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
The Amendment filed 26 June 2025 has been entered. Claim 1 is amended; claim 2 is cancelled; claim 21 is added. Accordingly, claims 1 and 3-21 remain pending in the application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statements filed 29 January 2024 and 6 March 2025 have been considered.
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.
Claim 21 is 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 21, lines 1-2, recite “the mixed hydrocarbon product is hydrogenated at the first chemical processing facility to convert olefins to alkanes”. It is unclear how the mixed hydrocarbon product is hydrogenated at the first chemical processing facility to convert olefins to alkanes, because claim 1, lines 8-13, require transporting and dehydrogenating at least a portion of the mixed hydrocarbon product. This limitation is interpreted as requiring a portion of the mixed hydrocarbon product is hydrogenated at the first chemical processing facility to convert olefins to alkanes.
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.
Claims 1, 3-9, 11, 15-18 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Rear (US 6,784,329) as evidenced by Richter (US 6,315,891) and Schmigalle (US 2015/0246856) and “Pentane” and “Naphthalene” and “2,2-dimethylpropane” and Asaoka (US 2007/0004954) and in view of Wu (CN 102911722).
Regarding Claim 1, O’Rear discloses converting methane at a natural gas-producing remote site (remote site meets the limitation of a first chemical processing facility) into synthesis gas, and converting the synthesis gas via a Fischer-Tropsch synthesis into low sulfur paraffinic hydrocarbon liquids (Col. 3, lines 1-7), wherein the converting the synthesis gas to hydrocarbons necessarily takes place in a first reactor.
Richter discloses the Fischer-Tropsch process includes converting a synthesis gas comprising mainly hydrogen and carbon monoxide to hydrocarbons (Col. 1, lines 16-18), such that O’Rear meets the limitation of passing carbon monoxide and hydrogen gas to a first reactor, wherein the carbon monoxide and the hydrogen gas undergo a Fischer-Tropsch reaction in the first reactor and form a mixed hydrocarbon product.
O’Rear further discloses an embodiment wherein a naphtha fraction is obtained from a Fischer-Tropsch processing unit, wherein the fraction is composed predominantly of linear paraffinic hydrocarbons (linear paraffinic hydrocarbons meets the limitation of linear alkanes, and therefore, the naphthas of O’Rear meet the limitation of a mixed hydrocarbon product; Col. 4, lines 41-44).
O’Rear further discloses transporting the paraffinic hydrocarbon liquids to a developed industrial site (developed industrial site meets the limitation of a second chemical processing facility), adding a sulfur-containing compound or sulfur-containing naphtha to the liquid to form a feedstock blend and converting the blend in a naphtha cracker to ethylene, and recovering ethylene and other by-products therefrom (Col. 3, lines 8-13). O’Rear further discloses the remote site is a location away from the other site (aka the developed industrial site) where the distance of transportation is more than 100 miles (Col. 3, lines 65-67), which is equivalent to 160 km and therefore meets the limitation wherein the first chemical processing facility and the second chemical processing facility are separated by a distance of at least 100 km.
Schmigalle discloses injecting naphtha and steam into a steam cracker and cracking to produce ethylene and hydrogen [0021], such that the cracking naphtha to produce ethylene in O’Rear necessarily dehydrogenates at a least a portion of the mixed hydrocarbon product (aka naphtha/paraffinic hydrocarbon liquids) to form a hydrogen gas product. Therefore, hydrogen in the synthesis gas of O’Rear is transported from a first chemical processing facility to a second chemical processing facility where hydrogen is produced in a naphtha cracker unit, and therefore, the process of O’Rear meets the limitation of a method of transporting hydrogen.
O’Rear is silent to the mixed hydrocarbon product comprises at least 90 wt. % of alkanes, on the basis of the total weight of the mixed hydrocarbon product.
O’Rear, however, discloses an embodiment wherein a naphtha fraction is obtained from a Fischer-Tropsch processing unit, wherein the fraction is composed predominantly of linear paraffinic hydrocarbons (paraffins are alkanes and therefore linear paraffinic hydrocarbons meets the limitation of alkanes; Col. 4, lines 41-44). O’Rear further discloses ethylene yields are highest when the feed is composed of high concentrations of paraffins, particularly linear paraffins (Col. 1, lines 52-54).
