DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 1-9 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, line 5 and line 11, the phrase “the electrical resistance” lacks antecedent basis in the claims.
In claim 1, line 5, the phrase “the electrical” lacks antecedent basis in the claims.
In claim 1, line 14, the phrase “measuring any decrease in electrical resistivity by at least an order of magnitude ranging from 100- 1000 times” is indefinite in scope because it is unclear how it modifies the process.
In claim 1, line 17, the phrase “the process parameters” lacks antecedent basis in the claims.
In claim 2, line 1, the phrase “the steam reforming tubes” lacks antecedent basis in the claims because the is no mention of multiple tubes.
In claim 3, line 1, the phrase “the steam reforming tubes” lacks antecedent basis in the claims because the is no mention of multiple tubes.
In claim 5, line 1, the phrase “the process parameter” lacks antecedent basis in the claims.
In claim 5, line 2, the phrase “the steam to carbon ratio” lacks antecedent basis in the claims.
In claim 6, line 1, the phrase “the process parameter modified” lacks antecedent basis in the claims.
In claim 6, line 2, the phrase “the lowering of the plant rate below 90% of design capacity” lacks antecedent basis in the claims.
In claim 7, line 1, the phrase “the process parameter” lacks antecedent basis in the claims.
In claim 7, line 2, the phrase “hydrogen recycle” lacks antecedent basis in the claims because the process does not require a step that requires hydrogen.
In claim 8, line 1, the phrase “the steam to carbon ration” lacks antecedent basis in the claims.
In claim 9, line 2, the phrase “decreased by 10-30 deg. F” is indefinite because it is not clear what it is decreased from. For example, it is unclear whether it is decreased from an inlet temperature or some other relative temperature.
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) 1-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chevion US 3540868.
Regarding claim 1, Chevion teaches a process of monitoring carbon formation in a catalyst bed (Abstract). The monitoring is performed with two electrodes in contact with catalyst particles (col. 2, l. 29-50). The carbon formation is monitored by supplying a current to the electrodes and measuring the resistance (col. 2, l. 29-50). The process is adjusted based on the amount of carbon formation (col. 2, l. 29-50) The catalyst is for steam reforming (Abstract).
Chevion does not expressly state “measuring any decrease in electrical resistivity by at least an order of magnitude ranging from 100- 1000 times”. However, it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art to select the claimed magnitude of change in order to optimize the steam reforming process.
Regarding claim 2-3, the one disclosed reactor with the carbon formation monitoring device is at least 10% of the reforming tubes and is not adjacent to any other tubes (Summary of Invention).
Regarding claim 4, the reforming temperature may be 1400 deg. F (col. 3, l. 16).
Regarding claim 5, the steam to carbon ratio is adjusted (col. 3, l. 32).
Regarding claim 6, changing the steam to carbon ratio as taught in Chevion would inherently lower a power rate to below 90% of design capacity (col. 3).
Regarding claim 7, the process may be used for hydrogen generation (Claim 8).
Regarding claim 8, Chevion does not expressly state the steam to carbon ratio is raised by about 0.2 to 0.4. However, Chevion teaches that increasing the steam to carbon ratio prevents carbon formation on the catalyst and removes carbon from the catalyst (col. 3, l. 30-55). Thus, it would be obvious to raise the steam to carbon ratio 0.2 to 0.4 in order to prevent and/or remove carbon from the catalyst with predictable results.
Regarding claim 9, Chevion does not expressly disclose a decrease of 10-30 deg. F in temperature. However, this feature would be inherent in the process of Chevion.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES A FIORITO whose telephone number is (571)272-9921. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM-5PM.
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, Amber Orlando can be reached at (571) 270-3149. 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.
/JAMES A FIORITO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1731
