DETAILED ACTION
STATUS OF THE APPLICATION
Receipt is acknowledged of Applicants’ Amendments and Remarks, filed 19 December 2023, in the matter of Application No. 18/571,911. Said documents have been entered on the record. The Examiner further acknowledges the following:
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-25 are pending.
Claims 1-21 have been amended.
No claims have been cancelled.
Claims 22-25 have been newly added.
Thus, claims 1-25 represent all claims currently under consideration.
Priority
Domestic Priority data as claimed by Applicant:
This application is a 371 of PCT/EP2022/067734 (06/28/2022)
Foreign Applications:
EUROPEAN PATENT 21182476.8 (06/29/2021)
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
This application repeats a substantial portion of prior Application No. PCT/EP2022/067734, filed 28 June 2022, and adds disclosure not presented in the prior application. Because this application names the inventor or at least one joint inventor named in the prior application, it may constitute a continuation-in-part of the prior application. Should Applicant desire to claim the benefit of the filing date of the prior application, attention is directed to 35 U.S.C. 120, 37 CFR 1.78, and MPEP § 211 et seq. The presentation of a benefit claim may result in an additional fee under 37 CFR 1.17(w)(1) or (2) being required, if the earliest filing date for which benefit is claimed under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) and 1.78(d) in the application is more than six years before the actual filing date of the application.
The added disclosure not presented in the prior application is the limitation “…wherein the hydro/deoxygenation (HDO/DO) step is…a hydrodeoxygenation (HDO) and deoxygenation (D) step” as recited in instant claim 23. The term “hydro/deoxygenation (HDO/DO)” as recited in instant claims 1 and 23 and the term “HDO/DO unit” as recited in instant claim 19 is defined as “wherein the term hydro/deoxygenation (HDO/DO) step denotes hydrodeoxygenation (HDO) whereby hydrogen is added, or deoxygenation (DO) whereby no hydrogen is added” in the specification as filed (Specification; page 5, lines 10-11; page 7, lines 5-7). Therefore, there does not appear to be any prior support for the interpretation that the limitation “HDO/DO” can be interpreted as HDO and DO as recited in claim 23.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 23, “…HDO-step...” should read “…HDO/DO step…”
In line 23, “olefin hydrogenation step.” should read “olefin removal step”
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 7, “process,.” should read “process.”
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In lines 6-7, “…hydropyrolysis (HP); catalytic fast hydropyrolysis (CHP)…” should read “…hydropyrolysis (HP); or catalytic fast hydropyrolysis (CHP)…”
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 8, “…hydrotreated…” should read “…hydroprocessed…”
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 3, “…hydrotreated…” should read “…hydroprocessed…”
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 3, “…the group…” should read “…a group…”
In line 5, “…the group…” should read “…a group…”
In line 10, and/or recycling a hydrocarbon product,.” should read “and/or a recycled hydrocarbon product.”
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 23, “…HDO unit…” should read “…HDO/DO unit…”
In line 24, “methanol synthesis units” should read “methanol synthesis unit”
Claim 23 is objected to because of the following informalities:
There is a period missing from the end of the claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The term “hydro/deoxygenation (HDO/DO)” as recited in instant claims 1 and 23 and the term “HDO/DO unit” as recited in instant claim 19 is defined as “wherein the term hydro/deoxygenation (HDO/DO) step denotes hydrodeoxygenation (HDO) whereby hydrogen is added, or deoxygenation (DO) whereby no hydrogen is added” in the specification as filed (Specification; page 5, lines 10-11; page 7, lines 5-7).
The term “suitably” as recited in instant claims 13-15 will be interpreted as meaning optional, i.e. an optional embodiment, in a manner consistent with the written description (Specification; page 7, line 22).
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 7, 10-18, 20-21, and 25 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.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 7 recites the broad recitation “municipal waste”, and the claim also recites “in particular the organic portion thereof” which is the narrower statement of the limitation. The claim is considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claim.
Claim 10 recites “…said olefin removal step i.e. step ii)…” in lines 12-13. However, the use of the term “i.e.” makes the scope of the claim limitation unclear, especially since step ii) specifically refers to conducting the upgraded first off-gas stream, and this ambiguity renders the instant claim indefinite.
Regarding claims 11-18, these dependent claims do not resolve the indefiniteness of claim 10 detailed above.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 11 recites the broad recitation “separation unit”, and the claim also recites “preferably being at least one of an amine absorption unit, a caustic scrubber, and a sulfur absorbent unit” which is the narrower statement of the limitation. The claim is considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claim.
Regarding claim 13, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation following the phrase is part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 14 recites the limitation "said first liquid oil stream" in line 3 and in lines 9-10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of examination, “first liquid oil stream” will be interpreted as a product of the step i) of the process of claim 1, as recited in instant claim 22.
Regarding claim 16, this dependent claim does not resolve the indefiniteness of claim 14 detailed above.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "said catalytic unit for liquid oil stabilization" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The catalytic unit for liquid oil stabilization is not introduced until claim 14.
Regarding claim 18, the phrase "such as" in lines 6 and 9 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrases are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 20 recites the limitation "the second off-gas stream from step vii)" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of examination, “the second off-gas stream from step vii)” will be interpreted as the second off-gas stream from the separation section, as recited in instant claim 20.
Regarding claim 21, this dependent claim does not resolve the indefiniteness of claim 20 detailed above.
Claim 21 recites the limitation "said first liquid oil stream" in lines 4-5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of examination, “first liquid oil stream” will be interpreted as a product of the step i) of the process of claim 1, as recited in instant claim 22.
