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 .
Summary
This is a non-final office action for application 18/555,300 filed on 13 October 2023. Claims 1-20 are currently pending in this application.
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.
Claims 1-20 are 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.
Claims 1 and 14 are indefinite because the phrase “in particular” fails to point out what is included or excluded by the claim language.
Claims 2-20 are indefinite by virtue of their dependence on claim 1.
Claim 7 is indefinite because the limitation claiming “the synthesis gas compression unit” does not have sufficient antecedent basis.
Claim 9 is indefinite because the limitation claiming “the water demineralization unit” does not have sufficient antecedent basis.
Claim 11 is indefinite because the limitation claiming “the second synthesis gas production unit” does not have sufficient antecedent basis and “the water purification unit” does not have sufficient antecedent basis.
Claim 17 is indefinite because the limitation claiming “part of the hydrogen generated in the electrolysis unit of the Fischer-Tropsch unit” is unclear. The electrolysis unit was not specified as being “of Fischer-Tropsch unit” in any claims of which claim 17 depends. For the purpose of examination, this limitation is interpreted to read, “part of the hydrogen generated in the electrolysis unit”. Further, the limitation claiming “the hydrogen generated of the refining unit” is indefinite because “the hydrogen generated of the refining unit” does not have sufficient antecedent basis. None of the claims of which claim 17 depends require the refining unit to generate hydrogen.
Claim 19 is indefinite because the limitation claiming, “the ratio between the dry reformer and the methane steam reformer is adjusted to 30 to 60% to 40 to 65%, based on the methane input” is unclear. Examiner interprets this limitation to claim that 30 to 60% of the total methane is fed to the dry reformer, and 40-65% of the total methane is sent to the steam reformer. This is indefinite because the total methane fed to the reformers could be anywhere from 70% to 125% of total methane. It is therefore unclear what relationship the claimed “30 to 60% to 40 to 65%” actually defines, including whether the two ranges represent complementary fractions of the same methane input or independent quantities.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iijima et al. (US-6489370-B2), hereinafter Iijima, in view of Moore, JR. et al. (US-20020173556-A1), hereinafter “Moore”, and Koseoglu et al. (US-20130334060-A1), hereinafter “Koseoglu”.
Regarding Claim 1, Iijima discloses a plant (reaction system; see Col. 2 Line 67 – Col. 2 Line 1) for the production of synthetic fuels, in particular jet turbine fuel (kerosene), crude petrol and/or diesel (suited for synthesizing gasoline, kerosene, and gas oil; see Col. 3 Lines 6-7), comprising:
a) a synthesis gas production unit (reformer; see Col. 3 Line 13) for the production of a raw synthesis gas (synthesis gas produced in the reformer; see Col. 3 Line 42) comprising carbon monoxide, hydrogen (synthesis gas containing CO and H2; see Col. 3 Line 37) and carbon dioxide (carbon dioxide may be recovered from the synthesis gas produced in the reformer; see Col. 3 Lines 41-42) from methane, water (feeding a steam-mixed natural gas to a reformer; see Col. 3 Line 27) and carbon dioxide (adding the carbon dioxide to the steam-mixed natural gas at a location on an upstream side of the reformer; see Col. 3 Lines 34-35), the synthesis gas production unit having at least one reaction section in which methane, water and carbon dioxide react to form the raw synthesis gas (adding the carbon dioxide to the steam-mixed natural gas at a location on an upstream side of the reformer, thereby allowing a reforming reaction to take place to obtain a synthesis gas; see Col. 3 Lines 34-37), and at least one heat generation section in which the heat required for the reaction of methane and carbon dioxide to form the raw synthesis gas is generated by burning fuel to form flue gas (reformer which is provided with a combustion radiation portion for burning a fuel, the reformer being designed to be heated by the combustion radiation portion; see Col. 3 Lines 27-30 and “combustion exhaust gas