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 .
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 8 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hart et al [20210047180], further in view of Young [20090156695].
With respect to claim 1, Hart discloses: A method comprising: flowing a portion of a flare gas (116, see paragraph 0040 with regard to “For example, the production system 100 may include a heat exchanger 160 that receives waste heat (e.g., hot air or other gases) exhausted by the power generation system 150 via a duct 108H and the incoming hydrocarbon stream 116.”) flowing in a flare header (108A) of a gas processing plant (118) through a methane pipe branching from the flare header to a pyrolysis chamber (102), wherein the flare gas comprises methane [paragraph 0021]; heating, within the pyrolysis chamber, the portion of the flare gas in the absence of oxygen (paragraph 0021 with regard to “Optionally, the stream 116 may be pure methane.”) to thermally decompose the methane into hydrogen and solid carbon (202) [paragraph 0023-0024]; flowing the hydrogen from the pyrolysis chamber through a hydrogen pipe (108E) to a fuel gas header (146) flowing a fuel gas comprising at least one hydrocarbon, wherein the hydrogen and the fuel gas mix (paragraph 0036 with regard to “The remaining hydrogen, methane, and any other gases within the duct 108E may be directed to a power generation system 150 of the production system 100.”) within the fuel gas header to form a fuel mixture [paragraph 0036]; combusting (in power generation system 150) the fuel mixture to generate electrical power [paragraph 0036-0037].
Hart shows that the power generated in power generation system can be supplied to a power grid for further use [paragraph 0037] and a means to provide heat indirectly to the pyrolysis chamber (via line 108H paragraph 0040), however does not show the electricity used to heat the pyrolysis chamber.
Young makes up for these deficiencies by teaching supplying exhaust gases from a power plant (14) to a reaction chamber (10), wherein a reaction occurs in the absence of oxygen to produce hydrogen [paragraph 0012] and
{cl. 1, cont’d} and providing (via heat energy 20) at least a portion of the generated electrical power to the pyrolysis chamber to heat the portion of the flare gas [see FIGs 1 and 2, paragraph 0008, 0012].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Hart to include the power utilization method as taught by Young to heat the pyrolysis chamber because Young provides the step to optimize power production.
With respect to claim 8, Hart discloses: A system comprising: a flare header of a gas processing plant (118, see paragraph 0040 with regard to “For example, the production system 100 may include a heat exchanger 160 that receives waste heat (e.g., hot air or other gases), wherein the flare header (116) is configured to flow flare gas to a flare, wherein the flare gas comprises methane [paragraph 0021]; a methane pipe (108B) branching from the flare header and connecting to a pyrolysis chamber (102), wherein the methane pipe is configured to route (with reference to branch 122) a portion of the flare gas from the flare header to the pyrolysis chamber [see FIG 1]; the pyrolysis chamber, wherein the pyrolysis chamber is configured to heat the portion of the flare gas routed by the methane pipe in the absence of oxygen (paragraph 0021 with regard to “Optionally, the stream 116 may be pure methane.”) to thermally decompose the methane into hydrogen and solid carbon (202) [paragraph 0023-0024]; a hydrogen pipe (108E) connected to the pyrolysis chamber and a fuel gas header (146), wherein the hydrogen pipe is configured to flow the hydrogen from the pyrolysis chamber to the fuel gas header (paragraph 0036 with regard to “The remaining hydrogen, methane, and any other gases within the duct 108E may be directed to a power generation system 150 of the production system 100.”); and the fuel gas header connected to a power generation plant (150), wherein the fuel gas header is configured to flow a mixture of the hydrogen and fuel gas comprising at least one hydrocarbon to the power generation plant where the mixture is combusted to generate electrical power [paragraph 0036-0037],
Hart does not show the system as further claimed.
Young makes up for these deficiencies by teaching supplying exhaust gases from a power plant (14) to a reaction chamber (10), wherein a reaction occurs in the absence of oxygen to produce hydrogen [paragraph 0012] and
{cl. 8, cont’d} a flare header (44) of a gas processing plant (34), wherein the flare header is configured to flow flare gas to a flare [paragraph 0021] and wherein the pyrolysis chamber (10) is electrically connected (via 20) to the power generation plant (22), wherein the pyrolysis chamber is configured to receive electrical power from the power generation plant and convert the received electrical power into heat for heating the portion of the flare gas [see FIGs 1 and 2, paragraph 0008, 0012].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Hart to include the power utilization system as taught by Young to heat the pyrolysis chamber because Young provides the step to optimize power production.
With respect to claim 16, Hart discloses: A method comprising: combusting a fuel gas comprising at least one hydrocarbon [paragraph 0036]; generating electrical power in response to combusting the fuel gas [paragraph 0037]; providing a first portion of the generated electrical power to a gas processing plant (151) [see FIG 1 at branch 122]; flowing a portion of a flare gas from the gas processing plant to the pyrolysis chamber (102), wherein the flare gas comprises methane [paragraph 0021]; heating, with the heat within the pyrolysis chamber, the portion of the flare gas in the absence of oxygen (paragraph 0021 with regard to “Optionally, the stream 116 may be pure methane.”) to thermally decompose the methane into hydrogen and solid carbon [paragraph 0023-0024]; and mixing the hydrogen from the pyrolysis chamber with the fuel gas to form a fuel gas mixture prior to combustion of the fuel gas (paragraph 0036 with regard to “The remaining hydrogen, methane, and any other gases within the duct 108E may be directed to a power generation system 150 of the production system 100.”), wherein combusting the fuel gas comprises combusting the fuel mixture [paragraph 0036-0037].
