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 .
Response to Amendment
This is the response to amendment filed 10/20/2025 for application 18/517268.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been fully considered.
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) 1-4, 13, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JONES (USPGPUB 2023/0287284) in view of CRAMWINCKEL (WO2022171906A2).
JONES teaches systems and methods for producing decarbonized blue hydrogen gas cracking operations.
JONES teaches in paragraph 4 and Fig 1, a conventional ethylene production system with a steam cracking furnace 104. A cracked hydrocarbon feedstock stream 108 is sent to a separations train to separate an ethylene stream, a tail gas stream, and other byproducts. JONES teaches in paragraph 14 that the tail gas stream is fed into a hydrogen/hydrocarbon separation system such as a PSA 202 to separate out a hydrogen gas stream 204 and a PSA effluent stream 206.
(producing an ethylene product stream and a steam cracker off gas stream comprising hydrogen and methane in a steam cracking zone comprising a steam cracking reactor)
The PSA effluent stream 206 is sent to a hydrogen generation unit 208. The hydrogen generation unit is taught to produce a decarbonized blue hydrogen gas stream 212, a byproduct 214 comprising methane, carbon monoxide, water, unrecovered hydrogen, unrecovered CO2, and inert gases, and CO2 emissions 216.
The hydrogen gas stream 212 may be combined with a hydrogen gas stream 204 to form a hydrogen fuel gas stream 218. The hydrogen fuel gas stream 218 may be used as a hydrogen gas stream that is used to heat (fire) the steam cracking furnace.
The hydrogen fuel gas stream 218 may also be sent to a gas turbine generator to produce electrical power.
JONES teaches in paragraph 11 that the hydrogen generation unit may include steam methane reforming, autothermal reforming and oxidation.
JONES further teaches in paragraph 15 stream 218 may be supplemented with tail gas stream 106.
CRAMWINCKEL teaches one pages 22-23 a process in which a FT gaseous fraction 18 stream comprising synthesis gas and steam cracker output may be both sent into a separation train for separation into products.
Coprocessing a stream comprising synthesis gas and steam cracker output off gas in the same separation train is known in the art.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine external synthesis gas generated from a separate hydrogen generation unit with the cracked hydrocarbon feedstock stream 108 to be processed.
CRAMWINCKEL teaches in page 2 one advantage is that the process can be used to integrate in an existing steam cracker. Another advantage is taught in page 3 that a wider variety of feed can be used and allow transition to a different feed.
(producing a synthesis gas stream comprising hydrogen, methane, carbon monoxide, and carbon dioxide in a hydrogen production zone comprising a synthesis gas reactor and a separation zone comprising a hydrogen separation unit and a carbon dioxide separation unit)
The byproduct stream 214 from JONES comprises methane and carbon monoxide is taught to be sequestered and stored.
It would be well within one of ordinary skill in the art to send the byproduct stream 214 to produce synthesis gas from the separate hydrogen generation unit to produce further products.
The CO2 emissions 216 are taught to be captured and compressed for sequestration and storage.
(separating the synthesis gas stream and the steam cracker off gas stream in the separation zone of the hydrogen production zone producing a hydrogen product stream comprising hydrogen from the synthesis gas stream and hydrogen from the steam cracker off gas stream, a carbon dioxide product stream comprising carbon dioxide, and a second off gas stream comprising methane from the steam cracker off gas stream and methane from the synthesis gas stream and carbon monoxide from the synthesis gas stream; passing the hydrogen product stream to the steam cracking zone as fuel gas; passing the second off gas stream from the separation zone to the hydrogen production zone; and recovering the carbon dioxide product stream.)
Regarding claims 2, 3 and 13, JONES teaches in paragraph 14 pressure swing absorption is used to separate hydrogen from hydrocarbons. JONES further teaches in paragraph 5 that cryogenic distillation is a known separation technique that may be used in a separations train. Carbon dioxide is taught to be separated.