employed for heating the reformer”; see Col. 3 Lines 49-50), the reaction section having a feed line for methane (see Fig. 1, Parts 201 and 11), a feed line for water (see Fig. 1, Parts 201, 202, and 11), at least one feed line for carbon dioxide (see Fig. 1, Parts 201, 205, and 11) and a discharge line for raw synthesis gas (a synthesis gas flow passageway 206 is communicated via one end thereof with a lower end of the reaction tube 11 of the reformer 10; see Col. 6 Lines 62-64 and Fig. 1) and the heat generation section having a feed line for fuel (a fuel introducing passageway 203 is communicated with the combustion radiation portion 12 of the reformer 10; see Col. 6 Lines 44-45 and Fig. 1), a feed line for oxygen-containing gas (… combustion radiation portion 12 of the reformer 10 so as to allow the fuel to burn together with air; see Col. 7 Lines 22-24) and a discharge line for flue gas (The combustion exhaust gas… generated at this combustion radiation portion 12 is allowed to flow via the convection portion 13 into the chimney 14; see Col. 7 Lines 25-28),
b) a separation unit for separating carbon dioxide from the raw synthesis gas produced in the synthesis gas production unit (carbon dioxide recovery device… disposed at midways of the synthesis gas flow passageway; see Col. 7 Lines 3-6), with a discharge line (30) for carbon dioxide (carbon dioxide thus recovered is transferred via the passageway 208; see Col. 8 Lines 34-35 and Fig. 1) and a discharge line for synthesis gas (The synthesis gas from which carbon dioxide has been removed as explained above is then transferred via the passageway 206; see Col. 8 Lines 42-44 and Fig. 1),
c) a Fischer-Tropsch unit for the production of hydrocarbons by a Fischer-Tropsch process from the synthesis gas from which carbon dioxide has been separated in the separation unit (The synthesis gas from which carbon dioxide has been removed as explained above is then transferred via the passageway 206 to the Fisher-Tropsch reaction system 33… thus synthesizing gasoline, kerosen, and gas oil; see Col. 8 Lines 42-48 and Fig. 1), and
ei) a separation unit for separating carbon dioxide from the flue gas discharged via the discharge line for flue gas from the heat generation section of the synthesis gas production unit (a first carbon dioxide recovery device 311 is disposed at the convection portion 13 of the reformer 10 so as to enable it to recover carbon dioxide from the combustion exhaust gas; see Col. 6 Lines 53-56), the separation unit having a discharge line for carbon dioxide (This first carbon dioxide recovery device is communicated via a passageway 204; see Col. 6 Lines 56-58 and Fig. 1), the discharge line for carbon dioxide of one of the separation units and the discharge line for carbon dioxide of the other separation unit being either connected directly to one of the at least one feed lines for carbon dioxide of the synthesis gas production unit or the discharge line for carbon dioxide of one of the separation units and the discharge line for carbon dioxide of the other separation unit being connected to a carbon dioxide compression unit which has a discharge line connected to one of the at least one feed lines for carbon dioxide of the synthesis gas production unit (The carbon dioxide thus recovered is transferred via the passageway 208 to the compressor 32 so as to be compressed together with the carbon dioxide that has been recovered at the first carbon dioxide recovery device 311, the resultant compressed carbon dioxide being transferred via the passageway 205 to the raw gas-introducing passageway 201 and added to the natural gas existing in the raw gas-introducing passageway; see Col. 8 Lines 34-41).
Iijima does not explicitly teach a refining unit for refining the hydrocarbons produced in the Fischer-Tropsch unit into synthetic fuels, but does disclose the retention of the function of producing synthetic fuels from a Fischer-Tropsch unit/process (to the Fisher-Tropsch reaction system 33… thus synthesizing gasoline, kerosene, and gas oil; see Col. 8 Lines 42-48 and Fig. 1). However, Moore discloses a refining unit for refining the hydrocarbons produced in the Fischer-Tropsch unit (reacting at least a portion of the Fischer-Tropsch effluent product at hydroprocessing conditions to form a hydroprocessed effluent; see [0013]).