Wu discloses a low temperature Fischer-Tropsch process producing a normal paraffin (normal paraffins are linear alkanes and therefore meet the limitation of alkanes) content of 75-95% by weight or preferably 85-95% by weight [0028], which overlaps the claimed range of at least 90 wt.% such that the range taught by Wu obviates the claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify O’Rear to incorporate the teachings of Wu wherein the mixed hydrocarbon product comprises at least 90 wt. % of alkanes, on the basis of the total weight of the mixed hydrocarbon product, because producing at least 90 wt. % alkanes via the Fischer-Tropsch process is well-known in the art of Fischer-Tropsch synthesis, as recognized by Wu, and ethylene yields are highest when the feed is composed of high concentrations of paraffins, particularly linear paraffins, as recognized by O’Rear (Col. 1, lines 52-54).
Regarding Claim 3, O’Rear further discloses transporting the paraffinic hydrocarbon liquids to a developed industrial site (Col. 3, lines 8-13), such that all of the paraffinic hydrocarbon liquids of O’Rear are transported to the second chemical processing facility, therefore meeting the limitation of at least 30 wt.% of the mixed hydrocarbon product.
Regarding Claim 4, O’Rear further discloses transporting the paraffinic hydrocarbon liquids to a developed industrial site (Col. 3, lines 8-13), such that all of the paraffinic hydrocarbon liquids of O’Rear are transported to the second chemical processing facility, therefore meeting the limitation of at least 80 wt.% of the mixed hydrocarbon product.
Regarding Claim 5, O’Rear discloses separating (separating necessarily takes place in a separation unit) the Fischer-Tropsch syncrude (Fischer-Tropsch syncrude meets the limitation of the mixed hydrocarbon product) to form a Fischer Tropsch-naphtha containing hydrocarbons selected from C5, C6, C7 . . . C10 and blends thereof, as well as a heavier Fischer Tropsch-derived portion (the Fischer-Tropsch naphtha and heavier Fischer-Tropsch derived portion meet the limitation of one or more hydrocarbon cuts; Col. 5, lines 21-24). O’Rear further discloses the heavier Fisher-Tropsch portion would then be blended with the heavier portion of the petroleum crude (Col. 5, lines 24-26), which is then forwarded to the naphtha cracker unit (Col. 5, lines 16-19), such that the one or more of the hydrocarbon cuts is transported.
O’Rear is silent to whether or not the mixed hydrocarbon product is separated at the first chemical processing facility or the second chemical processing facility, that is, before or after transportation.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify O’Rear wherein at the first chemical processing facility, passing the mixed hydrocarbon product to a separation unit to form one or more hydrocarbon cuts, wherein transporting at least a portion of the mixed hydrocarbon comprises transporting one or more of the hydrocarbon cuts, because selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results (MPEP 2144.04 IV C).
Regarding Claim 6, O’Rear discloses separating the Fischer-Tropsch syncrude to form a Fischer Tropsch-naphtha containing hydrocarbons selected from C5, C6, C7 . . . C10 and blends thereof (a Fischer Tropsch-naphtha meets the limitation of a first hydrocarbon cut), as well as a heavier Fischer Tropsch-derived portion (Col. 5, lines 21-24), wherein the Fischer-Tropsch naphtha containing hydrocarbons selected from C5, C6, C7 . . . C10 is fed to the naphtha cracker (Col. 4, lines 1-11), such that the first hydrocarbon cut is transported to the second chemical processing facility.
Pentane is a C5 hydrocarbon and has a boiling point of 35-36°C (“Pentane”, pg. 5), which meets the limitation wherein the first hydrocarbon cut has an initial boiling point of from 20°C to 100°C.
Naphthalene is a C10 hydrocarbon and has a boiling point of 218°C (“Naphthalene”, pg. 5), which meets the limitation wherein the first hydrocarbon cut has a final boiling point from 180°C to 220°C.
