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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1 – 24 are pending.
Claims 1 – 6, 8 – 21, 23 and 24 are rejected.
Claims 7 and 22 – 24 are objected.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: the disclosure is missing section headings.
The following guidelines illustrate the preferred layout for the specification of a utility application. These guidelines are suggested for the applicant’s use.
Arrangement of the Specification
As provided in 37 CFR 1.77(b), the specification of a utility application should include the following sections in order. Each of the lettered items should appear in upper case, without underlining or bold type, as a section heading. If no text follows the section heading, the phrase “Not Applicable” should follow the section heading:
(a) TITLE OF THE INVENTION.
(b) CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS.
(c) STATEMENT REGARDING FEDERALLY SPONSORED RESEARCH OR DEVELOPMENT.
(d) THE NAMES OF THE PARTIES TO A JOINT RESEARCH AGREEMENT.
(e) INCORPORATION-BY-REFERENCE OF MATERIAL SUBMITTED ON A READ-ONLY OPTICAL DISC, AS A TEXT FILE OR AN XML FILE VIA THE PATENT ELECTRONIC SYSTEM.
(f) STATEMENT REGARDING PRIOR DISCLOSURES BY THE INVENTOR OR A JOINT INVENTOR.
(g) BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION.
(1) Field of the Invention.
(2) Description of Related Art including information disclosed under 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98.
(h) BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION.
(i) BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE SEVERAL VIEWS OF THE DRAWING(S).
(j) DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION.
(k) CLAIM OR CLAIMS (commencing on a separate sheet).
(l) ABSTRACT OF THE DISCLOSURE (commencing on a separate sheet).
(m) SEQUENCE LISTING. (See MPEP § 2422.03 and 37 CFR 1.821 - 1.825). A “Sequence Listing” is required on paper if the application discloses a nucleotide or amino acid sequence as defined in 37 CFR 1.821(a) and if the required “Sequence Listing” is not submitted as an electronic document either on read-only optical disc or as a text file via the patent electronic system.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 22 – 24 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claims 22 – 24 are dependent claims and should begin with “The process…”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 9, 10 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the amount of water or steam added …" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1 does teach or suggest that water is added at step (iii).
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the water added to the feed gas…" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1 does teach or suggest that water is added at step (iii).
Claim 19 recites the limitation "the unreacted gas" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Based on a review of the claims, it appears that the line should be “the unreacted gas mixture.”
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1 – 6, 8, 11 – 21, 23 and 24 are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Early, et al. (WO 2019/220073), in view of Fitzpatrick (WO2006/126017), in view of Early (WO2020/249923) (Early 2),
The rejected claims cover, inter alia, A process for synthesising methanol comprising the steps of:(i) passing a hydrocarbon feedstock to a synthesis gas generation unit to form a synthesis gas containing hydrogen, carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide and steam; (ii) cooling the synthesis gas in one or more stages of heat exchange and recovering a process condensate from the cooled synthesis gas to form a make-up gas having a stoichiometry value R in the range of 1.70 to 1.94; (iii) passing a feed gas comprising the make-up gas to a methanol synthesis unit comprising one or more methanol synthesis reactors containing a copper methanol synthesis catalyst, and; (iv) recovering a purge gas and a crude methanol product from the methanol synthesis unit, wherein a hydrogen-rich gas is recovered from the purge gas and combined with the make-up gas, and a stream of water or steam is added to the feed gas to the methanol synthesis unit.
Dependent claims 2 and 3 further limit the synthesis gas generation unit. Dependent claim 4 and 6 further limit the synthesis gas generation unit to an adiabatic pre-reformer and autothermal reformer. Dependent claim 5 further limits the hydrocarbon feedstock. Dependent 8 further limits the feed gas. Dependent claims 11 and 12 further limit the methanol synthesis unit. Dependent claims 13, 14 and 15 further limit the methanol synthesis unit to a first and second methanol synthesis reactor operated in series. Dependent claims 16, 23 and 24 further limit the first and second methanol synthesis reactor apparatus type. Dependent claim 17 further limits the copper catalyst. Dependent claim 18 further limits the process for using purge gas. Dependent 19 discloses a CO2 removal unit. Dependent claim 20 further limits the use of recovered carbon dioxide. Dependent claim 21 further limits the process.
