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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Requirement for Information
The applicant has provided figures and description of prior art. Specifically, figures 1, 2, 4, and 5 along with their descriptions are labeled as “prior art.”
A statement by an applicant in the specification or made during prosecution identifying the work of another as "prior art" is an admission which can be relied upon for both anticipation and obviousness determinations, regardless of whether the admitted prior art would otherwise qualify as prior art under the statutory categories of 35 U.S.C. 102. Riverwood Int’l Corp. v. R.A. Jones & Co., 324 F.3d 1346, 1354, 66 USPQ2d 1331, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2003); Constant v. Advanced Micro-Devices Inc., 848 F.2d 1560, 1570, 7 USPQ2d 1057, 1063 (Fed. Cir. 1988). Where the admitted prior art anticipates the claim but does not qualify as prior art under any of the paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102, the claim may be rejected as being anticipated by the admitted prior art without citing to 35 U.S.C. 102.
However, even if labeled as "prior art," the work of the same inventive entity may not be considered prior art against the claims unless it falls under one of the statutory categories. Id.; see also Reading & Bates Construction Co. v. Baker Energy Resources Corp., 748 F.2d 645, 650, 223 USPQ 1168, 1172 (Fed. Cir. 1984) ("[W]here the inventor continues to improve upon his own work product, his foundational work product should not, without a statutory basis, be treated as prior art solely because he admits knowledge of his own work. It is common sense that an inventor, regardless of an admission, has knowledge of his own work.").
The applicant is required to provide (yes or no) whether the admitted prior art is:
The work of another
The work of the same inventive entity
If the work of the same inventive entity, would the work still qualify as prior art (i.e. was it published before the grace period)?
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“syngas separation unit” in claims 1 and 7;
“carbon dioxide removal system” in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Factors that will support a conclusion that the prior art element is an equivalent are:
(A) The prior art element performs the identical function specified in the claim in substantially the same way, and produces substantially the same results as the corresponding element disclosed in the specification. Kemco Sales, Inc. v. Control Papers Co., 208 F.3d 1352, 1364, 54 USPQ2d 1308, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (An internal adhesive sealing the inner surfaces of an envelope pocket was not held to be equivalent to an adhesive on a flap which attached to the outside of the pocket. Both the claimed invention and the accused device performed the same function of closing the envelope, but the accused device performed the function in a substantially different way (by an internal adhesive on the inside of the pocket) with a substantially different result (the adhesive attached the inner surfaces of both sides of the pocket)); Odetics Inc. v. Storage Tech. Corp., 185 F.3d 1259, 1267, 51 USPQ2d 1225, 1229-30 (Fed. Cir. 1999); Lockheed Aircraft Corp. v. United States, 193 USPQ 449, 461 (Ct. Cl. 1977). The concepts of equivalents as set forth in Graver Tank & Mfg. Co. v. Linde Air Products, 339 U.S. 605, 85 USPQ 328 (1950) are relevant to any "equivalents" determination. Polumbo v. Don-Joy Co., 762 F.2d 969, 975 n.4, 226 USPQ 5, 8-9 n.4 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
(B) A person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the interchangeability of the element shown in the prior art for the corresponding element disclosed in the specification. Caterpillar Inc. v. Deere & Co., 224 F.3d 1374, 56 USPQ2d 1305 (Fed. Cir. 2000); Al-Site Corp. v. VSI Int’ l, Inc., 174 F.3d 1308, 1316, 50 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999); Chiuminatta Concrete Concepts, Inc. v. Cardinal Indus. Inc., 145 F.3d 1303, 1309, 46 USPQ2d 1752, 1757 (Fed. Cir. 1998); Lockheed Aircraft Corp. v. United States, 193 USPQ 449, 461 (Ct. Cl. 1977); Data Line Corp. v. Micro Technologies, Inc., 813 F.2d 1196, 1 USPQ2d 2052 (Fed. Cir. 1987).