Therefore, a first hydrocarbon cut that has an initial boiling point of from 20°C to 100°C and a final boiling point of from 180°C to 220°C is necessarily present.
Alternatively, C5 to C10 hydrocarbons have boiling points ranging from approximately 7.2°C (“2,2-dimethylpropane”, pg. 5) to approximately 218°C (“Naphthalene”, pg. 5), which overlaps, or in the alternative, is close to the claimed range of an initial boiling point of from 20°C to 100°C and a final boiling point of from 180°C to 220°C such that the range taught by O’Rear obviates the claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Regarding Claim 7, O’Rear discloses the Fischer-Tropsch naphtha containing hydrocarbons selected from C5, C6, C7 . . . C10 is fed to the naphtha cracker (Col. 4, lines 1-11). O’Rear further discloses transporting the paraffinic hydrocarbon liquids to a developed industrial site, adding a sulfur-containing compound or sulfur-containing naphtha to the liquid to form a feedstock blend and converting the blend in a naphtha cracker to ethylene, and recovering ethylene and other by-products therefrom (ethylene is a light olefin and therefore meets the limitation of light olefins; Col. 3, lines 8-13).
Schmigalle discloses injecting naphtha and steam into a steam cracker and cracking to produce ethylene and hydrogen [0021], such that the cracking naphtha to produce ethylene in O’Rear necessarily forms the hydrogen gas product.
Regarding Claim 8, O’Rear discloses water is fed to the naphtha cracker (Col. 3, lines 44-45).
Schmigalle discloses injecting naphtha and steam into a steam cracker and cracking to produce ethylene and hydrogen [0021], such that the naphtha cracking of O’Rear meets the limitation of steam cracking.
Alternatively, Schmigalle discloses an exisiting method of ethylene preparation is steam cracking [0003].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify O’Rear to incorporate the teachings of Schmigalle wherein the naphtha cracker is a steam cracker, because steam cracking naphtha is the conventional method for producing ethylene via naphtha cracking, as recognized by Schmigalle [0003].
Regarding Claim 9, O’Rear further discloses transporting the paraffinic hydrocarbon liquids to a developed industrial site (developed industrial site meets the limitation of a third chemical processing facility), adding a sulfur-containing compound or sulfur-containing naphtha to the liquid to form a feedstock blend and converting the blend in a naphtha cracker to ethylene, and recovering ethylene and other by-products therefrom (Col. 3, lines 8-13). O’Rear further discloses the remote site is a location away from a refinery, market, or other site where the distance of transportation is more than 100 miles (Col. 3, lines 65-67), which is equivalent to 160 km and therefore meets the limitation wherein the first chemical processing facility and the third chemical processing facility are separated by a distance of at least 100 km.
Schmigalle discloses injecting naphtha and steam into a steam cracker and cracking to produce ethylene and hydrogen [0021], such that the cracking naphtha to produce ethylene in O’Rear necessarily dehydrogenates at a least a portion of the mixed hydrocarbon product (aka naphtha/paraffinic hydrocarbon liquids) to form a hydrogen gas product.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify O’Rear to transport at least one of the hydrocarbon cuts from the first chemical processing facility to a third chemical processing facility, wherein the first chemical processing facility and the third chemical processing facility are separated by a distance of at least 100 km; and at the third chemical processing facility, dehydrogenating the one or more hydrocarbon cuts that are transported to the third chemical processing facility to form another hydrogen gas, because the “developed industrial site” of O’Rear is not limited to an individual site, and therefore the hydrocarbon cuts may be sent to a second and/or a third chemical processing facility (Col. 3, lines 8-13, 65-67).
Regarding Claim 11, O’Rear discloses transportation of syncrude, naphtha and other hydrocarbonaceous products from a remote site to a site where the naphtha cracking is conducted and ethylene recovered can be effected using any common means of transport. This would includes marine tankers, rail cars, pipelines, trucks, barges and combinations thereof (Col. 5, lines 30-35).