Iijima and Moore are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of Fischer-Tropsch processes. Incorporating the refining unit of Moore would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art because Moore offers to motivation of upgrading the effluent from the Fischer-Tropsch reaction zone; see [0036]).
Iijima does not explicitly teach an electrolysis unit. However, Koseoglu discloses an electrolysis unit (electrolysis cell; see [0058]) for separating water into hydrogen and oxygen, wherein the electrolysis unit has a water feed line (electrolysis cell includes an inlet for receiving water; see [0058]), an oxygen discharge line (an outlet for discharging produced oxygen; see [0058]) and a hydrogen discharge line (an outlet for discharging produced hydrogen; see [0058]), and, wherein a line leads from the oxygen discharge line (60) into the feed line for oxygen-containing gas to the synthesis gas production unit (see Fig. 4, which shows oxygen 202 leaving the electrolysis unit 210 and entering a syngas production unit 230).
Iijima and Koseoglu are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of syngas production for use in a Fischer-Tropsch process. Incorporating the electrolysis unit of Koseoglu with the reformation process of Iijima would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because Koseoglu offers the motivation of economically producing hydrogen (see [0024]), reducing the need for a costly air separation unit, and efficiently produces valuable hydrogen and oxygen gases for on site refinery use (See [0083]).
Regarding Claim 14, Iijima, Moore, and Koseoglu together disclose the plant according to claim 1. Iijima further discloses a process for the production of synthetic fuels, in particular jet turbine fuel (kerosene) (suited for synthesizing gasoline, kerosene, and gas oil; see Col. 3 Lines 6-7).
Regarding Claim 15, Iijima, Moore, and Koseoglu together disclose the plant according to claim 14. Iijima further discloses that no carbon dioxide is removed in the process (the carbon dioxide generated in the manufacturing plant of synthesis gas which comprises the Fisher-Tropsch reaction system is recovered, and at the same time, the carbon dioxide in the synthesis gas is recovered, all of the recovered carbon dioxide being subsequently added to the natural gas on the upstream side of the reformer; see Col. 32 Lines 13-19).
Claims 2, 7, 11 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iijima et al. (US-6489370-B2), hereinafter Iijima, in view of Moore, JR. et al. (US-20020173556-A1), hereinafter “Moore”, Koseoglu et al. (US-20130334060-A1), hereinafter “Koseoglu” and Shulenberger et al. (US-20070244208-A1), hereinafter “Shulenberger”.
Regarding Claim 2, Iijima, Moore, and Koseoglu together disclose the plant according to claim 1. Modified Iijima does not explicitly teach feeding hydrogen from the electrolysis unit to the synthesis gas production unit. However, Shulenberger discloses a synthesis gas production unit that comprises a hydrogen feed line which leads from a hydrogen discharge line of the electrolysis unit (electrolytic production of hydrogen from water; see [0068]) to the synthesis gas production unit (mixing of hydrogen to any desirable ratio with CO2 to optimize the conversion of CO2 to CO via the RWGS reaction; see [0069]).
Iijima and Shulenberger are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of synthesis gas production. Incorporating a hydrogen feed from an electrolysis unit into a synthesis gas production unit, as taught by Shulenberger, into modified Iijima would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because Shulenberger offers the motivation of optimizing the conversion of CO2 to CO (see [0069]).
Regarding Claim 7, Iijima, Moore, and Koseoglu together disclose the plant according to claim 1. Shulenberger then discloses wherein from the hydrogen discharge line of the electrolysis unit there is a line to the Fischer-Tropsch unit (see Fig. 3, Parts 10, 6, and 33), and from the hydrogen discharge line of the electrolysis unit there is a line to a synthesis gas compression unit (the syngas directed through line 115 is, if needed, compressed in compressor 18; see [0061] and Fig. 1 which shows hydrogen 6 from the electrolysis unit being directed to the compressor 18).