(C) There are insubstantial differences between the prior art element and the corresponding element disclosed in the specification. IMS Technology, Inc. v. Haas Automation, Inc., 206 F.3d 1422, 1436, 54 USPQ2d 1129, 1138 (Fed. Cir. 2000); Warner-Jenkinson Co. v. Hilton Davis Chemical Co., 520 U.S. 17, 41 USPQ2d 1865, 1875 (1997); Valmont Industries, Inc. v. Reinke Mfg. Co., 983 F.2d 1039, 25 USPQ2d 1451 (Fed. Cir. 1993). See also Caterpillar Inc. v. Deere & Co., 224 F.3d 1374, 56 USPQ2d 1305 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (A structure lacking several components of the overall structure corresponding to the claimed function and also differing in the number and size of the parts may be insubstantially different from the disclosed structure. The limitation in a means- (or step-) plus-function claim is the overall structure corresponding to the claimed function. The individual components of an overall structure that corresponds to the claimed function are not claim limitations. Also, potential advantages of a structure that do not relate to the claimed function should not be considered in an equivalents determination under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph).
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 1-10 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the method for operating the plant when the syngas separation unit and carbon dioxide removal system is off-line comprising.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, “the method for operating the plant when the syngas separation unit and carbon dioxide removal system is off-line comprising” will be interpreted as - the method for operating the plant comprising, when the syngas separation unit and carbon dioxide removal system is off-line, performing the steps: -.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the cooled shifted syngas.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, “the cooled shifted syngas” will be interpreted as -a cooled shifted syngas-.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the method for operating the plant when the syngas separation unit and carbon dioxide removal system is off-line comprising.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, “the method for operating the plant when the syngas separation unit and carbon dioxide removal system is off-line comprising” will be interpreted as - the method for operating the plant comprising, when the syngas separation unit and carbon dioxide removal system is off-line, performing the steps: -.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the cooled shifted syngas.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, “the cooled shifted syngas” will be interpreted as -a cooled shifted syngas-.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (US 20100288123 A1), hereinafter Chen, in view of Engler (US 20050034372 A1), hereinafter Engler.
Regarding claims 1 and 2, Chen discloses a method for operating a plant, the plant comprising:
a hydrogen plant comprising a syngas generator (3), and a syngas separation unit (“The SHR reaction product (in the case where there is no water gas shift reactor) or the water gas shift reaction product (hereinafter "WGS reaction product) is then introduced into a H.sub.2 PSA unit 8 via line 7 in order to produce high purity hydrogen… As a result of this process, two separate gas streams are obtained--one that is a gaseous high purity hydrogen stream that is withdrawn via line 9 where it is passed on for further use and/or storage and the other which is often referred to as a H.sub.2 PSA tail gas which is withdrawn after desorption of a bed via line 10 and is subjected to further processing” paragraph [0014]), and
a carbon dioxide removal system (“the H.sub.2 PSA tail gas stream is instead treated in order to remove the valuable CO.sub.2 present as a high purity CO2 stream. This treatment of the H.sub.2 PSA tail gas stream is carried out using a CO.sub.2 VSA unit 11” paragraph [0017]),
the method for operating the plant comprising:
introducing a process feed stream into the syngas generator, thereby producing a syngas stream (“the first stage of each of these processes involves the introduction of one or more hydrocarbon streams (also referred to herein as one or more hydrocarbon feed gases) 1 along with steam 2 into a SHR unit 3… The reaction product from the SHR unit (hereinafter "SHR product stream") is principally a hydrogen rich effluent that contains hydrogen, carbon monoxide, methane, water and carbon dioxide” paragraph [0013]), and
creating a cooled shifted syngas (“In some cases the stream from the SHR will be at a higher temperature so optionally the stream may first be cooled with a heat exchanger before being passed through the water gas shift” paragraph [0004]).
PNG
media_image1.png
552
780
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Chen does not disclose a method for operating a plant during an upset condition, the method for operating the plant when the syngas separation unit and carbon dioxide removal system is off-line comprising:
introducing a burner fuel stream into the syngas generator, thereby producing a flue gas stream, and
bypassing the off-line syngas separation unit and carbon dioxide removal system and combining at least a portion of the syngas with the burner fuel stream;
a furnace heat input controller and a syngas fuel control valve, the method further comprising:
sending a low heat input signal from the furnace heat input controller, during a syngas separation unit and carbon dioxide removal system shutdown condition, to the syngas fuel control valve,
adjusting the flow of the cooled shifted syngas fuel stream to supplement the burner fuel stream and thereby correcting the low furnace heat input condition.