Claim 25 recites the limitation "wherein the step i-2)" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The method step i-2) is not introduced until claim 2.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 23 recites “…wherein the hydro/deoxygenation (HDO/DO) step is…a hydrodeoxygenation (HDO) and deoxygenation (D) step” and this limitation fails to further limit claim 1 on which the instant claim depends because the hydro/deoxygenation (HDO/DO) step is defined in the written description as a hydrodeoxygenation (HDO) or deoxygenation (DO) step, and the term “hydro/deoxygenation (HDO/DO) step” denotes hydrodeoxygenation (HDO) whereby hydrogen is added, or deoxygenation (DO) whereby no hydrogen is added (Specification; page 5, lines 10-11; page 7, lines 5-7).
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 23 recites “…wherein the hydro/deoxygenation (HDO/DO) step is…a hydrodeoxygenation (HDO) and deoxygenation (D) step” in lines 1-3. This limitation is not adequately supported by the written description because the hydro/deoxygenation (HDO/DO) step is defined in the Specification as a hydrodeoxygenation (HDO) or deoxygenation (DO) step, and the term “hydro/deoxygenation (HDO/DO) step” denotes hydrodeoxygenation (HDO) whereby hydrogen is added, or deoxygenation (DO) whereby no hydrogen is added (Specification; page 5, lines 10-11; page 7, lines 5-7). Therefore, the written description does not provide support for the process of claim 1, wherein the hydro/deoxygenation (HDO/DO) step is a hydrodeoxygenation (HDO) and deoxygenation (D) step.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4-5, 7, 9, 19, and 22-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keefer et al. (US 2016/0304799 A1; published 10-20-2016; IDS of 12-19-2023; hereinafter “Keefer”), in view of Kim et al. (“Recent advances in hydrodeoxygenation of biomass-derived oxygenates over heterogeneous catalysts”; Green Chem. 2019, 21, 3714-3743; published 05-10-2019; hereinafter “Kim”) and Chapman et al. (US 2018/0171250 A1; published 06-21-2018; hereinafter “Chapman”).
Regarding claims 1, 19, and 24, Keefer teaches a method and system for producing hydrocarbons from biomass, wherein methane is a preferred hydrocarbon product (Abstract; [0002]; Fig. 1).
PNG
media_image1.png
469
846
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The method and system of Keefer comprises an initial step of pyrolyzing biomass to produce a pyrolysis gas and char by feeding biomass into pyrolysis reactor 4 from feed pressurization section 3, which receives the biomass feed from feed preparation section 2 ([0043]-[0044]; claims 1 and 19). Pyrolysis reactor 4 decomposes the biomass into pyrolysis gas (including light hydrocarbons, some syngas, and tar vapours) and char which may be separated by char separator 15 or combusted to afford ash in media heater 10 to provide heat for pyrolysis process ([0045]). The skilled artisan would recognize that the pyrolysis gas and char/ash produced in the pyrolysis step of Keefer corresponds to a first off-gas stream comprising hydrocarbons and a solid carbon stream, in a manner consistent with instant claims 1 and 19.
The pyrolysis gas exiting reactor 4 is passed through a solids removal section 5 and catalyst poison removal section 6 before introduction into hydrogasification reactor 7, wherein hydrogen reactively deoxygenates the pyrolysis gas components to generate methane and other light hydrocarbons ([0049-[0050]). Keefer further teaches that during the hydrogasification step, hydroconversion, hydrodeoxygenation, and hydrocracking reactions will take place. This step may be conducted in any suitable reactor configuration, so that the catalyst will cycle between reaction zones for steam reforming, methanation, and oxidative regeneration steps ([0025]; Fig. 3). Fig. 2 shown an embodiment 30 in which the hydrogasification reactor 7 is operated with excess hydrogen gas to avoid coking and to drive the methanation reaction so that nearly all of the carbon in the feed pyrolysis gas is converted into methane ([0061]). Thus, Keefer teaches that the hydrogasification reactor also comprises a methanation step. The hydrogasification step produces a gas mixture that is separated into a substitute natural gas stream that comprises methane and a residual gas stream that comprises a hydrogen rich stream (claims 1-3 and 19).
Methane-rich product gas from hydrogasification reactor 7 is cooled in product gas clean-up scrubber 26 which may use a paraffinic oil as solvent to remove tar constituents ([0062]). Feed water for steam generator 25 may be recovered from condensate from the raw product gas in carbon dioxide removal section 8 or product gas clean-up scrubber 27 ([0055] and [0062]). At least about half of the cleaned product gas is admitted to the methane upgrading section 9 which includes a gas separation system for separating hydrogen and other gas components from the product methane ([0062]).
The skilled artisan would recognize that separation step comprising scrubbers 26 and 27 and CO2 removal section 8 of Keefer produces methane-rich gas stream that corresponds to the upgraded first off-gas stream of claims 1 and 19. In addition, the use of paraffinic oil as solvent to remove tars in scrubber 26 would be expected to produce a second liquid oil stream, the condensate recovered from CO2 removal section 8 and/or scrubber 27 corresponds to the generation of water from the separation steps that provide a water stream for steam generator 25, and Keefer discloses that the methanation reaction of syngas generates methane and byproduct water vapour ([0003]), in a manner consistent with claims 1 and 19.