Koseoglu further discloses from the hydrogen discharge line of the electrolysis unit there is a line to the refining unit (hydrogen produced from the electrolysis is recovered as the hydrogen source for the hydrotreating unit and hydrocracking unit; see [0074]). These modifications would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because Koseoglu offers the motivation of minimizing the external hydrogen requirement (see [0074]).
Regarding Claim 11, Iijima, Moore, and Koseoglu together disclose the plant according to claim 1. Iijima further discloses a methane steam reformer (The raw gas-introducing passageway 201 is communicated with the preliminary reformer 36… The natural gas mixed with steam is allowed to flow inside the raw gas-introducing passageway 201; see Col. 14 Lines 3-4 and 27-28) as a second synthesis gas production unit (a preliminary reformer 36 is disposed on an upstream side of the reformer 10; see Col. 14 Lines 1-3) for producing a raw synthesis gas comprising hydrogen and carbon monoxide (In this preliminary reformer 36, the hydrocarbons of the natural gas are reformed into methane having one carbon atom, CO and H2; see Col. 14 Lines 32-35) from methane, water (steam mixed natural gas preliminarily reformed in this manner; see Col. 14 Lines 36-37), the methane steam reformer has a methane feed line, a water (steam) feed line (The raw gas-introducing passageway 201 is communicated with the preliminary reformer 36… The natural gas mixed with steam is allowed to flow inside the raw gas-introducing passageway 201; see Col. 14 Lines 3-4 and 27-28), a discharge line for raw synthesis gas (reformed into methane having one carbon atom, CO and H2. The steam mixed natural gas preliminarily reformed in this manner is then fed via the passageway 2017; see Col. 14 Lines 34-37) and a discharge line for water, the discharge line for raw synthesis gas is connected to the discharge line for raw synthesis gas of the synthesis gas production unit (reformed into methane having one carbon atom, CO and H2. The steam mixed natural gas preliminarily reformed in this manner is then fed via the passageway 2017; see Col. 14 Lines 34-37).
Iijima does not explicitly teach hydrogen being fed to the second synthesis gas production unit. However, Shulenberger discloses a synthesis gas production unit that comprises a hydrogen feed line (mixing of hydrogen to any desirable ratio with CO2 to optimize the conversion of CO2 to CO via the RWGS reaction; see [0069]) connected to a hydrogen discharge line of an electrolysis unit (electrolytic production of hydrogen from water; see [0068]). Incorporating a hydrogen feed from an electrolysis unit into a synthesis gas production unit, as taught by Shulenberger, into modified Iijima would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because Shulenberger offers the motivation of optimizing the conversion of CO2 to CO (see [0069]).
Regarding Claim 17, Iijima, Moore, and Koseoglu together disclose the process according to claim 14. As explained in the rejection of claim 2, Shulenberger discloses wherein part of the hydrogen produced by the electrolysis unit is fed to the synthesis gas production unit. Iijima further discloses wherein the H2/CO molar ratio in the raw synthesis gas produced in the synthesis gas production unit is controlled so that it is 1.15 to 1.8 and preferably 1.15 to 1.5 (synthesis gas having a molar ration of H2/CO = 1 to 2.5; see Col. 31 Line 56).
Claims 3 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iijima et al. (US-6489370-B2), hereinafter Iijima, in view of Moore, JR. et al. (US-20020173556-A1), hereinafter “Moore”, Koseoglu et al. (US-20130334060-A1), hereinafter “Koseoglu”, Compagne (US-20140103259-A1) and Garg et al. (US-20050207970-A1), hereinafter “Garg”.
Regarding Claim 3, Iijima, Moore, and Koseoglu together disclose the plant according to claim 1. Iijima further discloses that the synthesis gas production unit is a dry reformer (synthesis gas produced in the reformer; see Col. 3 Line 42) which contains a nickel-based catalyst (the reaction tube is filled therein with a nickel-based catalyst; see Col. 6 Lines 42-43) and can operate at a temperature of 700 to 1,200oC (heat the interior of the reaction tube up to 850 to 900oC; see Col. 8 Lines 23-24).
