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 Invention II, claims 11-20 in the reply filed on 07/21/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-10 and 21 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 07/21/2026.
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.
Claim(s) 11-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Genkin et al. (EP 2674394; translation provided by Google 09/2026).
Regarding claim 11, Genkin et al. teaches a process for producing a H2 product gas and a CO2 product gas, the process comprising: introducing reactants comprising steam and methane into a plurality of catalyst-containing reformer tubes in a radiant section of a reformer furnace, reacting the reactants in the presence of a reforming catalyst inside the plurality of catalyst-containing reformer tubes under reaction conditions sufficient to form a reformate comprising H2, CO and steam, and withdrawing the reformate from the plurality of catalyst-containing reformer tubes, wherein the reformer furnace has the radiant section and a convection section, wherein the radiant section contains the plurality of catalyst-containing reformer tubes and the convection section contains heat exchange tubes which meets the limitation of A process of steam reforming (paragraph 18). Genkin et al. teaches wherein the oxidant gas mixture comprises 20 volume % to 35 volume % oxygen and 15 volume% to 50 volume % CO2 on a wet basis, wherein at least essentially all of the CO2 of the oxidant gas mixture, is delivered by the first portion of the combustion product gas which meets the limitation of forming an oxidant, the oxidant having between 20 mole percent precent (mol%) oxygen (02) and 40 mol% 02, between 20 mol% carbon dioxide (CO2) and 80 mol% CO2, between 0 mol% nitrogen (N2) and 25 mol% N2, and between 0 mol% water and 40 mol% water (paragraph 31). Genkin et al. teaches introducing one or more fuel gases and an oxidant gas mixture into the radiant section of the reformer furnace external to the plurality of catalyst-containing reformer tubes, wherein the oxidant gas mixture comprises 20 volume % to 35 volume % oxygen on a wet basis, and wherein the oxidant gas mixture contains less than 5 volume % inerts including N2 and any noble gas, combusting the one or more fuel gases with the oxygen in the oxidant gas mixture in the radiant section of the reformer furnace external to the plurality of catalyst-containing reformer tubes thereby forming a combustion product gas and supplying energy for reacting the reactants inside the plurality of catalyst-containing reformer tubes, passing the combustion product gas from the radiant section of the reformer to the convection section of the reformer, and withdrawing the combustion product gas from the convection section of the reformer furnace which meets the limitation of combusting a fuel with the oxidant in a combustion device of a steam reformer apparatus to create a flue gas and heat at least one reactant stream to output at least one reformate stream; sending a mixing device portion of the flue gas to a mixing device to mix the mixing device portion of flue gas with oxygen from at least one source of oxygen to form the oxidant (paragraph 18).
Regarding claim 12, Genkin et al. teaches CO2 can be captured if the reformer furnace is retrofitted or designed with a post-combustion CO2 recovery system such as Fluor's Econamine FG PlussSM, or Mitsubishi's KM CDR Process®. These systems remove CO2 from the flue gas from the reformer furnace stack which meets a broad and reasonable interpretation of removing particulates from a carbon capture portion of the flue gas upstream of a feed compression system of a carbon capture system; and sending the carbon capture portion of the flue gas to the carbon capture system for recovery of CO2 (paragraph 6). It is well known in the art that presence of particulates in the incoming gas is highly detrimental to these systems and therefore upstream particulate removal is a strict prerequisite before the gas can ever enter either the Fluor or Mitsubishi reactors (paragraph 6).
Regarding claim 13, Genkin et al. teaches first portion of the combustion product gas withdrawn from the convection section of the reformer furnace is recycled to the radiant section of the reformer furnace in the oxidant gas mixture which meets a broad and reasonable interpretation of outputting an oxidant forming feed stream from the carbon capture system to feed to the mixing device to mix with the mixing device portion of the flue gas and the oxygen to form the oxidant (paragraph 41).
Regarding claim 14, Genkin et al. teaches portion of the CO2 emissions can also be captured from steam methane reformer designed to produce high purity H2 product and/or Additional CO2 can be captured if the reformer furnace is retrofitted or designed with a post-combustion CO2 recovery system such as Fluor's Econamine FG PlussSM, or Mitsubishi's KM CDR Process® wherein these systems remove CO2 from the flue gas from the reformer furnace stack which could obviously be arranged by one of ordinary skill in the art to produce splitting a second portion of the flue gas from a first portion of the flue gas, the mixing device portion of the flue gas comprising the second portion of the flue gas and the carbon capture portion of the flue gas comprising the first portion of the flue gas (paragraphs 5 and 6).
Regarding claims 15, 17, 18, Genkin et al. teaches a combination may include a sequence of high temperature shift, cooling by indirect heat exchange, and low temperature shift and if desired, either shift stage can be subdivided with interbred cooling and heat from the shifted reformate is recovered thereby cooling the shifted reformate wherein heat may be recovered in a cooling train which may include heat exchangers for preheating feed, boiler feed water, deaerator feed water, as well as additional cooling of the reformate by heat exchange with air or cooling water and the reformate is cooled to a temperature where water condenses (paragraphs 59-60). One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing could envision splitting a third portion of the flue gas from the first portion of the flue gas after the first portion of the flue gas is passed through a cooler unit positioned between a location at which the second portion of the flue gas was split from the first portion of the flue gas and a feed compression system of the carbon capture system; feeding the third portion of the flue gas and the second portion of the flue gas to the mixing device as the mixing device portion of the flue gas for forming the oxidant based on the teachings of Genkin et al. to optimize the process.