Hart does not show the method as further claimed.
Young makes up for these deficiencies by teaching supplying exhaust gases from a power plant (14) to a reaction chamber (10), wherein a reaction occurs in the absence of oxygen to produce hydrogen [paragraph 0012] and
{cl. 16, cont’d} providing a second portion of the generated electrical power to a pyrolysis chamber (10); converting the second portion of the generated electrical power to heat within the pyrolysis chamber [see FIGs 1 and 2, paragraph 0008, 0012].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Hart to include the power utilization method as taught by Young to heat the pyrolysis chamber because Young provides the step to optimize power production.
Claim(s) 2-4, 9-10, 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hart et al [20210047180], in view of Young [20090156695], further in view of Peng et al [7871826].
With respect to claims 2-4, and 6 Hart discloses the invention as substantially claimed. For example, Hart shows a controller (112) capable of communicating with valves (110) data for operation of the system based on certain parameters [paragraph 0019-0020], however does not show the details of the specific flow control.
Peng makes up for these deficiencies by teaching:
{cl. 2} The method of claim 1, comprising measuring a heating value of the fuel mixture in the fuel gas header to determine whether the measured heating value of the fuel mixture in the fuel gas header is within a specified heating value range [col 4, line 57-col 5, line 11, col 18, line 22-55, col 19, 14-21, col 20, 18-21].
{cl. 3} The method of claim 2, comprising adjusting the flow of hydrogen through the hydrogen pipe to the fuel gas header in response to determining that the measured heating value of the fuel mixture in the fuel gas header is outside the specified heating value range [col 4, line 57-col 5, line 11, col 18, line 22-55, col 19, 14-21, col 20, 18-21].
{cl. 4} The method of claim 3, wherein adjusting the flow of hydrogen through the hydrogen pipe to the fuel gas header comprises adjusting the flow of the portion of the flare gas flowing through the methane pipe to the pyrolysis chamber [col 4, line 57-col 5, line 11, col 18, line 22-55, col 19, 14-21, col 20, 18-21].
The modification can be made by using the controls as taught by Peng to the existing controllable elements, e.g. valves, of Hart.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Hart to include the control of Young because
With respect to claims 9-10, Hart discloses the invention as substantially claimed. For example, Hart shows a controller (112) capable of communicating with valves (110) data for operation of the system based on certain parameters [paragraph 0019-0020], however does not show the details of the specific flow control.
Peng makes up for these deficiencies by teaching”
{cl. 9} The system of claim 8, comprising an online heating value sensor (30, 40) disposed on the fuel gas header (can be added to the existing header of Hart), wherein the online heating value sensor is configured to measure a heating value of the mixture in the fuel gas header [col 4, line 57-col 5, line 11, col 18, line 22-55, col 19, 14-21, col 20, 18-21].
{cl. 10} The system of claim 9, comprising a controller (20) communicatively coupled to the online heating value sensor, wherein the online heating value sensor is configured to transmit the measured heating value of the mixture in the fuel gas header to the controller, wherein the controller is configured to determine whether the measured heating value received from the online heating value sensor is within a specified heating value range [col 4, line 57-col 5, line 11, col 18, line 22-55, col 19, 14-21, col 20, 18-21].
The modification can be made by using the controls as taught by Peng to the existing controllable elements, e.g. valves, of Hart.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Hart to include the control of Young because
With respect to claims 9-10, Hart discloses the invention as substantially claimed. For example, Hart shows a controller (112) capable of communicating with valves (110) data for operation of the system based on certain parameters [paragraph 0019-0020], however does not show the details of the specific flow control.
Peng makes up for these deficiencies by teaching”
{cl. 17} The method of claim 16, comprising measuring a heating value of the fuel gas mixture to determine whether the measured heating value of the fuel gas mixture is within a specified heating value range [col 4, line 57-col 5, line 11, col 18, line 22-55, col 19, 14-21, col 20, 18-21].
{cl. 18} The method of claim 17, comprising adjusting an amount of hydrogen being mixed with the fuel gas in response to determining that the measured heating value of the fuel gas mixture is outside the specified heating value range [col 4, line 57-col 5, line 11, col 18, line 22-55, col 19, 14-21, col 20, 18-21].
The modification can be made by using the controls as taught by Peng to the existing controllable elements, e.g. valves, of Hart.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Hart to include the control of Young because
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-8, 11-15, and 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. The heating value range is not found in the art or found to be obvious when considering the applied references. The prior art shows the measuring of the flow rate of the hydrocarbon gas however not the flare gas as claimed. Certain claims are allowed based on dependency.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Norbeck et al [20050032920] is considered relevant art because of similar teachings of a pyrolysis system for hydrogen/carbon production for power production [see abstract, paragraph 0024].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AVINASH A SAVANI whose telephone number is (571)270-3762. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday 8am-4pm.
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, Edelmira Bosques can be reached at 571-270-5614. 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.
/AVINASH A SAVANI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762
12/4/2025