However, Engler teaches a method for operating a plant during an upset condition, the method for operating the plant when the syngas separation unit is off-line comprising:
introducing a burner fuel stream into the syngas generator, thereby producing a flue gas stream (“a unit (1; 101) for reforming methane with steam, which is provided with said burners for its heating and which is intended for producing the hydrogen-rich synthesis gas” paragraph [0017]), and
bypassing the off-line syngas separation unit and combining at least a portion of the syngas with the burner fuel stream (“In case of sudden and unscheduled shutdown of the purification unit 4, said unit is automatically isolated from the rest of the installation, and the buffer tank 14 is no longer supplied with waste gas. The monitoring, calculation and control unit 21 immediately actuates the progressive closure, at a preset rate, of the valve 15. Simultaneously, it calculates, in real time and continuously, the theoretical flow rate of synthesis gas that must be burned in order to compensate for the decrease in flow rate of the waste gas supplied to the burners 6, and it opens and controls the valve 18 in order to regulate, about the theoretical flow rate that it has calculated, the actual flow rate of the synthesis gas supplied to the burners 6. The calculation in question takes account of the calorific values of the waste gas and the synthesis gas” paragraph [0058]);
a furnace heat input controller and a syngas fuel control valve, the method further comprising:
sending a low heat input signal from the furnace heat input controller, during a syngas separation unit shutdown condition, to the syngas fuel control valve,
adjusting the flow of the cooled shifted syngas fuel stream to supplement the burner fuel stream and thereby correcting the low furnace heat input condition (“As a variant, the degree of opening of the valve 18 is not calculated as a function of the measurement taken by the flowmeter 16, but it is the direct consequence of the regulation of a temperature connected with the operation of the burners 6, like the temperature of the combustion gases or the temperature of the reforming reaction” paragraph [0059]).
PNG
media_image2.png
474
686
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In view of Engler’s teachings, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the steps as is taught in Engler, in the method disclosed by Chen because Engler states “an accidental shutdown of the purification unit often results in the shutdown of the reforming unit. This is a drawback, and is especially serious because the time required to restart this reforming unit amounts to tens of hours, all very costly” (paragraph [0009]) and “The purification unit 4 can then be promptly restarted. This saves time, amounting to tens of hours, normally required to restart the reforming unit 1” (paragraph [0061]). Therefore, including the steps taught by Engler will reduce downtime in the event of an unscheduled shutdown of the separation unit of Chen. The examiner notes that the carbon dioxide removal system of Chen is downstream from the syngas separation unit. If the syngas separation unit were off-line as taught by Engler, the carbon dioxide removal system would not receive flow and would likewise be offline.
Regarding claim 3, Chen, as modified by Engler, discloses the method of claim 2, wherein the cooled shifted syngas fuel control valve has a valve flow coefficient that has been programmed as a heat input tracker, thereby allowing the controller to correct any low furnace pressure condition (Engler states “As a variant, the degree of opening of the valve 18 is not calculated as a function of the measurement taken by the flowmeter 16, but it is the direct consequence of the regulation of a temperature connected with the operation of the burners 6, like the temperature of the combustion gases or the temperature of the reforming reaction” paragraph [0059]).
Regarding claim 4, Chen, as modified by Engler, discloses the method of claim 3, wherein the heat input tracker programming is operating as a background program during normal operation of the hydrogen plant in combination with the syngas separation unit and carbon dioxide removal system, in a non-upset condition (Engler states “The monitoring, calculation and control unit 21” paragraph [0058]. Thus, the conditions are monitored during normal operation).
Regarding claim 5, Chen, as modified by Engler, discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the carbon dioxide removal system is selected from the group consisting of carbon dioxide adsorption system, carbon dioxide scrubbers, molecular sieves, cryogenic separation, membrane separation, or any combination thereof (“As used herein with regard to the present invention, the term "VSA" refers to a non-cryogenic gas separation technology which utilizes the adsorbents for the removal of certain gases from a gas mixture and vacuum for the removal of the certain gases from the adsorbents. Furthermore, as used herein, the phrase "CO.sub.2 VSA unit" refers to a vacuum swing adsorption unit in which vacuum is used along with an adsorbent that is specific to CO.sub.2 in order to select for CO.sub.2 removal from a gas stream” paragraph [0017]).
Regarding claim 6, Chen, as modified by Engler, discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the syngas separation unit is selected from the group consisting of a pressure adsorption unit, a temperature swing adsorption unit, a membrane separator, or any combination thereof (“The H.sub.2 PSA unit 8 utilized can be any H.sub.2 PSA unit known in the art” paragraph [0014]. The examiner notes that PSA stands for pressure swing adsorption).
Claims 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen, in view of Engler, and further in view of Chinta (US 20210387934 A1), Chinta.