Regarding claim 16, Genkin et al. teaches recycling a first portion of the combustion product gas withdrawn from the convection section of the reformer furnace to the radiant section of the reformer furnace in the oxidant gas mixture, wherein 40 to 60 % on a mass flow rate basis, of the combustion product gas withdrawn from the convection section of the reformer furnace is recycled as the first portion of the combustion product gas which meets a broad and reasonable interpretation of wherein the mixing device portion of the flue gas is between 30% and 90% of the flue gas and the first portion of the flue gas is a remainder of the flue gas.
Regarding claim 19, Genkin et al. teaches feeding the at least one reformate stream to a hydrogen production system to form at least one hydrogen-rich product stream; treating the at least one reformate stream via a carbon capture unit positioned upstream of a hydrogen recovery unit to recover CO2 from the at least one reformate stream received by the hydrogen production system and output at least one CO2 recovery stream; and one or more of: feeding a portion of the at least one CO2 recovery stream to the mixing device to form the oxidant, feeding a portion of the at least one CO2 recovery stream to a compression system to form a CO2 product stream, and/or feeding a portion of the at least one CO2 recovery stream to a tail gas stream outputtable from the hydrogen recovery unit for being mixed therewith and fed to a combustion chamber of the combustion device (paragraphs 61-72).
Regarding claim 20, Genkin et al. teaches carbon dioxide capture which meets a broad and reasonable interpretation of comprising: sending a carbon capture portion of the flue gas to a carbon capture system to form a first CO2-rich stream and a second CO2-rich stream, the first CO2-rich stream being outputtable at a pressure that is higher than a pressure of the second CO2 stream; and feeding the second CO2-rich stream to a first stage of a CO2 product stream compression system for forming a first CO2 product stream and feeding the first CO rich stream to a second stage of the CO2 product stream compression system for forming the first CO2 product stream, the first CO2 product stream having a CO2 content of between 90 mole percent (mol%) CO2 and 100 mol% CO2 (paragraphs 4-13).
Claim(s) 11, 19, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Labrecque et al. (U.S. pub. No. 2025/0066190).
Regarding claim 11, Labrecque et al. teaches a steam reforming process which meets the preamble of a process of steam reforming (paragraph 124). Labrecque et al. teaches an oxidizing stream comprising O2/CO2 ratio of 0.5 to 6 which overlaps with forming an oxidant, the oxidant having between 20 mole percent precent (mol%) oxygen (02) and 40 mol% 02, between 20 mol% carbon dioxide (CO2) and 80 mol% CO2, between 0 mol% nitrogen (N2) and 25 mol% N2, and between 0 mol% water and 40 mol% water (paragraph 116). As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Labrecque et al. teaches an oxy-flame is produced in the combustion zone where a carbon source is is fed which meets a broad and reasonable interpretation of combusting a fuel with the oxidant in a combustion device of a steam reformer apparatus to create a flue gas and heat at least one reactant stream to output at least one reformate stream (paragraphs 106 and 107). Labrecque et al. teaches recycled portion of the second gas may be mixed with the first reducing stream prior to being fed to the first zone which meets a broad and reasonable interpretation of sending a mixing device portion of the flue gas to a mixing device to mix the mixing device portion of flue gas with oxygen from at least one source of oxygen to form the oxidant.
Regarding claim 19, Labrecque et al. teaches the hydrogen present in the first reducing stream comprises hydrogen resulting from a water electrolysis reaction in an electrolyzer which is powered by electricity produced from a renewable source (e.g., produced from solar energy, wind energy, hydraulic energy, biomass or geothermal energy) or nuclear energy, and hydrogen resulting from a steam reforming reaction of natural gas or methane in a process for which the CO2 generated is at least partly captured and sequestered which meets a broad and reasonable interpretation of : feeding the at least one reformate stream to a hydrogen production system to form at least one hydrogen-rich product stream; treating the at least one reformate stream via a carbon capture unit positioned upstream of a hydrogen recovery unit to recover CO2 from the at least one reformate stream received by the hydrogen production system and output at least one CO2 recovery stream (paragraph 58). Labrecque et al. teaches method for producing synthesis gas using at least CO2 as carbon source and involving an oxy-flame generated by reaction between oxygen and hydrogen which meets a broad and reasonable interpretation of ; and one or more of: feeding a portion of the at least one CO2 recovery stream to the mixing device to form the oxidant, feeding a portion of the at least one CO2 recovery stream to a compression system to form a CO2 product stream, and/or feeding a portion of the at least one CO2 recovery stream to a tail gas stream outputtable from the hydrogen recovery unit for being mixed therewith and fed to a combustion chamber of the combustion device (paragraphs 103-109).
Regarding claim 20, Labrecque et al. teaches a steam reforming reaction of natural gas or methane in a process in which the CO2 generated is at least partially captured and sequestered and the remaining carbon is fed as carbon source and involving an oxy-flame generated by reaction between oxygen and hydrogen which meets a broad and reasonable interpretation of comprising: sending a carbon capture portion of the flue gas to a carbon capture system to form a first CO2-rich stream and a second CO2-rich stream, the first CO2-rich stream being outputtable at a pressure that is higher than a pressure of the second CO2 stream; and feeding the second CO2-rich stream to a first stage of a CO2 product stream compression system for forming a first CO2 product stream and feeding the first CO rich stream to a second stage of the CO2 product stream compression system for forming the first CO2 product stream, the first CO2 product stream having a CO2 content of between 90 mole percent (mol%) CO2 and 100 mol% CO2 (paragraphs 103-110).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GUINEVER S GREGORIO whose telephone number is (571)270-5827. The examiner can normally be reached M-W 11 am - 9 pm.
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, Coris Fung 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.
/GUINEVER S GREGORIO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1732 09/18/2026
Prosecution Insights