Regarding Claim 15, O’Rear discloses Fischer-Tropsch naphthas (naphtha meets the limitation of the mixed hydrocarbon product exiting the first reactor) which are suitable for use in the present invention include those which are unrefined, and these unrefined naphthas normally contain linear olefins (Col. 3, lines 39-43), such that the mixed hydrocarbon product exiting the first reactor of O’Rear comprises olefin compounds.
O’Rear further discloses a naphtha fraction is obtained from a Fischer-Tropsch processing unit (Col. 4, lines 41-44). O’Rear further discloses refined naphthas can be used in the present invention and offer some advantages, and the preferred method of refining the naphtha is hydrogenation which includes hydrotreating, hydrocracking and hydroisomerization, and in a preferred embodiment, the naphtha is hydrotreated which avoids the isomerization of the paraffins (Col. 3, lines 47-52), such that the mixed hydrocarbon product exiting the first reactor of O’Rear is hydrogenated.
O’Rear is silent to whether or not the mixed hydrocarbon product is hydrogenated at the first chemical processing facility or the second chemical processing facility, that is, before or after transportation.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify O’Rear to, at the first chemical processing facility, hydrogenate at least a portion of the mixed hydrocarbon product that exits the first reactor upstream of transporting the least a portion of the mixed hydrocarbon product to the second chemical processing facility, because selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results (MPEP 2144.04 IV C).
Regarding Claim 16, O’Rear discloses converting methane at a natural gas-producing remote site into synthesis gas, and converting the synthesis gas via a Fischer-Tropsch synthesis into low sulfur paraffinic hydrocarbon liquids (Col. 3, lines 1-7).
O’Rear is silent to producing the carbon monoxide by partial oxidation of a hydrocarbon feed.
O’Rear, however, discloses in one industrial process, methane (methane is a hydrocarbon and therefore meets the limitation of a hydrocarbon) is partially oxidized to produce synthesis gas which is primarily composed of CO and H2, and synthesis gas can be processed via known Fischer-Tropsch syntheses which involve converting the gas in the presence of a catalyst into hydrocarbon products suitable for conversion into olefins such as ethylene (Col. 1, lines 21-28).
Therefore, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify O’Rear to produce the carbon monoxide by partial oxidation of a hydrocarbon feed, because O’Rear recognizes this method as a possible source of the carbon monoxide/syngas for the Fischer-Tropsch synthesis.
Regarding Claim 17, O’Rear discloses separating the Fischer-Tropsch syncrude (Fischer-Tropsch syncrude meets the limitation of the mixed hydrocarbon product) to form a Fischer Tropsch-naphtha containing hydrocarbons selected from C5, C6, C7 . . . C10 and blends thereof, as well as a heavier Fischer Tropsch-derived portion (Col. 5, lines 21-24). O’Rear further discloses the heavier Fisher-Tropsch portion would then be blended with the heavier portion of the petroleum crude (Col. 5, lines 24-26), which is then forwarded to the naphtha cracker unit (Col. 5, lines 16-19), such that a portion of the mixed hydrocarbon product is transported.
O’Rear is silent to whether or not the mixed hydrocarbon product is separated at the first chemical processing facility or the second chemical processing facility, that is, before or after transportation.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify O’Rear wherein the portion of the mixed hydrocarbon product that is transported from the first chemical processing facility to the second chemical processing facility does not undergo separation by boiling point at the first chemical processing facility, because selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results (MPEP 2144.04 IV C).
Regarding Claim 18, O’Rear discloses separating (separating necessarily takes place in a separator) the Fischer-Tropsch syncrude (Fischer-Tropsch syncrude meets the limitation of the mixed hydrocarbon product) to form a Fischer Tropsch-naphtha containing hydrocarbons selected from C5, C6, C7 . . . C10 and blends thereof, as well as a heavier Fischer Tropsch-derived portion (the Fischer-Tropsch naphtha and heavier Fischer-Tropsch derived portion meet the limitation of one or more hydrocarbon cuts; Col. 5, lines 21-24).