Regarding claims 7 and 8, Chen discloses a method for operating a plant, the plant comprising:
a hydrogen plant comprising a syngas generator (3), a syngas separation unit (“The SHR reaction product (in the case where there is no water gas shift reactor) or the water gas shift reaction product (hereinafter "WGS reaction product) is then introduced into a H.sub.2 PSA unit 8 via line 7 in order to produce high purity hydrogen… As a result of this process, two separate gas streams are obtained--one that is a gaseous high purity hydrogen stream that is withdrawn via line 9 where it is passed on for further use and/or storage and the other which is often referred to as a H.sub.2 PSA tail gas which is withdrawn after desorption of a bed via line 10 and is subjected to further processing” paragraph [0014]), and
a carbon dioxide removal system (“the H.sub.2 PSA tail gas stream is instead treated in order to remove the valuable CO.sub.2 present as a high purity CO2 stream. This treatment of the H.sub.2 PSA tail gas stream is carried out using a CO.sub.2 VSA unit 11” paragraph [0017]),
the method for operating the plant comprising:
introducing a process feed stream into the syngas generator, thereby producing a syngas stream (“the first stage of each of these processes involves the introduction of one or more hydrocarbon streams (also referred to herein as one or more hydrocarbon feed gases) 1 along with steam 2 into a SHR unit 3… The reaction product from the SHR unit (hereinafter "SHR product stream") is principally a hydrogen rich effluent that contains hydrogen, carbon monoxide, methane, water and carbon dioxide” paragraph [0013]),
creating a cooled shifted syngas (“In some cases the stream from the SHR will be at a higher temperature so optionally the stream may first be cooled with a heat exchanger before being passed through the water gas shift” paragraph [0004]).
Chen does not disclose a method for operating a plant during an upset condition, the plant comprising:
the carbon dioxide removal system comprising one or more of a syngas separation unit tail gas dryer/compressor, a cryogenic cold box, a membrane separator, and a carbon dioxide compression unit,
the method for operating the plant when the syngas separation unit and the carbon dioxide removal system are off-line comprising:
introducing a burner fuel stream into the syngas generator, thereby producing a flue gas stream,
bypassing the off-line syngas separation unit and the carbon dioxide removal system and combining at least a portion of the syngas with the burner fuel stream;
a furnace heat input controller and a cooled shifted syngas fuel control valve, the method further comprising:
sending a signal from the furnace heat input controller, during a syngas separation unit and carbon dioxide removal system shutdown condition, to the syngas fuel control valve,
adjusting the flow of the syngas fuel stream to supplement the burner fuel stream and thereby correcting the low furnace pressure condition.
However, Engler teaches a method for operating a plant during an upset condition, the plant comprising:
the method for operating the plant when the syngas separation unit and the carbon dioxide removal system are off-line comprising:
introducing a burner fuel stream into the syngas generator, thereby producing a flue gas stream (“a unit (1; 101) for reforming methane with steam, which is provided with said burners for its heating and which is intended for producing the hydrogen-rich synthesis gas” paragraph [0017]),
bypassing the off-line syngas separation unit and combining at least a portion of the syngas with the burner fuel stream (“In case of sudden and unscheduled shutdown of the purification unit 4, said unit is automatically isolated from the rest of the installation, and the buffer tank 14 is no longer supplied with waste gas. The monitoring, calculation and control unit 21 immediately actuates the progressive closure, at a preset rate, of the valve 15. Simultaneously, it calculates, in real time and continuously, the theoretical flow rate of synthesis gas that must be burned in order to compensate for the decrease in flow rate of the waste gas supplied to the burners 6, and it opens and controls the valve 18 in order to regulate, about the theoretical flow rate that it has calculated, the actual flow rate of the synthesis gas supplied to the burners 6. The calculation in question takes account of the calorific values of the waste gas and the synthesis gas” paragraph [0058]);
a furnace heat input controller and a syngas fuel control valve, the method further comprising:
sending a low heat input signal from the furnace heat input controller, during a syngas separation unit shutdown condition, to the syngas fuel control valve,
adjusting the flow of the cooled shifted syngas fuel stream to supplement the burner fuel stream and thereby correcting the low furnace heat input condition (“As a variant, the degree of opening of the valve 18 is not calculated as a function of the measurement taken by the flowmeter 16, but it is the direct consequence of the regulation of a temperature connected with the operation of the burners 6, like the temperature of the combustion gases or the temperature of the reforming reaction” paragraph [0059]).