Fig. 3 of Keefer shows an embodiment in which the hydrogasification reactor includes zones for methanation, steam reforming, and catalyst regeneration. The feed to the methanation zone 41 includes pyrolysis gas and hydrogen-rich gas from the methane upgrading section 9 (Fig. 3; [0041] and [0064]-[0065]). Thus, Keefer teaches conducting an upgraded first-off gas stream from the methane upgrading section 9 to a methanation step/reactor in methanation zone 41.
Figs. 4-5 of Keefer show a rotary embodiment of the catalytic hydrogasification reactor 7 comprising a plurality of fixed beds 62A-62F and optional intermediate ports 76, 78, 86, and 88 to enable buffer purge between the regeneration step and respectively hydrogasification or methanation steps (Figs. 4-5; [0078]-[0079]
Although Keefer does not explicitly teach a separate methanation step/reactor downstream of the hydrogasification step/reactor as recited in instant claims 1 and 19, Keefer does teach embodiments wherein the hydrogasification reactor comprises a methanation zone. It would be prima facie obvious to make these parts separable, such that separate reactors are used to carry out the hydrogasification and methanation method steps, respectively. See MPEP § 2144.04(V)(C). The skilled artisan would further recognize that gasification and methanation reactors are predictably separable for the production of methane as taught by Chapman and detailed below (Chapman; Fig. 2).
Finally, Keefer teaches that supplemental hydrogen 20 for pyrolysis reactor 4 and/or hydrogasification reactor 7 could be obtained from an electrolytic hydrogen generator ([0054]; claims 10 and 18-19). Keefer further teaches that supplemental hydrogen may be provided as electrolytic hydrogen together with electrolytic oxygen for the combustion of char or for oxygen gasification of the char for the production of syngas and further supplemental hydrogen ([0032] and [0054]).
Keefer does not teach (1) conducting the hydro/deoxygenation (HDO/DO) step in the absence of steam; (2) an olefin removal step; and (3) the explicit teachings of a electrolysis step comprising an electrolysis step/unit arranged to receive at least a portion of the steam generated in the methanation reactor to provide an oxygen stream and a hydrogen stream and a conduit for supplying at least a portion of the hydrogen stream from the electrolysis step/unit to any of the: thermal decomposition step/pyrolysis unit, the HDO-step/unit, olefin removal step/reactor, methanation step/reactor, methanol synthesis step/unit, or combinations thereof, as recited in claims 1 and 19. Keefer also does not explicitly teach conducting at least a portion of the steam generated in the methanation step to the electrolysis, as recited in claim 24.
Regarding point (1), although Keefer does teach that steam is optionally introduced to the hydrogasification reactor 7 along with the pyrolysis gas and hydrogen and is therefore not a required method step ([0050] and [0055]) and that steam generator 25 can alternatively supply a steam reformer 32 ([0062]-[0063]; Fig. 2), Keefer does not explicitly disclose conducting the HDO/DO step in the absence of steam.
However, Kim teaches recent advances in hydrodeoxygenation (HDO) of biomass-derived oxygenates over heterogeneous catalysts that occur during many different biomass conversion technologies, including processes related to pyrolysis or hydrothermal liquefaction (Title; page 3715; Col. 1, paragraph 1 and Col. 2, paragraph 1). Kim further teaches that poor catalyst stability is a major challenge that needs to be overcome for innovation in HDO technologies (Abstract). Kim further teaches that there are several challenges unique to the hydrodeoxygenation (HDO) of biomass-derived feedstock including wood, and traditional catalysts are not stable under HDO conditions (i.e., high partial pressure of water) and metal particles are leached and/or sintered (Abstract; page 3715, Col. 2, paragraph 1; page 3721, Table 2). In addition, Kim teaches that the high water and organic content in these reactions can accelerate the sintering and leaching of metals, and commonly used catalyst supports can suffer from the loss of surface area and degradation under typical reaction conditions (Abstract; page 3715, Col. 2, paragraph 1). Thus, Kim provides motivation and conditions to carry out the HDO reaction of Keefer in the absence of water/steam.
Further regarding point (1) and points (2)-(3), Chapman teaches a process and reactors for producing and recovering a methane-containing substitute natural gas from synthetic gas comprising the steps of biomass gasification, syngas cleaning, CO methanation, Sabatier reaction, and water electrolysis to provide renewable sources of O2 for gasification and H2 for methanation (Abstract; claim 1; [0032]-[0035]; Figure 2).
PNG
media_image2.png
397
996
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The process and apparatus of Chapman is analogous to that of Keefer in that in produces methane from biomass using the method steps of gasification, impurity removal, methanation, and electrolytic H2/O2 generation. The process and apparatus of Chapman differs from that of Keefer in that Keefer does not disclose a Sabatier reactor, and Keefer teaches a methanation zone within the hydrogasification reactor, wherein Chapman teaches a methanation reactor that is separate and downstream from the gasification reactor.
Chapman further teaches that syngas cleaning removes the various contaminant species that would otherwise poison the downstream catalytic processes and typical contaminants include sulphur and chloride species, tars and unsaturated hydrocarbons, heavy metals and particulates prior to the methanation step ([0027 and [0118]). Fig. 2 of Chapman also suggests that the removal of H2O is advantageous prior to introducing the gasified feed to downstream processes. Thus, the skilled artisan would recognize from the teachings of Chapman that unsaturated hydrocarbons are typical contaminants of biomass gasification and should be removed prior to methanation, and the process/plant of Keefer could be predictably modified accordingly based on Chapman to ensure the removal of unsaturated hydrocarbon contaminants prior to introduction of the feed into methanation reactor 9.