However, Early discloses a process for synthesising methanol. The process of Early comprising the following steps on pages 10 – 11:
(i) Passing a hydrocarbon feedstock 10 (natural gas) to a synthesis gas generation unit 14 to form a synthesis gas containing hydrogen, carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide and steam.
ii) Cooling the synthesis gas in one or more stages of heat exchange and recovering a process condensate from the cooled synthesis gas to form a make-up gas 16 (pp. 10, lines 19-21). In example C (pp.14, Table ), the stoichiometry value R of the make-up gas with CO2 addition is 1.93 (i.e. in the range of 1.70 to 1.94).
iii) Passing a feed gas 20 comprising the make-up gas 16+18 to a methanol synthesis unit 24. This unit comprises one or more methanol synthesis reactors containing a copper methanol synthesis catalyst (pp. 12, lines 16: standard copper catalyst).
iv) Recovering a purge gas 26 and a crude methanol product 34 from the methanol synthesis unit.
A hydrogen-rich gas 32 is recovered from the purge gas and combined with the make-up gas (pp. 10, ln 25; Figure 1 line 22).
Along with carbon dioxide 18, a stream of water or steam is added to the feed gas to the methanol synthesis unit. Water is included in stream 18 (pp. 14 table) and is therefore eventually added to the feed gas 20 to the methanol synthesis unit.
The synthesis gas generation unit of Early may comprise a pre-reformer and an autothermal reformer. (pp. 3 ln 10 – 12 & 19 – 27; claims 2, 3). The feed gas (including hydrogen-rich stream 22) has a R number which is higher than that of the make-up gas. The process of Early is a loop process. The hydrogen depleted stream (carbon-rich off gas) of Early is fed by line 30 from the separation unit 28 to the syngas generation unit 14 to be combusted as a fuel. (pp. 12, ln 38 to ppl 11 ln 3 & Figure 1).
The process of Early may be comprised of one, two or more methanol synthesis reactors, containing methanol synthesis catalyst, operated in series or parallel to generate methanol product gas stream. (pp. 10, ln 29 – 31). The product gas stream is cooled to condense and separate a liquid crude methanol from unreacted gas, a portion of which is compressed in a circulator and recycled to the methanol synthesis reactor. (col. 10, ln 31 – 33).
The crude methanol from the methanol stripping unit 36 can be sent to a purification unit 40 comprised of one, two or more distillation columns.
The difference between Early and the claimed invention is that it does not teach the invention with particularity so as to amount to anticipation (See M.P.E.P. §2131: "[t]he identical invention must be shown in as complete detail as is contained in the ...claim." Richardson v. Suzuki Motor Co., 868 F.2d 1226, 1236, 9 USPQ2d 1913, 1920 (Fed. Cir. 1989). The elements must be arranged as required by the claim, but this is not an ipsissimis verbis test, i.e., identity of terminology is not required. In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 15 USPQ2d 1566 (Fed. Cir. 1990).).
However, based on the above, Early teaches the elements of the claimed invention with sufficient guidance, particularity, and with a reasonable expectation of success, that the invention would be prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill (the prior art reference teaches or suggests all the claim limitations with a reasonable expectation of success. (see M.P.E.P. § 2143).
The remaining difference between the instantly claimed invention is as follows: the synthesis gas generation unit comprises an adiabatic pre-former and autothermal reformer; the steam at a steam to carbon ratio in the range of 0.3 to 3 in the autothermal reformer; the multiple methanol synthesis units comprised of a first and second methanol synthesis reactor operated in series with recycling of unreacted gas stream (claim 12, 14 15); the first methanol synthesis reactor is an axial-flow steam-raising converter and the second methanol synthesis reactor is an axial-flow steam-raising converter, a radial-flow steam-raising converter, a gas-cooled converter or a tube-cooled converter (claims 16, 23, 24); a CO2 removal unit to recover carbon dioxide; carbon dioxide used in an external chemical synthesis process, and the copper methanol synthesis catalyst comprises copper, zinc oxide and alumina.
Regarding the synthesis gas generation unit comprises an adiabatic pre-former and autothermal reformer, and the steam at a steam to carbon ratio in the range of 0.3 to 3 in the autothermal reformer; the Examiner turns to the teaching of Fitzpatrick and Early 2. The prior art of Fitzpatrick teaches that in addition to the autothermal reformer, may comprise one or more steps of adiabatic steam reforming, often termed pre-reforming. (pp. 3, ln 26 – 29). Early 2 discloses that when steam reforming of the hydrocarbon stock is performed, The amount of steam introduced may be such as to give a steam to carbon ratio of 1 to 3. Early 2 discloses that it is preferred that the steam to carbon ratio be ≤1.5:1. (pp. 4, ln 25 – 29). As such, these limitations are deemed to be obvious absent a showing of unexpected results.