Iijima does not explicitly teach an operating pressure of 10 to 50 bar. However, Compagne discloses a reformer (The steam reforming catalyst; see [0031]) that can be operated at a pressure of 10 to 50 bar (The catalyst may be operated at any pressure suitable for steam reforming, preferably at a pressure in the range of from 1 to 40 bar; see [0033]) and a temperature of 700 to 1,200 oC (The catalyst bed is typically operated at a temperature in the range of from 600 to 1050oC).
Iijima and Compagne are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of syngas production. It would have been obvious to enable the reformer of Iijima to operate at the conditions disclosed by Compagne because Compagne teaches that these are conditions that are suitable for steam reforming (see [0033]) and are typical to steam reforming (see [0032]).
While Iijima and Compagne both make reference to a nickel-based catalyst, they do not explicitly teach a nickel oxide catalyst. However, using a nickel oxide catalyst for a reforming process would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because Iijima expressly discloses use of a nickel based catalyst (see Col. 6 Lines 42-43), and Garg teaches that nickel oxide is known in the art to be a commercially available reforming catalyst (see [0036]).
Regarding Claim 18, Iijima, Moore, and Koseoglu together disclose the process according to claim 14. The remaining limitations of claim 18 do not exceed those of claim 3. Please refer to the claim 3 rejection as the rejection of claim 18 follows the same rationale.
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iijima et al. (US-6489370-B2), hereinafter Iijima, in view of Moore, JR. et al. (US-20020173556-A1), hereinafter “Moore”, Koseoglu et al. (US-20130334060-A1), hereinafter “Koseoglu” and Jiang et al. (US-20130025281-A1), hereinafter “Jiang”.
Regarding Claim 4, Iijima, Moore, and Koseoglu together disclose the plant according to claim 1. Iijima does not explicitly teach the Fischer-Tropsch discharge line being connected to the synthesis gas production unit. However, Jiang discloses wherein the Fischer-Tropsch unit and/or the refining unit has a gas discharge line which is connected to the fuel feed line of the synthesis gas production unit (a recycle line whereby at least a portion of the Fischer-Tropsch tailgas can be introduced into the dual fluidized bed gasification apparatus; see Claim 7; and “a dual fluidized bed gasification apparatus… producing a gasification product gas comprising hydrogen and carbon monoxide”; see Claim 1).
Iijima and Jiang are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of Fischer-Tropsch synthesis processes. Incorporating lines enabling discharge gas from the Fischer-Tropsch unit to be used as fuel for the synthesis gas production unit, as taught by Jiang, into the process of Iijima would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because Jiang offers the motivation of supplementing fuel to the combustor (see [0015]).
Regarding Claim 5, Iijima, Moore, and Koseoglu together disclose the plant according to claim 1. Jiang further discloses a refining unit (product upgrading apparatus 130B configured to upgrade the liquid products of the Fischer-Tropsch synthesis and fluidly connected with Fischer-Tropsch synthesis apparatus 130… The product upgrading apparatus may comprise hydrotreating apparatus, hydrocracking apparatus, hydroisomerization apparatus; see [0113]) that has one or more product discharge lines for synthetic fuels, with at least one of the one or more product discharge lines for synthetic fuels being connected via a return line to the feed line for fuel of the synthesis gas production unit, so that part of the synthetic fuels produced in the refining unit can be fed as fuel into the heat generation section of the synthesis gas production unit (Upgrading may create an upgrader tailgas… such upgrader tailgas may be utilized as fuel for the combustor of the DFB gasification system; see [0114]). Recycling the fuel from the refining unit, as taught by Jiang, would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because Jiang offers the motivation of supplementing fuel to the combustor (see [0015]).
Claims 6 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iijima et al. (US-6489370-B2), hereinafter Iijima, in view of Moore, JR. et al. (US-20020173556-A1), hereinafter “Moore”, Koseoglu et al. (US-20130334060-A1), hereinafter “Koseoglu”, Jiang et al. (US20130025281A1), hereinafter “Jiang”, and Agee et al. (US-20010047040-A1), hereinafter “Agee”.