Regarding point (3), both Keefer and Chapman teach the use of water electrolysis for the purposes of generating O2 and H2 and supplying them to upstream processes. Although Keefer does not disclose a Sabatier reaction unit as taught by Chapman, Keefer does teach that water is a byproduct of the methanation upgrading section 9, and water vapour is advantageously separated from the produced methane during purification (Keefer; [0003] and [0080]). In addition, Keefer teaches that electrolytic hydrogen and oxygen can be used to supply upstream processes, such as supplemental hydrogen stream 20 to pyrolysis reactor 4 and hydrogasification reactor 7 (Keefer; [0032]; Figure 2). Furthermore, the Sabatier reaction of Chapman inherently produces water, and Figure 2 describing the process of Chapman explicitly teaches providing the water from the Sabatier reactor to the electrolysis unit (Chapman; [0024]; Figure 2). Thus, the processes of Keefer and Chapman demonstrate the utility of recycled water as a source for water electrolysis to supply hydrogen and oxygen for upstream processes to improve overall efficiency and sustainability for the industrial production of methane, in a manner consistent with the limitations of instant claims 1, 19, and 24.
It would have been prima facie obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Keefer to incorporate the teachings of Kim and Chapman to pursue a process and plant that does not introduce steam in the HDO/catalytic hydrogasification unit of Keefer, removes unsaturated hydrocarbon contaminants prior to the methanation step/reactor, and utilizes the steam generated from the methanation reactor as a renewable water source for electrolytic H2 and O2 production for supplying these gases to the upstream methanation and gasification/pyrolysis steps, respectively, to arrive at the invention of claims 1, 19, and 24. See MPEP § 2143(I)(A). The motivation to do so would permit the skilled artisan to predictably pursue, with a reasonable of success, a process and plant that (1) reduces water content in the HDO step/unit to prevent undesired catalyst sintering and degradation, (2) removes olefins as undesired contaminants prior to the methanation step/reactor, and (3) improves the sustainability of the overall process/plant by utilizing the steam generated from the methanation step/reactor to produce sources of H2 and O2 for the upstream methanation and gasification/pyrolysis steps/reactors, as described above.
Regarding claim 2, Keefer teaches that a portion of the char exiting reactor 4 may be separated by char separator 15 as the feedstock for an auxiliary oxygen or steam gasification method to generate syngas ([0047]).
Regarding claims 4-5, Keefer teaches that at least about half of the cleaned product gas is admitted to the methane upgrading section 9 ([0062]), and the methane-rich product gas from hydrogasification reactor 7 is cooled in product gas clean-up scrubber 26 which may use a paraffinic oil as solvent to remove tar constituents ([0062]). The skilled artisan would recognize from the teachings of Keefer that the cleaned product gas comprises less than 80 wt% of the solid renewable feedstock as recited in claim 4. Further regarding claim 5, the skilled artisan could predictably arrive at the recited compositions of the first off-gas stream and second liquid oil streams by adjusting the separation conditions of Keefer through means of routine optimization. See MPEP § 2144.05(II).
Regarding claim 7, Keefer teaches the use of sawmill wood waste and forestry residues as the source of biomass feedstock [0002]-[0003], [0061], and [0082]).
Regarding claim 9, Keefer teaches that the pyrolysis gas exiting reactor 4 is passed through a solids removal section 5 and catalyst poison removal section 6 before introduction into hydrogasification reactor 7, wherein the catalyst poison removal section 6 includes a desulfurization reactor for H2S removal ([0049]-[0050]; Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 22, although Keefer does not explicitly teach a first liquid oil stream, Keefer does teach that reaction conditions for syngas formation from the reaction of biomass pyrolysis gas and steam produces tars, whose levels are required to be reduced to reasonable levels, and certain embodiments include cleaning steps to remove catalyst poisons and tars ([0009] and [0036]). The tars described by Keefer are consistent with the composition of a first liquid stream comprising pyrolysis oil (bio-oil) as described in the written description (Specification; page 1, lines 14-15). Thus, in addition to the solid carbon stream (i.e., char) taught by Keefer, the skilled artisan would also recognize that tars (i.e., a first liquid oil stream) are produced in this process and must be separated from the pyrolysis gas stream prior to downstream processing.
Regarding claim 23, Keefer teaches that during the hydrogasification step, hydroconversion, hydrodeoxygenation, and hydrocracking reactions will take place ([0025]).
Regarding claim 25, Keefer teaches that a portion of the char exiting reactor 4 may be separated by char separator 15 as the feedstock for an auxiliary oxygen or steam gasification method to generate syngas and supplemental hydrogen for the subsequent hydrogasification reaction [0047]). Keefer further teaches that supplemental hydrogen may be provided as electrolytic hydrogen together with electrolytic oxygen which may be used for the combustion of char generated in the process so as to produce syngas and further supplemental hydrogen ([0030]).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keefer et al. (US 2016/0304799 A1; published 10-20-2016; IDS of 12-19-2023; hereinafter “Keefer”), in view of Kim et al. (“Recent advances in hydrodeoxygenation of biomass-derived oxygenates over heterogeneous catalysts”; Green Chem. 2019, 21, 3714-3743; published 05-10-2019; hereinafter “Kim”) and Chapman et al. (US 2018/0171250 A1; published 06-21-2018; hereinafter “Chapman”) as applied to claims 1-2, 4-5, 7, 9, 19, and 22-25 above, and further in view of Marion et al. (US 2013/0149767 A1; published 06-13-2013; IDS of 12-19-2023; hereinafter “Marion”).