Schmigalle discloses injecting naphtha and steam into a steam cracker and cracking to produce ethylene and hydrogen [0021], such that the cracking naphtha to produce ethylene in O’Rear necessarily dehydrogenates at a least a portion of the mixed hydrocarbon product (aka naphtha/paraffinic hydrocarbon liquids) to form a hydrogen gas product.
O’Rear is silent to whether or not the mixed hydrocarbon product is separated at the first chemical processing facility or the second chemical processing facility, that is, before or after transportation.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify O’Rear wherein at the second chemical processing facility, passing the at least a portion of the mixed hydrocarbon product to a separator to form one or more hydrocarbon cuts, wherein one or more of the hydrocarbon cuts are dehydrogenated, selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results (MPEP 2144.04 IV C).
Regarding Claim 21, O’Rear discloses Fischer-Tropsch naphthas (naphtha meets the limitation of the mixed hydrocarbon product) which are suitable for use in the present invention include those which are unrefined, and these unrefined naphthas normally contain linear olefins (Col. 3, lines 39-43), such that the mixed hydrocarbon product of O’Rear comprises olefin compounds. O’Rear further discloses refined naphthas can be used in the present invention and offer some advantages, and the preferred method of refining the naphtha is hydrogenation which includes hydrotreating, hydrocracking and hydroisomerization, and in a preferred embodiment, the naphtha is hydrotreated which avoids the isomerization of the paraffins (Col. 3, lines 47-52), such that the mixed hydrocarbon product exiting the first reactor of O’Rear is hydrogenated.
O’Rear is silent to whether or not the mixed hydrocarbon product is hydrogenated at the first chemical processing facility or the second chemical processing facility, that is, before or after transportation.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify O’Rear to hydrogenate at least a portion of the mixed hydrocarbon product at the first chemical processing facility, because selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results (MPEP 2144.04 IV C).
O’Rear is further silent to converting olefins to alkanes.
Asaoka discloses hydrogenation of olefins produces alkanes [0015], such that the hydrogenation of the olefins in the mixed hydrocarbon product of O’Rear necessarily produces alkanes.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Rear (US 6,784,329) in view of Wu (CN 102911722) and Dirkzwager (US 2006/0189504).
Regarding Claim 10, O’Rear and Wu teach the elements as described above with regards to claim 9.
O’Rear discloses separating the hydrocarbon product stream of the Fischer-Tropsch process and transporting to a second or third chemical processing facility (Col. 5, lines 21-24; Col. 4, lines 1-11).
O’Rear is silent to at least one of the hydrocarbon cuts that is transported to the third chemical processing facility is a second hydrocarbon cut; and the second hydrocarbon cut comprises at least 50 wt. % of a combined weight of propane and butane, on the basis of the total weight of the second hydrocarbon cut.
Dirkzwager discloses the hydrocarbonaceous product stream of the Fischer-Tropsch process, is separated into a light stream, comprising at least 80% wt of the C1-C4 hydrocarbons produced in the Fischer-Tropsch process and a heavy stream [0008]. Dirkzwager further discloses separation of the hydrocarbon fuel into the appropriate fractions may be conveniently achieved using distillation techniques well known in the art [0052].
Regarding the wt. % in claim 10, it appears that at least 80% wt of the C1-C4 hydrocarbons produced taught by Dirkzwager, in the alternative overlaps or is close to the claimed range of at least 50 wt. % of a combined weight of propane and butane such that the range taught by Dirkzwager obviates the claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify O’Rear to incorporate the teachings of Dirkzwager wherein at least one of the hydrocarbon cuts that is transported to the third chemical processing facility is a second hydrocarbon cut; and the second hydrocarbon cut comprises at least 50 wt. % of a combined weight of propane and butane, on the basis of the total weight of the second hydrocarbon cut, because producing hydrocarbonaceous product stream via the Fischer-Tropsch process and separating it into a light stream comprising at least 50 wt. % of a combined weight of propane and butane is a process parameter well-known in the art of Fisher-Tropsch processes, and separation of the hydrocarbon fuel into the appropriate fractions may be conveniently achieved using distillation techniques well known in the art, as recognized by Dirkzwager [0052].