In view of Engler’s teachings, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the steps as is taught in Engler, in the method disclosed by Chen because Engler states “an accidental shutdown of the purification unit often results in the shutdown of the reforming unit. This is a drawback, and is especially serious because the time required to restart this reforming unit amounts to tens of hours, all very costly” (paragraph [0009]) and “The purification unit 4 can then be promptly restarted. This saves time, amounting to tens of hours, normally required to restart the reforming unit 1” (paragraph [0061]). Therefore, including the steps taught by Engler will reduce downtime in the event of an unscheduled shutdown of the separation unit of Chen. The examiner notes that the carbon dioxide removal system of Chen is downstream from the syngas separation unit. If the syngas separation unit were off-line as taught by Engler, the carbon dioxide removal system would not receive flow and would likewise be offline.
Chen, as modified by Engler, does not disclose the carbon dioxide removal system comprising one or more of a syngas separation unit tail gas dryer/compressor, a cryogenic cold box, a membrane separator, and a carbon dioxide compression unit.
However, Chinta teaches the carbon dioxide removal system comprising one or more of a syngas separation unit tail gas dryer/compressor, a cryogenic cold box, a membrane separator, and a carbon dioxide compression unit (“The CO.sub.2 separator 600 can comprise CO.sub.2 removal by amine (e.g., monoethanolamine) absorption (e.g., amine scrubbing), pressure swing adsorption (PSA), temperature swing adsorption, gas separation membranes (e.g., porous inorganic membranes, palladium membranes, polymeric membranes, zeolites, etc.), cryogenic separation, and the like, or combinations thereof” paragraph [0099]).
PNG
media_image3.png
478
768
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Chen discloses a carbon dioxide removal system, but not one of the claimed types. Chinta teaches at least one of the claimed types of carbon dioxide removal systems. The substitution of one known element (the adsorption device of Chen) for another (the membrane device of Chinta) would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, since the substitution of the membrane device taught in Chinta would have yielded predictable results, namely, separation of the carbon dioxide from the stream Agrizap, Inc. v. Woodstream Corp., 520 F.3d 1337, 86 USPQ2d 1110 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
Regarding claim 9, Chen, as modified by Engler and Chinta, discloses the method of claim 8, wherein the cooled shifted syngas fuel control valve has a valve flow coefficient that has been programmed as a heat input tracker, thereby allowing the controller to correct any low furnace pressure condition (Engler states “As a variant, the degree of opening of the valve 18 is not calculated as a function of the measurement taken by the flowmeter 16, but it is the direct consequence of the regulation of a temperature connected with the operation of the burners 6, like the temperature of the combustion gases or the temperature of the reforming reaction” paragraph [0059]).
Regarding claim 10, Chen, as modified by Engler and Chinta, discloses the method of claim 9, wherein the heat input tracker programming is operating as a background program during normal operation of the hydrogen plant in combination with the syngas separation unit and the carbon dioxide removal system, in a non-upset condition (Engler states “The monitoring, calculation and control unit 21” paragraph [0058]. Thus, the conditions are monitored during normal operation).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Blumenfield (US 20060171878 A1) “Between the scrubber 7' and the pressure swing adsorption system 11', an additional device 19' is provided for returning part 14' of the hydrogen-rich gas stream 10' that leaves the gas scrubber into the fuel chamber 3', 3'', 3''' of the reformers 4', 4'', 4'''” teaches returning at least some of the stream to the reformer 4 before it reaches the PSA 11
PNG
media_image4.png
398
748
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Ulber (US 20170334719 A1) “Particularly expedient, in this case, is a line guidance which, in addition, has a return line upstream of each feed line to the respective cleaning stage, wherein the return line leads back into the furnace of the steam reforming reactor. Thus, in the event of malfunction of each individual cleaning stage, the synthesis gas can be recirculated at least in part to the furnace and there replace the unavailable residual gas from the pressure-swing adsorption. Thus it is possible to react flexibly to malfunction of each cleaning stage, to shut them down separately and start them up again as fast as possible, and the steam reforming reaction can continue as such under standard conditions” teaches returning the synthesis gas stream at various stages due to malfunction
PNG
media_image5.png
380
648
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LOGAN P JONES whose telephone number is (303)297-4309. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30-5:00 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, Michael Hoang can be reached at (571) 272-6460. 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.
/LOGAN P JONES/Examiner, Art Unit 3762
Prosecution Insights