Regarding claim 6, Keefer teaches a fast pyrolysis step using fast pyrolysis reactors (e.g. auger reactors and circulating fluidized beds), but also teaches that very fast pyrolysis will minimize char production, and slower pyrolysis may also be considered for coproduction of charcoal and biochar ([0019]).
Keefer, Kim, and Chapman do not explicitly teach the types of pyrolysis as described in claim 6.
However, Marion teaches a process for the conversion of carbon-based material to fuel bases in the presence of hydrogen resulting from non-fossil sources, comprising the steps of liquefaction or pyrolysis, gasification, Fischer-Tropsch synthesis, a stage of hydrogen production, and a reverse water gas reaction stage (Title; Abstract; [0059]; claim 1).
Marion further teaches that lignocellulose biomass (such as wood and plant waste) are suitable renewable feedstocks for the process ([0059]). In the case of lignocellulose biomass, Marion teaches a pyrolysis at moderate temperature (between 200 ºC and 300 ºC in the absence of air) and with a controlled residence time (generally for 15 to 120 minutes) ([0068]). The pyrolysis residence time of Marion overlaps significantly with the instantly claimed range for slow pyrolysis recited in instant claim 6. MPEP § 2144.05(I) states that “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists.”
Keefer also teaches the pyrolysis of biomass such as wood wastes and forestry residues for the production of synthetic fuels ([0003]), and thus the processes of Keefer and Marion are analogous. Keefer further teaches that slower pyrolysis may also be considered for coproduction of charcoal and biochar ([0019]).
It would have been prima facie obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Keefer, Kim, and Chapman to incorporate the pyrolysis conditions for wood and plant wastes of Marion into the method of Keefer, Kim, and Chapman to arrive at the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success, because the pyrolysis conditions of Keefer are not particularly limited and Keefer teaches that slower pyrolysis methods for biomass comprising wood waste and forestry residues are compatible with the process. See MPEP § 2143(I)(A).
Claims 1, 3, 10-18 and 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keefer et al. (US 2016/0304799 A1; published 10-20-2016; IDS of 12-19-2023; hereinafter “Keefer”), in view of Kim et al. (“Recent advances in hydrodeoxygenation of biomass-derived oxygenates over heterogeneous catalysts”; Green Chem. 2019, 21, 3714-3743; published 05-10-2019; hereinafter “Kim”) and Chapman et al. (US 2018/0171250 A1; published 06-21-2018; hereinafter “Chapman”) as applied to claims 1-2, 4-5, 7, 9, 19, and 22-25 above, and further in view of I. E. Maxwell (WO 2010/143980 A1; published 12-16-2010; hereinafter “Maxwell”).
Regarding claims 1 and 19, and the teachings of Keefer, Kim, and Chapman are incorporated herein as detailed above.
Although Keefer, Kim, and Chapman do not explicitly teach a methanol synthesis step/reactor, Keefer does teach that the obtained syngas can be catalytically converted into methanol, and that supplmental hydrogen for the process can be obtained from hydrogen-rich offgas from methanol synthesis (Keefer; [0003] and [0054]). Thus, Keefer teaches that the process for methane production can be integrated with methanol synthesis.
Further regarding the embodiment comprising step iii-2)/a reforming unit and downstream methanol synthesis unit of claims 1 and 19, Maxwell teaches a process for integration of a methanol plant and an oil hydroprocessing plant for the improvement of fuel generation processes (Title; Abstract; claims 1 and 30; [0089]). Maxwell further teaches that the process is advantageous because it reduces the carbon footprint of a methanol plant by integrating the methanol plant with an oil hydroprocessing plant wherein the excess hydrogen produced from a steam reformer of the methanol plant is fed to a catalytic hydroprocessing reaction in the oil hydroprocessing plant, and the light gaseous hydrocarbon products produced by the oil hydroprocessing plant are recycled to the steam reformer of the methanol plant ([0063])
Figure 2 of Maxwell describes an exemplary integrated plant 210, comprising a hydrocarbon feedstock 212 that is fed into steam reformer 220 with steam 214 to produce synthesis gas 228. The synthesis gas 228 may then be fed to the methanol synthesis reactor 230, and the crude methanol 236 may be separated and processed for further purification 238 and the gaseous stream by-product containing hydrogen 240 may be piped to the oil hydroprocessing plant 250 for the improved production of hydrocarbon fuel products ([00113] and [00109]; Fig. 2.). The gaseous stream separated from the crude methanol may be recycled back to the methanol synthesis reactor ([00100]).
PNG
media_image3.png
902
1337
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Maxwell further teaches that the following reactions take place with the synthesis gas mixture supplied to the methanol synthesis reactor ([0099]; equations 3-4):
(3) CO + 2H2 → CH3OH
(4) CO2 + 3H2 → CH3OH + H2O
Thus, the skilled artisan would recognize that the methanol synthesis unit of Maxwell proceeds under the generation of steam, as recited in step iii-2) of claim 1 and claim 19.
In addition, Maxwell further teaches that hydrocarbon feedstocks for the integrated hydroprocessing plant may be derived from biomass sources such as forestry waste that may be produced by pyrolysis ([0004], [00103]), in a manner analogous to the biomass feed of Keefer detailed above. Furthermore, Keefer teaches that the produced syngas can be catalytically converted into methanol ([0003]), and the process of Keefer includes embodiments wherein steam reforming is used to further enrich the pyrolysis gas with hydrogen-rich syngas ([0076]; Fig. 4).