Regarding Claim 6, Iijima, Moore, Koseoglu, and Jiang together disclose the plant according to claim 5. Modified Iijima does not explicitly teach a control unit. However, Agee discloses a control unit which controls the quantity of synthetic fuel fed as fuel into the heat generation section of the synthesis gas production unit (synthesis subsystem 68 is preferably a Fischer-Tropsch system; see [0042] and “synthesis subsystem 68 produces a tail gas that is delivered to tail gas outlet 172. Tail gas delivered to conduit 172 may be treated and prepared for use as fuel in either burner 160 or in combustor section 90… A control unit 184 may be included at the junction between conduit 172, 168, and 180 to vary the portions of tail gas provided to conduits 168 and 180”; see [0043] and Fig. 2 which shows conduit 180 directed to the combustor and conduit 168 directed to the burner).
Iijima and Agee are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of Fischer-Tropsch processes. Incorporating the control unit of Agee would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because Agee offers the motivation of adjusting the ratio of product to be obtained from the synthesis subsystem to the amount of electricity generated (see [0043]).
Jiang further discloses the use of carbonaceous feedstock from one part of the system to be recycled and used as fuel for the combustor. Specifically, Jian discloses “…the gasifier is configured to convert at least a portion of the carbonaceous feedstock to char… transfer at least a portion of the char to the combustor… the combustor is configured for operation with substantially no fuel other than the char” (see [0013]). Jiang therefore teaches the concept of operating the plant/process such that no external fuel has to be supplied to the synthesis gas production unit. This would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because Jiang discloses that it is a way to meet the heat requirements of the process (see [0013]).
Regarding Claim 16, Iijima, Moore, and Koseoglu together disclose the process according to claim 14. The remaining limitations of claim 16 do not exceed those of claims 4-6, with the exception that the limitations of claim 16 are presented as process claims. Please refer to the rejections of claims 4-6 as the rejection of claim 16 follows the same rationale.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iijima et al. (US-6489370-B2), hereinafter Iijima, in view of Moore, JR. et al. (US-20020173556-A1), hereinafter “Moore”, Koseoglu et al. (US-20130334060-A1), hereinafter “Koseoglu” and Hammer (EP-2623640-A1).
Regarding Claim 8, Iijima, Moore, and Koseoglu together disclose the plant according to claim 1. Modified Iijima does not explicitly teach a demineralization unit. However, Hammer discloses a demineralization unit (water treatment plant 10; see [0036]) which has a fresh water feed line (raw water is supplied to the water treatment plant; see [0034]) and a discharge line for demineralized water (The water desalted and distilled in the treatment plant is subsequently conducted out of the water treatment plant 10 via a deionate line 16; see [0036]), the discharge line for demineralized water being connected to the water feed line of the electrolysis unit (and fed via a valve 18 to a supply line 20 of the electrolyser 2; see [0036]). It is noted that the remaining limitations of this claim are not positively recited and are instead recited as preferences. Therefore, because these limitations are not required by the claim, they are not examined.
Hammer is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the instant application is concerned as it relates to the production of oxygen and hydrogen via electrolysis, and the water that is used to do so. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a demineralization step prior to the electrolysis step, as taught by Hammer, because Hammer discloses that in order to prevent the electrode surface of the electrolyser from being covered with minerals and other impurities, even tap water is purified and deionized prior to being supplied to the electrolyser. In order to avoid corrosion and catalyst deactivation, no chloride must additionally be present in the water. During operation of the electrolyser, the deionised process water is only partly broken down, a large part of the process water remaining in a process water circuit. However, additional deionized water must be supplied additionally in order to compensate for the consumption of the process water in the electrolyser (see [0003]).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iijima et al. (US-6489370-B2), hereinafter Iijima, in view of Moore, JR. et al. (US-20020173556-A1), hereinafter “Moore”, Koseoglu et al. (US-20130334060-A1), hereinafter “Koseoglu” and Kukkonen et al. (US-20100317749-A1), hereinafter “Kukkonen”.