A reference is good not only for what it teaches by direct anticipation but also for what one of ordinary skill in the art might reasonably infer from the teachings. (In re Opprecht 12 USPQ 2d 1235, 1236 (Fed Cir. 1989); In re Bode 193 USPQ 12 (CCPA) 1976). In light of the forgoing discussion, the Examiner concludes that the subject matter defined by the instant claims would have been obvious within the meaning of 35USC 103.
However, with regard to the multiple methanol synthesis units comprised of a first and second methanol synthesis reactor operated in series with unreacted gas stream (claim 12, 14, 15), the Examiner turns to the teaching of Early and Early 2. The process of Early may be comprised of one, two or more methanol synthesis reactors, containing methanol synthesis catalyst, operated in series or parallel to generate methanol product gas stream. (pp. 10, ln 29 – 31). In Early 2 it is disclosed that separation of the crude liquid methanol product from one or more of the methanol product gas streams produces an unreacted gas mixture. A portion of the unreacted gas mixture is returned as a recycle or loop gas stream to one or more of the methanol synthesis reactors. Unreacted gas separated from a product gas mixture recovered from one methanol synthesis reactor may be returned to the same or a different methanol synthesis reactor. The unreacted gas mixture comprises hydrogen, carbon monoxide, and carbon dioxide and so may be used to generate additional methanol. The recycle gas stream may be recovered from at least one of one of the methanol product gas streams and recycled to at least one of the methanol synthesis reactors. Also, if there is more than one recycle gas stream, these may be recycled separately to one or more of the methanol synthesis reactors or combined and fed to one or more of the methanol synthesis reactors. (pp. 7 ln 31 to pp. 8 ln 2). As such, these limitations are deemed to be obvious absent a showing of unexpected results.
A reference is good not only for what it teaches by direct anticipation but also for what one of ordinary skill in the art might reasonably infer from the teachings. (In re Opprecht 12 USPQ 2d 1235, 1236 (Fed Cir. 1989); In re Bode 193 USPQ 12 (CCPA) 1976). In light of the forgoing discussion, the Examiner concludes that the subject matter defined by the instant claims would have been obvious within the meaning of 35USC 103.
However, with regard to the first methanol synthesis reactor is an axial-flow steam-raising converter and the second methanol synthesis reactor is an axial-flow steam-raising converter, a radial-flow steam-raising converter, a gas-cooled converter or a tube-cooled converter (claims 16, 23, 24), the Examiner turns to the teaching of Early 2. The prior art or Early 2 discloses that the methanol synthesis reactor may be an axial steam raising converter, a radial-flow steam raising converter, a gas-cooled converter or a tube cooled converter. (pp. 8, ln 21 – 23). Additionally, Early 2 discloses In a process comprising first and second methanol synthesis reactors, the first methanol synthesis reactor is preferably cooled by boiling water, such as in an axial-flow steam-raising converter or a radial-flow steam-raising converter, more preferably an axial-flow steam raising converter. The second methanol synthesis reactor may be a radial-flow steam-raising converter. Such arrangements are particularly useful in the present invention due to the characteristics and performance of these reactors with different feed gas mixtures. Alternatively, the second methanol may be cooled by a synthesis gas, e.g. a gas comprising hydrogen and carbon dioxide. Accordingly, the second methanol synthesis reactor may be a cooled reactor selected from a tube cooled converter (TCC) and a gas-cooled converter (GCC). A tube-cooled converter is preferred. (pp. 9, ln15 – 23). As such, these limitations are deemed to be obvious absent a showing of unexpected results.
A reference is good not only for what it teaches by direct anticipation but also for what one of ordinary skill in the art might reasonably infer from the teachings. (In re Opprecht 12 USPQ 2d 1235, 1236 (Fed Cir. 1989); In re Bode 193 USPQ 12 (CCPA) 1976). In light of the forgoing discussion, the Examiner concludes that the subject matter defined by the instant claims would have been obvious within the meaning of 35USC 103.
Regarding a CO2 removal unit to recover carbon dioxide the Examiner turns to the teaching of Early 2. Early 2 discloses that the R-value of the make-up gas is less than 1.80, or if the CO₂ removed in the crude methanol and removed via the fuel is not sufficient, then a CO2 removal unit may be included to provide the desired R-value in the enriched gas fed to the methanol synthesis unit. This limitation is deemed to be obvious absent a showing of unexpected results.