Thus, the skilled artisan would recognize that the combined teachings of Keefer, Kim, and Chapman detailed above for the synthesis of methane could be similarly applied to the teachings of Maxwell to pursue an improved process for the synthesis of methanol and renewable fuels with a reasonable expectation of success by substituting the methanation reactor of Keefer, Kim, and Chapman with the steam reforming unit and downstream methanol synthesis unit of Maxwell. See MPEP § 2143(I)(B). Additionally, it would have also been prima facie obvious to include the steam reforming unit and downstream methanol synthesis unit of Maxwell into the process of Keefer, Kim, and Chapman to arrive at a process to obtain methane and methanol, two industrially useful sets of chemicals. See MPEP § 2143(I)(A). Furthermore, since Keefer and Maxwell teach that the methanation and methanol synthesis reactions generate water vapor as a byproduct, and Keefer and Chapman teach the sustainable use of water electrolysis for leveraging O2 and H2 in upstream processes (i.e., gasification/pyrolysis steps/reactors) as detailed above, the skilled artisan would be sufficiently motivated to arrive at an electrolysis unit that receives at least a portion of the steam generated from the methanol synthesis reactor of Maxwell and provide the generated O2 and H2 in upstream processes (i.e., gasification/pyrolysis steps/reactors) in a manner analogous to the embodiment of claims 1 and 19 for the production of methane as detailed above.
It would have been prima facie obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the methanation reactor of Keefer, Kim, and Chapman with the steam reforming unit and downstream methanol synthesis unit of Maxwell, or in the alternative, to incorporate the steam reforming unit/methanol synthesis reactor of Maxwell into the process of Keefer, Kim, and Chapman to arrive at the invention of claims 1 and 19 comprising step iii-2)/a reforming unit and downstream methanol synthesis unit. The motivation to do so would permit the skilled artisan to pursue, with a reasonable of success, an improved process and plant for the production of methanol and renewable fuels that (1) reduces water content in the HDO step/unit to prevent undesired catalyst sintering and degradation, (2) removes olefins as undesired contaminants prior to the methanol synthesis step/reactor, (3) improves the sustainability of the overall process/plant by utilizing the steam generated from the methanol synthesis step/reactor to produce sources of H2 and O2 for the upstream methanol synthesis and/or gasification/pyrolysis steps/reactors, and (4) to arrive at an integrated process for obtaining both methane and methanol, two industrially important chemicals, as described above.
Regarding claim 3, Maxwell teaches the production of methanol synthesis products, including a renewable gasoline product (claims 30, 32, and 39).
Regarding claims 10, 17, and 20, Maxwell teaches a process for integration of a methanol plant and an oil hydroprocessing plant for the improvement of fuel generation processes, as detailed in the rejections of claims 1 and 19 above (Title; Abstract; claims 1 and 30; [0089]).
Maxwell further teaches that the process is advantageous because it reduces the carbon footprint of a methanol plant by integrating the methanol plant with an oil hydroprocessing plant wherein the excess hydrogen produced from a steam reformer of the methanol plant is fed to a catalytic hydroprocessing reaction in the oil hydroprocessing plant, and the light gaseous hydrocarbon products produced by the oil hydroprocessing plant are recycled to the steam reformer of the methanol plant ([0063]), as detailed below.
Figure 4 of Maxwell further teaches a hydroprocessing plant 300 comprising a hydroprocessing reactor 350 configured to receive an oil feedstock 360 and pressurized hydrogen 340. The effluent from the reactor may then be fed to a separation section comprising condenser 356 to condense the hydrocarbons in the effluent mixture, and the condensed mixture may then be separated from the hydrogen gas present in the mixture in a separator 374, wherein the hydrogen gas stream 346 is fed back to the reactor and optionally to the compressor 342 to increase the pressure of the hydrogen. The water soluble aqueous compounds containing impurities may be removed as sour water. The separated hydrocarbon mixture from the separator 374 is then fed to a distillation column 380. The lighter gas products 382, e.g. C1-C2, or C1-C4 may be piped back to the steam reformer of the methanol plant. The liquid hydrocarbon products such as naphtha 384 and diesel 388 may be collected for further refining into transportation fuels ([00122], [00134]-[00135], [00138]; Fig. 4). The boiling point of diesel is in the range of 180-380 ºC as evidenced by Gala et al. (see Abstract in “Characterization and Distillation of Pyrolysis Liquids Coming from Polyolefins segregated of MSW for Their Use as Automotive Diesel Fuel”; Energy Fuels, 2020, 34, 5969-5982; published 04-20-2020), and this range overlaps with the instantly claimed range recited in claim 10. See MPEP § 2144.05(I).
PNG
media_image4.png
916
1135
media_image4.png
Greyscale
The skilled artisan would recognize the removed sour water, the hydrogen gas stream 346, the lighter gas products 382, and the diesel 388 of Maxwell as corresponding to an aqueous stream, a hydrogen-rich stream, a second-off gas stream comprising hydrocarbons, and a hydrocarbon product boiling at above 50 ºC, as recited in instant claims 10 and 20, respectively. The separator 374 that separates the aqueous stream, the hydrogen-rich stream, and the separated hydrocarbon mixture (i.e., a heavy hydrocarbon stream) and the subsequent distillation step to fractionate the hydrocarbon mixture into the lighter gas products 382 (i.e., second off-gas stream) and the diesel 388 (i.e., hydrocarbon product) described in the process of Maxwell is consistent with every limitation of instant claim 17.