Regarding claim 4, JONES teaches in paragraph 15 that the hydrogen generation unit 208 both produces a decarbonized blue hydrogen gas stream and also unrecovered hydrogen. The unrecovered hydrogen along with inert gases and unrecovered CO2 may be sequestered and stored.
Regarding claim 14, the hydrogen generation unit is taught in paragraph 11 to comprise steam reforming.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JONES (USPGPUB 20230287284) in view of CRAMWINCKEL (WO2022171906A2) as applied to claims 1-4, 13, and 14 above, and further in view of CHEN (USPGPUB 2010/0288123).
Regarding claim 15, the above discussion of JONES is incorporated herein by reference.
CHEN teaches a process for the recovery of high purity hydrogen and high purity carbon dioxide. CHEN teaches production of gases from steam hydrocarbon reforming processes. CHEN teaches processing a hydrogen rich effluent that also contains carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, methane and water.
CHEN is relied on to teach that water gas shift is known to be used for producing hydrogen.
CHEN teaches in paragraph 13 that steam hydrocarbon reforming is a known method, along with water gas shift as methods for producing hydrogen.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use water gas shift reactor to either substitute or as an additional hydrogen generator in the process that JONES teaches.
JONES teaches in paragraph 4 that water gas shift further produces hydrogen.
Therefore, the invention as a whole would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
Claim(s) 9 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JONES (USPGPUB 20230287284) in view of CRAMWINCKEL (WO2022171906A2) as applied to claims 1-4, 13, and 14 above, and further in view of GEWARTOWSKI (US 4381418).
Regarding claim 15, the above discussion of JONES is incorporated herein by reference.
GEWARTOWSKI teaches in lines 62-68 of column 2, and lines 1-22 of column 3, a process in which a hydrogen stream is expanded with a turbo-expanded to chill the hydrogen stream and the hydrogen stream can then be used to heat exchange with another stream.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the technique taught in GEWARTOWSKI teaches to the hydrogen stream that is recycled in JONES.
The motivation to do so can be found in lines 9-16 of column 2 of GEWARTOWSKI. GEWARTOWSKI teaches that expanding the hydrogen stream and using it to heat exchange is an energy efficient technique.
Therefore, the invention as a whole would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's amendments filed 10/10/2025 have necessitated a new grounds of rejection.
CRAMWINCKEL teaches on pages 22-23 a process in which a FT gaseous fraction 18 stream comprising synthesis gas and steam cracker output may be both sent into a separation train for separation into products.
Coprocessing a stream comprising synthesis gas and steam cracker output off gas in the same separation train is known in the art.
CRAMWINCKEL teaches in page 2 one advantage is that the process can be used to integrate in an existing steam cracker. Another advantage is taught in page 3 that a wider variety of feed can be used and allow transition to a different feed.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-8, 10-12, and 17-20 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
HAIDEGGER (EP 3922621) teaches processing a stream from steam cracking and another steam from synthesis gas generation is sent to be co-processed.
LAWRENCE (WO 2022150263) teaches recovering a process gas from a steam cracker and a refinery gas from a refinery facility. The process gas and the refinery gas can be combined into a combined gas. LAWRENCE teaches a series of compressor stages. The combined gas may be processed to remove one or more impurities. The refinery gas is taught in paragraph 16 to include any gaseous stream recovered from a petrochemical facility that upgrades one or more hydrocarbons.
BAKER (US 5785739) teach a steam cracker separation process for treating a gas stream comprising methane and hydrogen and olefin.
CHEWTER (US 8507742) teach a process for producing olefins that comprises separating a feed into a methane containing feed and an ethane containing feed. The ethane containing feed is steam cracked. The methane containing feed is subjected to synthesis gas formation and oxygenate-to-olefin processing. Effluents from steam cracking and oxygenate-to-olefin processing are combined and sent to a work-up section for separation, including separating hydrogen.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MING CHEUNG PO whose telephone number is (571)270-5552. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-6.
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, PREM SINGH can be reached at 5712726381. 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.
/MING CHEUNG PO/Examiner, Art Unit 1771
/ELLEN M MCAVOY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771