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 .
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.
Specification
The specification and drawings have been reviewed and no clear informalities or objections have been noted.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 1-20, 34 and 35 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.
In claim 1, Applicant claims “an CO2 cooling zone” in line 11. It is not clear what this term is referring to. This renders the claim indefinite. As best understood, it appears that Applicant intended to claim “syngas cooling zone” and will be examined as such. Clarification is required.
In claim 34, Applicant first claims that “the gasifier vessel includes at least three zones:”, a gasification zone, a CO2 reduction zone and a syngas cooling zone. Then, Applicant claims “wherein at least one of the gasification zone, CO2 reduction zone, and syngas cooling zone constitutes a separate vessel relative to the other zones”. It is not clear if there is a single vessel or multiple vessels for these zones as these limitations appears to contradict each other. Clarification is required.
In claim 35, Applicant claims that “the gasifier vessel includes at least three zones:” a gasification zone, a CO2 reduction zone and a syngas cooling zone. Then, Applicant states that “at least one of the gasifier zone, CO2 reduction zone and syngas cooling zone are in a single vessel”. This renders the claim indefinite as the first limitation states that all three zones are in a single vessel, then the 2nd limitation states that at least one is in a single vessel. This begs the question, are all zones in a single vessel or is at least one in a single vessel. Clarification is required.
Claim 8 recites the term “a syngas cooling zone inlet temperature” but does not clarify if this “cooling zone” is the same “cooling zone” that was recited in parent claim 7 rendering the claim indefinite. Clarification is required.
Claims 8 and 12 recite “the first hydrogen portion” and “the second hydrogen portion”. There is a lack of antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. Clarification is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 7, 8, 10-14 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hawkes (US 2009/235587).
Regarding claim 1, Hawkes discloses a process for conversion of a carbonaceous feed to syngas, the process comprising:
in an oxidative conversion zone that is a gasification zone, contacting the carbonaceous feed with an oxygen-containing feed (such as gasifier 406 in Fig. 3, and see paragraph 10 which discloses that a carbonaceous fuel is combined with oxygen in the gasifier to produce syngas), under respective gasification conditions to provide, as a raw syngas, a raw gasifier effluent (as described in paragraph 10;
in a CO2 reduction zone (such as shift reactor 432 that is operated in a reverse gas shift manner, see paragraph 51) downstream of the conversion zone (see Fig. 3 where the RWGS reactor 432 is downstream from gasifier 406), introducing a CO2-consuming reactant to react with at least a portion of CO2 present in the respective raw gasifier effluent (hydrogen in stream 112 is sent to the RWGS reactor 432 along with the gasifier effluent 310, see paragraphs 50-51) via a CO2-consuming reaction under CO2-consuming reaction conditions (reverse gas shift reaction which reacts carbon dioxide with hydrogen to produce carbon monoxide and water, as discussed in paragraph 51), to provide, as a CO2-depleted syngas optionally following cooling in an CO2 cooling zone (such a feature is optional and does not further limit the claim), a respective CO2-depleted gasifier effluent (product stream 310’’, as described in paragraph 51).
Regarding claims 2-3, Hawkes further discloses the CO2-consuming reactant is hydrogen and the reverse gas shift reaction (as described in paragraph 51).
Regarding claims 5 and 10, Hawkes further discloses the CO2-consuming reactant is hydrogen obtained from a hydrogen production process (such as the electrolysis reaction discussed in paragraph 48).
Regarding claims 7 and 11, Hawkes further discloses the hydrogen, as the CO2-consuming reactant, is a main hydrogen portion obtained from the hydrogen production process (the electrolyte process produces an oxygen portion and a hydrogen portion where the hydrogen portion is mainly hydrogen), and possibly wherein a secondary hydrogen portion obtained from the hydrogen production process is introduced to a syngas cooling zone, to which the respective CO.sub.2-depleted gasifier effluent, CO.sub.2-depleted ATR effluent, or CO.sub.2-depleted POX effluent is fed for cooling (due to the term “possibly”, this italicized portion is interpreted as being optional).
Regarding claims 8 and 12, Hawkes further discloses the first hydrogen portion, as the CO2-consuming reactant, is preheated to a CO2 reduction zone inlet temperature for introduction to the CO2 reduction zone (the hydrogen is combined with the hot syngas exiting gasifier 406 in mixer 413a which will inherently preheat it due to the elevated temperature of the gasifier), which is higher than a syngas cooling zone inlet temperature, at which the second hydrogen portion is introduced to the syngas cooling zone (this limitation is directed toward a previously indicated optional limitation and therefore does not further limit this claim).