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Rear (US 6,784,329) in view of Wu (CN 102911722) and Yetman (US 2003/0225169).
Regarding Claim 12, O’Rear and Wu teach the elements as described above with regards to claim 1.
O’Rear discloses converting the synthesis gas via a Fischer-Tropsch synthesis into low sulfur paraffinic hydrocarbon liquids (Col. 3, lines 1-7), and transporting the paraffinic hydrocarbon liquids to a developed industrial site, adding a sulfur-containing compound or sulfur-containing naphtha to the liquid to form a feedstock blend and converting the blend in a naphtha cracker to ethylene, and recovering ethylene and other by-products therefrom (Col. 3, lines 8-13).
O’Rear is silent to the temperature and pressure conditions.
However, Yetman discloses a method for converting natural gas at a remote location to a hydrocarbon characterized by having a liquid phase at ambient air temperature (ambient air temperature meets the limitation, or in the alternative overlaps the claimed 20°C such that the range taught by Yetman obviates the claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05 (I)) and atmospheric pressure (atmospheric pressure meets the limitation, or in the alternative overlaps the claimed 20°C such that the range taught by Yetman obviates the claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05 (I)), or liquid syncrude [0015], using a syngas reactor to convert the natural gas to syngas and a Fischer-Tropsch reactor to convert syngas to the liquid syncrude [0019].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify O’Rear to incorporate the teachings of Yetman wherein the at least a portion of the mixed hydrocarbon product that is transported from the first chemical processing facility to the second chemical processing facility is a liquid at a temperature of 20°C and a pressure of 1 atmosphere, because producing hydrocarbons in a liquid phase at ambient air temperature and atmospheric pressure via the Fischer-Tropsh process is a process parameter well-known in the art of Fischer-Tropsch, as recognized by Yetman.
Claims 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Rear (US 6,784,329) in view of Wu (CN 102911722) and Agee (US 2008/0161427).
Regarding Claim 13, O’Rear and Wu teach the elements as described above with regards to claim 1.
O’Rear discloses catalysts and conditions for performing Fischer-Tropsch reactions are well known to those of skill in the art (Col. 3, lines 34-36).
O’Rear is silent to in the first reactor, the hydrogen and carbon monoxide are contacted with a Fischer- Tropsch catalyst comprising Fe, Co, or both; and the first reactor is operated at a reaction temperature of from 150°C to 300°C and a reaction pressure of from 1 bar to 50 bar.
Agee discloses Fischer Tropsch reactors are well known in the art and basically are comprised of a vessel containing an appropriate catalyst, wherein Fischer-Tropsch catalysts include, for example, cobalt, iron, ruthenium as well as other Group IVA, Group VIII and Group VIIB transition metals or combinations of such metals [0024]. Agee further discloses the Fischer-Tropsch reactor (FTR) may be operated at a pressure from about 100 psia to about 800 psia and a temperature from about 300°F to about 600°F [0024]. Agee further discloses operating conditions and parameters of the FTR useful in the process of the invention are well known to those skilled in the art [0024].
Regarding the temperature in claim 13, 300°F to 600°F, as taught by Agee, is equivalent to 149°C to 316°C, which overlaps the claimed range of 150°C to 300°C such that the range taught by Agee obviates the claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Regarding the pressure in claim 13, 100 psia to 800 psia, as taught by Agee, is equivalent to 7 bar to 55 bar, which overlaps the claimed range of 1 bar to 50 bar such that the range taught by Agee obviates the claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify O’Rear to incorporate the teachings of Agee wherein in the first reactor, the hydrogen and carbon monoxide are contacted with a Fischer-Tropsch catalyst comprising Fe, Co, or both; and the first reactor is operated at a reaction temperature of from 150°C to 300°C and a reaction pressure of from 1 bar to 50 bar, because operating conditions and parameters of the FTR are well known to those skilled in the art, as recognized by Agee [0024].