Furthermore, Maxwell’s process step of piping the lighter gas products 382 (i.e., the second-off gas stream comprising hydrocarbons) e.g. C1-C2, or C1-C4 back to the steam reformer of the methanol plant corresponds to the limitation of conducting the second off-gas stream from step vii) to said step iii) as recited in instant claim 10. In addition, this method step also corresponds to the limitation of conducting/providing a conduit for supplying the second off-gas stream from step vii) to a hydrogen producing unit (HPU) to provide make-up hydrogen, as recited in claims 10 and 20, because Maxwell teaches that the steam reformer of the methanol plant converts hydrocarbons into synthesis gas (CO, H2, and CO2), and the hydrogen gas produced by the steam reformer may be recycled back to the integrated oil hydroprocessing plant ([0098] and [00111]-[00112]).
Although Maxwell does not explicitly teach conducting the second liquid oil of step i) as recited in instant claims 10 and 20, Maxwell does teach that the oil feedstock may comprise bio-oil and/or highly paraffinic gas condensate ([0026], [0030], and [00117]-[00118]), and the second liquid oil stream as taught by the process of Keefer and detailed above comprises a paraffinic oil as solvent to remove tar constituents (Keefer; [0062]).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to the skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the paraffinic oil stream (i.e., the second liquid stream) of Keefer with the hydroprocessing plant and process of Maxwell as evidenced by Gala detailed above to arrive at the claimed invention of claims 10, 17, and 20 with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP § 2143(I)(A). The motivation to do so would permit the skilled artisan to pursue, with a reasonable expectation of success, a process and plant with improved sustainability and efficiency that reduced the carbon footprint of the plant through the integration of the methanol plant with an oil hydroprocessing plant, as described above.
Regarding claims 11-12, Figure 5 of Maxwell teaches a hydroprocessing plant configuration comprising at least two reactors 550 and 551. In a preferred embodiment, Maxwell teaches that the first reactor 550, or earlier reactors if more than two reactors are present, may comprise catalyst bed(s) adapted to remove oxygen and/or nitrogen and/or sulphur from oil feedstock 360 ([00136; Fig. 5). Thus, the process of Maxwell teaches the use of at least one separation unit that can be used for impurity removal at the beginning of the hydroprocessing step, and this impurity removal can be reasonably interpreted as a cleaning unit for the main hydroprocessed stream.
Although Maxwell does not explicitly teach the limitation wherein prior to conducting step viii) said second off-gas stream from step vii) passes to a separation unit, as recited in instant claim 11; and the limitation wherein the HPU comprises subjecting the second off-gas stream to: cleaning in a cleaning unit, as recited in instant claim 12, the process of Maxwell comprises the recited separation unit and cleaning unit functions at upstream points of the overall process. Thus, the difference between the process of Maxwell and the claimed invention merely reflects a different order of process steps that is non-inventive in nature. MPEP § 2144.04(IV) states that the “selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results.”
Regarding claim 13, Keefer teaches an embodiment wherein pyrolysis gas in introduced as a feed to a steam reforming zone 42 ([0064]; Fig. 3). In addition, Maxwell teaches that LPG (C3-C4 hydrocarbons) can be produced and separated in the hydroprocessing plant as LPG fuel, and the steam reformer is configured to receive a separated C1-C4 hydrocarbon product produced by the hydroprocessing reactor ([0020], [0062]. Therefore, the combined teachings of the cited prior art render the limitations of steps ix) and xi) of the instant claim prima facie obvious.
Regarding claims 14 and 21, Figure 6 of Maxwell teaches a hydroprocessing plant configuration comprising at least two reactors 650 and 651 configured to receive oil feedstock 360 and hydrogen gas 340. The first reactor 650 comprises catalyst beds adapted to perform dehydrogenation reactions to remove oxygen and/or nitrogen and/or sulphur from the oil feedstock 360. The first reactor 650 is preferably designed to perform hydrodeoxygenation reactions and/or hydrodenitrogenation reactions and optionally desulphurization reactions if required ([00139]; Fig. 6). Figure 5 of Maxwell similarly shows a hydroprocessing plant configuration with at least two reactors 550 and 551 that may comprise the same or different catalyst beds wherein first reactor 550, or earlier reactors if more than two reactors are present, comprises catalyst bed(s) adapted to perform hydrodeoxygenation reactions and/or hydrodenitrogenation reactions and/or hydrodesulphurization reactions ([00136]; Fig. 5)
Since the present application describes the first catalytic hydrotreating unit is hydrodeoxygenation (Specification; page 29, line 8), the skilled artisan would reasonably interpret the reactor configurations of Maxwell as comprising conducting the oil feedstock (i.e., said second liquid oil stream) to a catalytic unit for liquid oil stabilization under the addition of hydrogen, and conducting the oil feedstock (i.e., said second liquid oil stream) to a first catalytic hydrotreating unit under the addition of hydrogen for producing a first hydrotreated stream, as recited in instant claims 14 and 21. The teachings of Maxwell further indicate that these method steps could take place in the same reactor with different catalyst beds or in different reactors.