Regarding Claim 9, Iijima, Moore, and Koseoglu together disclose the plant according to claim 1. Modified Iijima does not explicitly teach a water purification unit. However, Kukkonen discloses a water purification unit (These effluent streams can be fed to a new common or to an existing waste water treatment plant; see [0030] and “waste water treatment process unit 21”; see [0074]) which has a water feed line leading from the refining unit to the water purification unit (process effluents are formed during… the product upgrade section; see [0030]) and a water feed line from the Fischer-Tropsch unit to the water purification unit (process effluents are formed during the Fischer-Tropsch process; see [0030]) and a water feed line leading from the synthesis gas production unit to the water purification unit (process effluents are formed during gasification, gas purification; see [0030]), each for the purification of water accruing therein (The term “wastewater treatment” means the process of removing contaminants from wastewater; see [0021]). It is noted that the remaining limitations of this claim are not positively recited and are instead recited as preferences. Therefore, because these limitations are not required by the claim, they are not examined.
Iijima and Kukkonen are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of Fischer-Tropsch processes. Including the water treatment unit of Kukkonen would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because Kukkonen offers the motivation of the possibility to use an alcohol-contaminated aqueous effluent in a biological purification of a waste water treatment process (see [0015]).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iijima et al. (US-6489370-B2), hereinafter Iijima, in view of Moore, JR. et al. (US-20020173556-A1), hereinafter “Moore”, Koseoglu et al. (US-20130334060-A1), hereinafter “Koseoglu” and Dancuart-Kohler et al. (US-20050131086-A1), hereinafter “Kohler”.
Regarding Claim 10, Iijima, Moore, Koseoglu, and Kukkonen together disclose the plant according to claim 9. Modified Iijima does not teach an anaerobic reactor for water purification. However, Kohler discloses a water purification unit that comprises an anaerobic reactor (the biological treatment may include anaerobic treatment; see [0031]).
Iijima and Kohler are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of Fischer-Tropsch processes. It would have been obvious to use an anaerobic treatment method or reactor, as taught by Kohler, because Kohler explains that Fischer-Tropsch acid waters lend themselves to anaerobic digestion since they contain mainly readily digestible short chain mono-carboxylic acids (see [0033]).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iijima et al. (US-6489370-B2), hereinafter Iijima, in view of Moore, JR. et al. (US-20020173556-A1), hereinafter “Moore”, Koseoglu et al. (US-20130334060-A1), hereinafter “Koseoglu”, and Agee et al. (US-20010047040-A1), hereinafter “Agee”.
Regarding Claim 12, Iijima, Moore, and Koseoglu together disclose the plant according to claim 1. Modified Iijima does not explicitly teach a synthesis gas compression unit. However, Agee discloses a synthesis gas compression unit for compressing the gas to the pressure required in the Fischer-Tropsch synthesis (The combined synthesis gas is delivered to synthesis subsystem68. A synthesis gas booster compressor 149 may be used to increase the pressure of the synthesis gas. Synthesis subsystem 68 preferably is a Fischer-Tropsch system; see [0042]), the synthesis gas compression unit being connected to the Fischer-Tropsch unit via a synthesis gas feed line (see Fig. 2 parts 68 and 149). When modifying Iijima with the synthesis gas compressor of Agee, it would naturally follow that the synthesis gas compressor would be placed directly downstream of the separation unit because Agee disposes the synthesis gas compressor directly upstream of the Fischer-Tropsch unit and downstream of CO2 separation units, while Iijima disposes the CO2 separation unit directly upstream of the Fischer-Tropsch unit. Including the synthesis gas compressor of Agee would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because Agee offers the motivation of boosting the synthesis gas prior to the Fischer-Tropsch unit (see [0044]).