A reference is good not only for what it teaches by direct anticipation but also for what one of ordinary skill in the art might reasonably infer from the teachings. (In re Opprecht 12 USPQ 2d 1235, 1236 (Fed Cir. 1989); In re Bode 193 USPQ 12 (CCPA) 1976). In light of the forgoing discussion, the Examiner concludes that the subject matter defined by the instant claims would have been obvious within the meaning of 35USC 103.
With carbon dioxide used in an external chemical synthesis process, the Examiner turns to Early 2. The prior art of Early 2 discloses that the carbon-rich stream in line 58 is subjected to further separation in a further separation unit (not shown) that removes at least a portion of the carbon dioxide from the carbon-rich stream, thereby generating a methane-rich stream and the methane rich stream is fed to the reformer unit as the carbon-rich stream. Inert gases are separated with the removed carbon dioxide and the inerts and removed carbon dioxide used as a fuel, e.g. in the fired heater 16. (pp. 14, ln 4 – 8). This limitation is deemed to be obvious absent a showing of unexpected results.
A reference is good not only for what it teaches by direct anticipation but also for what one of ordinary skill in the art might reasonably infer from the teachings. (In re Opprecht 12 USPQ 2d 1235, 1236 (Fed Cir. 1989); In re Bode 193 USPQ 12 (CCPA) 1976). In light of the forgoing discussion, the Examiner concludes that the subject matter defined by the instant claims would have been obvious within the meaning of 35USC 103.
However, with regard to the copper methanol synthesis catalyst comprises copper, zinc oxide and alumina, the Examiner turns to the teaching of Fitzpatrick. The prior art of Fitzpatrick discloses a process for synthesizing methanol comprising the steps of:(i) reforming a hydrocarbon feedstock and separating water from the resulting reformed gas mixture to generate a make-up gas comprising hydrogen and carbon oxides, said make-up gas mixture having a stoichiometric number, R, defined by the formula; R = ([H₂] - [CO₂]) / ([CO₂] + [CO]) of less than 2.0, (ii) combining said make-up gas with an unreacted synthesis gas to form a synthesis gas mixture, (iii) passing the synthesis gas mixture at elevated temperature and pressure through a bed of methanol synthesis catalyst to generate a product stream comprising methanol and unreacted synthesis gas, (iv) cooling said product stream to recover a crude methanol stream from said unreacted synthesis gas, (v) removing a portion of said unreacted synthesis gas as a purge gas, and (vi) feeding the remaining unreacted synthesis gas to step (ii) characterized in that hydrogen is recovered from at least a portion of said purge gas and a portion of said make-up gas, and the recovered hydrogen is included in the synthesis gas mixture. (pp. 2, ln 25 to pp. 3, ln 3). The methanol synthesis catalyst is a copper-based catalyst. Fitzpatrick discloses that particularly suitable catalysts containing copper and compounds, e.g. oxides of zinc, aluminum, chromium,
titanium, zirconium, and/or magnesium.
Because each of the references teach methods for methanol synthesis from synthesis ga, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention to substitute the copper-type methanol synthesis catalyst of Fitzpatrick for the standard copper catalyst of Early in the reaction within the methanol synthesis unit of Early to achieve the predictable result of converting the make-up gas to methanol.
Therefore, the claims would have been obvious because the substitution of one known element for another would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (U.S. 2007).
Art Made of Record
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. WO 2005/108336 (Jenzer et al.) discloses a system and process for synthesis of methanol out of source gas containing light hydrocarbons. English et al. Methanol (Kirk-Othmer Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology, John Wiley & Sons, Inc. (ED). 19 pages, March 16, 2015).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7 and 22 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 following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: None of the prior of record teaches or suggest the motivation that when the synthesis gas contains 2.5 to 7% by volume of carbon dioxide, or 3 to 5% by volume of carbon dioxide, that the addition of water or steam to the make-up gas will promote the water gas shift reaction across the methanol synthesis catalyst resulting in higher amounts of carbon dioxide and hydrogen in the methanol converter effluent, which in turn, increases the amount of dissolved carbon dioxide and hydrogen content in the crude methanol and purge gas such that the hydrogen recovery unit off gas does not overwhelm the fuel requirement for the process.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YATE' K. CUTLIFF whose telephone number is (571)272-9067. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (8:30 - 5:30).
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, Scarlett Y. Goon can be reached at (571) 270-5241. 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.
/YATE' K CUTLIFF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1692