Regarding Claim 14, O’Rear is silent to the type of Fischer-Tropsch reactor used.
Agee discloses any of the following reactor configurations may be employed for Fischer-Tropsch synthesis: fixed bed, fluidizing bed, etc. [0024]. Agee further discloses operating conditions and parameters of the FTR useful in the process of the invention are well known to those skilled in the art [0024].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify O’Rear to incorporate the teachings of Agee wherein the first reactor is a fixed-bed reactor or a fluidized bed reactor, because operating conditions and parameters of the FTR are well known to those skilled in the art, as recognized by Agee [0024].
Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Rear (US 6,784,329) in view of Wu (CN 102911722) and Harale (US 2021/0163832).
Regarding Claim 19, O’Rear and Wu teach the elements as described above with regards to claim 1.
O’Rear is silent to a first hydrogen gas portion is hydrogen produced by a method with no direct carbon emissions to the atmosphere; a second hydrogen gas portion is hydrogen produced by a method with direct carbon emissions to the atmosphere; the first hydrogen gas portion and the second hydrogen gas portion are passed to the first reactor; and wherein, on average, a mass flow rate of the first hydrogen gas portion is at least 90 % of a mass flow rate of the hydrogen gas product.
Harale discloses a raw hydrogen stream produced in a steam cracking system (a raw hydrogen stream produced in a steam cracking system meets the limitation of a second hydrogen gas portion is hydrogen produced by a method with direct carbon emissions to the atmosphere) combined with a renewable hydrogen stream (a renewable hydrogen stream meets the limitation of a first hydrogen gas portion is hydrogen produced by a method with no direct carbon emissions to the atmosphere) obtained from renewable energy sources, such as hydrogen produced by electrolysis using electricity generated by a solar energy plant, a wind energy plant, a geothermal energy plant, or a biomass reactor, among others [0025]. Harale further discloses the hydrogen feedstock and a carbon monoxide feedstock are fed to a Fischer-Tropsch reactor (Fischer-Tropsch reactor meets the limitation of the first reactor) to convert hydrogen and carbon monoxide to hydrocarbons [0027]. Harale further discloses the use of renewable hydrogen in this process lowers the amount of CO2 that may be produced in the processing facility [0028].
As the carbon dioxide emissions is a variable that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the mass flow rate of the first hydrogen gas portion, the precise amount would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed amount cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the amount of the first hydrogen gas portion (renewable hydrogen) in the hydrogen feedstock for the Fischer-Tropsch reaction to obtain the desired carbon dioxide emissions, since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify O’Rear to incorporate the teachings of Harale wherein a first hydrogen gas portion is hydrogen produced by a method with no direct carbon emissions to the atmosphere; a second hydrogen gas portion is hydrogen produced by a method with direct carbon emissions to the atmosphere; the first hydrogen gas portion and the second hydrogen gas portion are passed to the first reactor; and wherein, on average, a mass flow rate of the first hydrogen gas portion is at least 90 % of a mass flow rate of the hydrogen gas product, because the use of renewable hydrogen in this process lowers the amount of CO2 that may be produced in the processing facility, as recognized by Harale [0028].
Regarding Claim 20, O’Rear is silent to wherein the method to produce the first hydrogen gas portion comprises one or more of: utilization of renewable electricity; utilization of fossil fuels and sequestration of the produced carbon; or utilization of nuclear fission or fusion.
Harale discloses a raw hydrogen stream produced in a steam cracking system combined with a renewable hydrogen stream obtained from renewable energy sources, such as hydrogen produced by electrolysis using electricity generated by a solar energy plant, a wind energy plant, a geothermal energy plant, or a biomass reactor, among others (renewable energy sources meets the limitation of utilization of renewable electricity; [0025]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SLONE ELZABETH SIMKINS whose telephone number is (571)272-3214. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30AM-4:30PM.
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, KEITH WALKER can be reached at (571)272-3458. 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.
/S.E.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1735
/PAUL A WARTALOWICZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1735
Prosecution Insights