or to avoid (or reduce) carbon deposition, and the like” See Para [0056]).
Regarding claims 4 and 12, the Harale reference teaches a temperature of 400-600°C (Para [0064]).
Regarding claims 5 and 13, the Harale reference teaches a CO2 purification unit after the membrane reformer (Para [0079]).
Regarding claims 6 and 14, Jones teaches that the hydrogen gas stream 212 may be combined with the hydrogen gas stream 204 to form a hydrogen fuel gas stream 218 that is used to heat (fire) the steam cracking furnace 104. The supplemental fuel gas stream 210 may be adjusted to balance the total requirements of the steam cracking furnace 104 (Par [0015]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary level of skill in the art to use the hydrogen produced in the process of Harale to provide all the heating required by the steam cracker. One would be motivated to do so in an effort to use clean burning hydrogen from within the process as a resource to heat an endothermic process (See Jones Para [0018]). In addition to the reduced carbon emissions this would reduce the burden of importing an external resource (like electricity for an electric heater or oil/fuel for a burner) for heating.
Regarding claims 7 and 15, The Jones reference teaches that cracked hydrocarbon feed stock stream 102 is processed in a steam cracker 104 and produces a tail gas 106. The tail gas stream 106 is fed through a hydrogen/hydrocarbon separation system (e.g., PSA) 202, which separates the tail gas stream 106 into a hydrogen gas stream (H2) 204 with a high purity of greater than 98% by volume and a PSA effluent stream 206 comprising hydrocarbons (CH4) and residual hydrogen gas. The PSA effluent stream 206 is fed to a hydrogen generation unit 208, including steam methane reforming, auto thermal reforming, or partial oxidation (Para [0011] and [0014]).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harale et al. US 20210395083, in view of Jones US 20230287284 as applied to claims 1-8 and 10-15 above, and further in view of Harale et US 20210277318.
Regarding claim 9, the Harale reference does not teach autothermal reforming.
Harale et al US’7318 teaches a system and method for upgrading crude oil to hydrogen (Abstract). The reference teaches steam cracking of petroleum raw materials to obtain lower chain hydrocarbons (Para [0002]). These hydrocarbons are then reformed to make syngas (Para [0005]). Here the reference cites equivalent process for reforming light hydrocarbons to syngas, including steam reforming, or auto-thermal reforming. Harale US’7316 teaches that auto-thermal reforming involves using oxygen, steam and hydrocarbon to produce hydrogen and CO (Para [0007]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary level of skill in the art to use an equivalent process such as auto-thermal reforming (using oxygen or air) instead of or in addition to steam reforming in the process of Harale US’5083. The use of a known technique to a known device to yield predictable results is obvious (MPEP §2141 III. D) The predictable result would be to yield hydrogen and CO.
Relevant Art
Qu et al. US 20220064554 teaches cracking crude oil into lower chain hydrocarbons (Abstract). The reference further teaches reforming natural gas (Para [0059]) and separating hydrogen using membrane separators (Para [0058]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SYED TAHA IQBAL whose telephone number is (571)270-5857. The examiner can normally be reached M-F; 7-5.
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) 270-3591. 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.
/SYED T IQBAL/ Examiner, Art Unit 1736
/ANTHONY J ZIMMER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1736
Prosecution Insights