Regarding claim 13, Hawkes further discloses heat recovered from the conversion zone and syngas cooling zone is utilized in the water-splitting process (the heat from the conversion reaction 406 is passed to the RWGS reactor in 432 which is then transferred to the steam line 218 via heat exchanger 424 which is then sent to the water splitting process/electrolyzer 414). Due to syngas cooling being defined as an optional limitation in the claims, this term does not further limit the claim.
Regarding claim 14, Hawkes further discloses in addition to the CO2-consuming reactant, the water-splitting process provides oxygen (stream 104) that is utilized as an oxidant in the conversion zone (as described in paragraph 54).
Regarding claim 20, Hawkes further discloses the CO2-depleted gasifier effluent has a concentration of CO2 that is lower than that in a raw syngas (as a result of the RWGS reaction which consumes CO2 in the raw syngas), as a respective raw gasifier effluent.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hawkes (US 2009/235587).
Regarding claim 9, Hawkes further discloses the CO2 reduction zone inlet temperature is within 50° C., within 25° C., or within 10° C., of a minimum temperature in the CO2 reduction zone for performing the CO2-consuming reaction (Hawkes teaches the inlet of the temp of the shift reactor 432 is 1050-1165C (paragraph 50) and teaches that the outlet temperature of the shift reactor, which also points to the operating temperature of the shift reactor, is 1023-1123C (paragraph 51)). While Hawkes does not teach the exact claimed range, it does teach a range that overlaps the claimed range. As such, arriving at the claimed range would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP §2144.05(I)).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hawkes (US 2009/235587) in view of Reynolds (US 3,723,344).
Regarding claim 4, Hawkes teaches that the gas shift reactor 432 (which operates in a reverse gas shift manner as described above), may include a catalyst but does not explicitly state that it is non-catalytically operated.
Reynolds also discloses a reverse gas shift reaction (see col. 3 lines 47-53).
Reynolds teaches a method of operating a reverse gas shift reactor without a catalyst (col. 3 lines 47-53) at temperatures between 1700-2800F (927-1538C, which overlaps the process conditions of Hawkes as described in paragraph 50-51 of Hawkes).
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to utilize the catalyst free RWGS reaction process of Reynolds in the process of Hawkes in order to eliminate the need/cost of a catalyst to achieve the same reaction at the same reaction conditions.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hawkes (US 2009/235587) in view of Repasky (US 2022/0348461).
Regarding claim 6, Hawkes teaches generating hydrogen for the gas shift reaction from an electrolysis process, but does not teach the claimed reforming process to generation hydrogen.
Repasky also discloses a process for gasifying material to produce a synthesis gas (see abstract).
Repasky teaches many different hydrogen production process which include an electrolyzer similar to that of Hawkes as well as a methane reformer which produces a hydrogen containing gas (see paragraph 81).
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to utilize the reforming process of Repasky to generate hydrogen for the process of Hawkes as such a modification would amount to nothing more than a simple substitution of one known hydrogen production unit for another to yield entirely predictable results.
Claim(s) 15 and 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hawkes (US 2009/235587) in view of Abatzoglou (US 2005/0220695).
Regarding claim 15, Hawkes teaches a RWGS reaction to reduce the CO2 contained in the synthesis gas but does not teach a dry-reforming process.
Abatzoglou also discloses a method of carbon dioxide reduction/sequestration (see abstract).
Abatzoglou teaches a gasifier (122) that produces a raw syngas (126) that is subsequently sent to a dry-reformer (120) in order to reduce the amount of carbon dioxide and increase the amount of syngas (see paragraph 106 which discloses this). This function of the dry-reforming of Abatzoglou achieves the same goal (more syngas, less CO2) as the RWGS reactor of Hawkes.
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to replace the RWGS reaction of Hawkes with the dry-reforming system of Abatzoglou in order to reduce the CO2 contained in the syngas. Such a modification is nothing more than a simple substitution of one known element for another to yield entirely predictable results.
Regarding claim 17, Hawkes, as modified above, further discloses the CO2-consuming reactant is methane, ethane, or propane (see paragraph 7 of Abatzoglou which discloses dry reforming of methane to consume CO2).
Regarding claim 18, Hawkes, as modified above, fails to teach preheating the hydrocarbons prior to entry into the CO2 reduction zone.