Further, regarding claim 14, Maxwell does not explicitly teach vi-2) conducting the first hydrotreated stream to a dewaxing step comprising a second catalytic unit under the addition of hydrogen for producing said main hydrotreated stream. However, Maxwell does teach that additionally or alternatively, the renewable diesel product may also be upgraded in a hydroisomerization step to produce jet fuel according to any known process in the art ([0025], [00140]; claim 11). The present application defines the term “dewaxing” as used interchangeably with the term “hydrodewaxing/hydroisomerization (HDW/HI)” (Specification; page 29, lines 13-14). Therefore, the skilled artisan could arrive at a hydroprocessing step further comprising step vi-2) of claim 14 based on the teachings of Maxwell to pursue a main hydrotreated stream that is suitable for the production of jet fuel with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 15, Maxwell teaches wherein the excess hydrogen is separated from methanol produced by the methanol reactor or from the steam reformer and supplied to the oil hydroprocessing reactor ([0016]-[0017]; claims 2 and 31).
Although Maxwell does not explicitly teach conducting at least a portion of the hydrogen stream from the electrolysis step to the hydroprocessing step vi), as recited in claim 15, the combined teachings of Keefer, Kim, Chapman, and Maxwell in the rejection of claim 1 above render this limitation prima facie obvious because Maxwell teaches that the methanol reactor produces water vapor and the teachings of Keefer and Chapman inform the skilled artisan that the hydrogen generated from the water electrolysis step could predictably be supplied to any other step in the process where hydrogen is required with a reasonable expectation of success, including the hydroprocessing step as taught by Maxwell.
Regarding claim 16, Figure 6 of Maxwell describe a separator 374 situated between the first (650) and second (651) reactors downstream from condenser 656, wherein the water soluble aqueous compounds containing the impurities can be removed as sour water (Figs. 5-6). Sour water (H2O) in process wastewater obtained from hydrotreatment at petroleum refineries is known to comprise H2S and NH3, as evidenced by Addington et al. (see page 2, Table 3; page 3, Table 4 in “Sour water: where it comes from and how to handle it”; Digital Refining PTQ; Article 1000741; published September 2011).
Regarding claim 18, Maxwell teaches that the oil feedstock provided to the integrated oil hydroprocessing plant may be comprised of a mixture of bio-oil together with fossil oi., such as crude oil, coal oil and/or a mixture of bio-oil and gas condensate ([0029] and [00115]). The bio-oils may be produced from a variety of sources, including lignocellulosic biomass, tallow and other renewable biomass sources ([00103]). In addition, Maxwell teaches that the heavy hydrocarbon products 390 may be recycled back as an input to the hydroprocessing reactor 350 through recycle pump 394 and then pipe 392. ([00136]; Fig. 4).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keefer et al. (US 2016/0304799 A1; published 10-20-2016; IDS of 12-19-2023; hereinafter “Keefer”), in view of Kim et al. (“Recent advances in hydrodeoxygenation of biomass-derived oxygenates over heterogeneous catalysts”; Green Chem. 2019, 21, 3714-3743; published 05-10-2019; hereinafter “Kim”), Chapman et al. (US 2018/0171250 A1; published 06-21-2018; hereinafter “Chapman”), and I. E. Maxwell (WO 2010/143980 A1; published 12-16-2010; hereinafter “Maxwell”) as applied to claims 1, 3, 10-18 and 19-21 above, and further in view of Mortensen et al. (WO 2019/228797 A1; published 12-05-2019; IDS of 12-19-2023; hereinafter “Mortensen”).
Regarding claim 8, claim 1 is rendered obvious over Keefer, Kim, Chapman, and Maxwell, as detailed above.
Keefer, Kim, Chapman, and Maxwell do not explicitly teach wherein the steam reforming step is conduced in an electrically heated reformer (e-reformer), as recited in instant claim 8. Instead, Maxwell teaches that light gaseous components are used as fuel for the burners and heaters in the integrated processing plant, and heat for the reactions may be provided to the steam reformer reactors 7 by burners 9 ([0099] and [00114]; Fig. 1). Thus, Maxwell teaches an externally heated steam reformer.
However, Mortensen teaches steam reforming heated by resistance heating comprising a reactor system comprising a structured catalyst with a macroscopic structure of electrically conductive material for producing synthesis gas by steam reforming, wherein the overall energy consumption is reduced compared to a system with an externally heated reactor, such as a side fired or top fired steam methane reformer (SMR). By utilizing electric heating, the high temperature flue gas of the fired SMR is avoided and less energy is therefore needed in the reforming section of the electrically heated reactor. In addition, the overall emission of carbon dioxide and other emissions detrimental to the climate may be reduced considerably (Title; Abstract; page 1, lines 5-11; page 3, lines 5-6). The process of Mortensen is analogous to that of Maxwell because both teach the use of steam reformers for the production of synthesis gas.
It would have been prima facie obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the externally heated stream reformer of Keefer, Kim, Chapman, and Maxwell with the fired steam reformer of Maxwell with the electrically heated stream reformer of Mortensen to arrive at the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success, because both Maxwell and Mortensen teach the use of steam reformers for the production of synthesis gas, and the electrically heated reformer of Mortensen possess several advantages over the externally heated reformer of Maxwell. See MPEP § 2143(I)(B). The motivation to do so would permit the skilled artisan to pursue, with a reasonable expectation of success, a process with reduced overall energy consumption and improved sustainability through the reduction of CO2 emissions, as described above.
Based on the combined teachings of the references, the Examiner submits that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the instantly claimed process and plant. Therefore, the invention as a whole would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and absent a clear showing of evidence to the contrary.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Derek Rhoades whose telephone number is (703)-756-5321. The Examiner can normally be reached Monday–Thursday, 7:30 am–5:00 pm EST; Friday, 7:30 am–4:00 pm EST.
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 Goon can be reached on 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.
/D.R./Examiner, Art Unit 1692
/AMY C BONAPARTE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1692
Prosecution Insights