Claims 13 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iijima et al. (US-6489370-B2), hereinafter Iijima, in view of Moore, JR. et al. (US-20020173556-A1), hereinafter “Moore”, Koseoglu et al. (US-20130334060-A1), hereinafter “Koseoglu”, and Olshausen (DE-102013102969-A1).
Regarding Claim 13, Iijima, Moore, and Koseoglu together disclose the plant according to claim 1. Modified Iijima does not explicitly teach a methanation unit. However, Olshausen discloses a methanation unit (methanisation unit 42; see [0071]) for converting carbon dioxide and hydrogen into methane and water (crude methane, namely methane and reaction water 43, is produced from the hydrogen 40 and further carbon dioxide 7 in the methanisation unit 42; see [0071]), the methanation unit having a carbon dioxide feed line (Being fed CO2 directly indicates a line in which CO2 is fed), a hydrogen feed line (Being fed H2 directly indicates a line in which H2 is fed) which is connected to the hydrogen discharge line of the electrolysis unit (hydrogen 40 additionally produced in the electrolysis unit 2; see [0071]), a methane discharge line (crude methane line 43; see [0071] and Fig. 1) and a water discharge line (crude methane, namely methane and reaction water 43; see [0071] and Fig. 1), the methane discharge line being connected to the methane feed line for the synthesis gas production unit (the stored methane 52 is taken from the gas grid, natural gas grid 51 and fed to the hydrocarbon reforming 26, where it is converted into synthesis gas 36; see [0072] and Fig. 1).
Iijima and Olshausen are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of integrated Fischer-Tropsch processes. Incorporating a methanation unit in the manner taught by Olshausen would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because Olshausen offers the motivation of the Fischer-Tropsch plant being operated stably with synthesis gas despite load fluctuations in the electricity distribution network, which is a prerequisite for the economic operation of a Fischer-Tropsch plant and the generation of liquid hydrocarbons of constant quality (see [0041]).
Regarding Claim 20, Iijima, Moore, and Koseoglu together disclose the process according to claim 14. The remaining limitations of claim 20 do not exceed those of claim 13. Please refer to the rejection of claim 13 as the claim 20 rejection follows the same rationale.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iijima et al. (US-6489370-B2), hereinafter Iijima, in view of Moore, JR. et al. (US-20020173556-A1), hereinafter “Moore”, Koseoglu et al. (US-20130334060-A1), hereinafter “Koseoglu”, and Genkin et al. (US-6521143-B1), hereinafter “Genkin”.
Regarding Claim 19, Iijima, Moore, and Koseoglu together disclose the process according to claim 14. Iijima further discloses wherein an H2/CO ratio of 1.13 to 1.80 and preferably 1.15 to 1.50 is set in the raw synthesis gas produced in the dry reformer (synthesis gas comprising CO and H2 at a molar ratio of H2/CO = 1 to 2.5; see Col. 9 Lines 9-10). Iijima does not explicitly teach an H2/CO ratio of the synthesis gas from the methane steam reformer. However, Genkin discloses an H2/CO ratio of 3.20 to 3.60 set in the methane steam reformer generated raw synthesis gas (see Table 1 which shows that the H2/CO ratio from typical SMR’s is 3.0-5.0). The remaining limitations of claim 19 do not exceed those of claim 11, with the exception that they are presented as process claims. For the rejection of these limitations, please refer to the claim 11 rejection as the rejection of these limitations follows the same rationale.
Iijima and Genkin are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of reformers in series for syngas production. Modifying Iijima to produce the claimed ratio of H2/CO in the steam methane reformer, as taught by Genkin, would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention because Genkin offers the motivation of avoiding excess hydrogen production, which results in additional capital cost savings (see Col. 6 Lines 10-15).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALYSSA LEE KUYKENDALL whose telephone number is (571)270-3806. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday 9:00am-5:00pm.
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, Claire Wang can be reached at 571-270-1051. 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.
/A.L.K./Examiner, Art Unit 1774
/CLAIRE X WANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1774
Prosecution Insights