Abatzoglou teaches that the methane/CO2 that will participate in the dry-reforming step are heated in heat exchanger 320 using heat recovered from the dry-reformed product (paragraph 140) prior to entry into the dry reformer.
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to utilize the preheating of Abatzoglou in the process of modified Hawkes as such a modification would recover otherwise lose sensible heat and reduce the external heat duty.
Regarding claim 19, Hawkes, as modified by Abatzoglou, teaches a preferred reactant preheat of 700-750C (paragraph 145 of Abatzoglou) and teaches a dry-reforming temperature of 730C (paragraph 124 of Abatzoglou). While modified Hawkes does not teach the claimed range, it does teach an overlapping range where the preheat is 730C and the reactor temp is 730C. As such, arriving at the claimed range would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP §2144.05(I)).
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hawkes (US 2009/235587) in view of Savchenko, ("Utilization of CO2 in non-catalytic dry reforming of C1-C4 hydrocarbons", Journal of CO2 Utilization 47 (2021) 101490).
Regarding claim 16, Hawkes, as modified above, does not teach that the dry-reforming process is non-catalytic.
Savchenko also discloses a process for dry-reforming (see abstract).
Savchenko teaches a dry reforming process that proceeds without a catalyst to produce syngas from CO2 and methane (see section 3.1). Savchenko also goes on to teach that the reaction takes place in the same range (1400-1800K) as the dry reforming of Abatzoglou.
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to utilize the non-catalytic process of Savchenko in the place of the catalytic dry-reforming of modified Hawkes as such a modification would eliminate the need for a catalyst.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hawkes (US 2009/235587) in view of Moghaddam (US 2022/0213398).
Regarding claims 34 and 35, Hawkes discloses an integrated gasification, in-situ RWGS process, and in-situ dry reforming process to produce a syngas effluent, or CO2-depleted syngas, from a gasifier vessel with reduced CO2 content, wherein the gasifier vessel includes at least three zones:
a gasification zone for a carbonaceous feed (such as gasifier 406 in Fig. 3, and see paragraph 10 which discloses that a carbonaceous fuel is combined with oxygen in the gasifier to produce syngas),
a CO2 reduction zone (such as the RWGS reactor 432 which reacts CO2 with hydrogen to produce CO and water), and
a syngas cooling zone (in heat exchanger 424 which cools the produced syngas against feed streams for the electrolysis reactor 414 and the gasifier 406),
the process comprising: adding H2 to the CO2 reduction zone downstream of the gasification zone to reduce the CO2 content in raw syngas from the gasification zone via RWGS reactions to produce additional CO and H2O (such is the case in a RWGS reactor and see paragraph 51 which discloses the process that occurs inside the RWGS react which includes reacting H2 and CO2 to produce CO and H2O),
wherein at least one of the gasification zone, CO2 reduction zone, and syngas cooling zone constitutes a separate vessel relative to the other zones/single vessel (in Fig. 3, the gasifier 406, the RWGS reactor 432 and the cooling zone/heat exchanger 432 are all separate vessels).
Hawkes, however, does not place all three zones in the gasifier vessel, as claimed.
Moghaddam also discloses a gasification process (see abstract).
Moghaddam teaches a gasifier which comprises several zones inside, such as subzones A-F, where a gasification zone comprises zones A-C (paragraphs 63-69), an intermediate zone comprises zone E (post gasification zone having an injection zone and further carbon conversion, paragraphs 71, 75 and 80) and a cooling zone comprises zone F (internal quench zone at the top of the gasifier, paragraphs 72 and 81). Moghaddam teaches integration of several processes that are present in a gasification system into a single vessel because such a feature simplifies the process relative to separate reactor and/or reformer units and permits smaller, more compact equipment (paragraph 23).
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to integrate all the zones of Hawkes into a single gasifier vessel, as taught by Moghaddam in order to simplify the process relative to separate reactor and/or reformer units and permits smaller, more compact equipment
Relevant Prior Art
US 2021/0388278 – Discloses routing biogas in a gasifier to a methane dry-reforming unit that utilizes CO2 to convert methane in to additional CO and H2, similar to the instant invention.
US 2014/0318013 – Discloses cofeeding biomass and methane into a gasifier so gasification and CO2 dry reforming occur simultaneously. Such a recitation is similar to the instant disclosure of combining gasification and CO2 reduction into the same vessel.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW J MERKLING whose telephone number is (571)272-9813. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8am-6pm.
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, Basia Ridley can be reached at 571-272-1453. 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.
/MATTHEW J MERKLING/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725
Prosecution Insights