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 Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 4, “powdered” should be replaced with --powered--. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1-8, 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roden (US 6527980) in view of Karpenko (US 20150129805).
Regarding claims 1-2; Roden teaches a process of reforming a first feed stream comprising a hydrocarbon gas and stream in a chemical reactor (col. 7, lines 1-25) comprising the steps of inletting the first feed stream into a first inlet into a first reforming reaction zone of the reformer tube, carrying out reforming reaction of said first stream within the first reforming zone (col. 7, lines 22-40), inletting a second stream into a feed conduit wherein the feed conduit is configured so that said second feed stream is only in contact with catalyst material in a second reforming zone (col. 7, lines 40-55), conducting said second stream in heat exchange contact with catalyst material housed within the reformer tube, and inletting said second stream into said second reforming reaction zone into the reformer tube (tube 64 passes through catalyst section and would therefore heat exchange with the catalyst section; col. 7, lines 22-40). Additionally, it would have been obvious to provide a heat exchange between the second stream and the first zone of the reformer tube as Roden teaches providing heat exchange for the second stream (col.7, lines 1-25). Roden teaches carrying out reforming reaction of first and second stream within second reforming zone (second stream injected in catalyst bed; col. 7, lines 40-56), wherein said second zone is positioned downstream of the first zone wherein said second stream comprises CO2 wherein said second stream is heated prior to introduction into the second zone of the reformer tube (col. 4, lines 47-60, col. 7, lines 40-55).
Roden fails to teach electrically heating catalyst material within the reformer tube by means of an electrically driven heat source, wherein the source comprises electrically conducive material housed within the tube and said electrical power source connected to the material in order to allow a current to run through the conductive material during operation of the reactor.
Karpenko, however, teaches a method of reforming hydrocarbons (abstract, para. 0004,0050) wherein the reactor is heated by an electrically conductive material housed within the tube connected to an electrical power source for the purpose of heating the reaction within the reactor (para. 0052, 0070-0073).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the reactor of Roden heated by an electrically conductive material housed within the tube connected to an electrical power source in order to heat the reaction within the reactor as taught by Karpenko.
Regarding claim 3-5, Roden teaches that the second stream tube inlet enters a first end of the reformer to the second reforming zone (fig. 2, #64, 68; col. 7, lines 40-56). Additionally, Roden teaches that tube 64 passes through catalyst section and would therefore heat exchange with the catalyst section (col. 7, lines 22-40).
Regarding claim 6, Roden teaches that the second stream is CO2 (i.e. close to 100% CO2; col. 4, lines 45-55).
Regarding claim 7, Roden teaches that the second stream further comprises steam (col. 4, lines 50-60). Additionally, it is noted that it would be obvious to provide a mixture of CO2 and stream in a 50/50 mix through routine experimentation in the absence of unexpected results.
Regarding claim 8, Roden teaches that the moles of CO2 (in the second feed) is 0.567 and the natural gas moles (in the first feed) is 0.246 (Table 4). This value (0.567/0.246) is in the range of more than 0.5.
Regarding claim 10, Roden teaches a steam to carbon ration in the first feed of 1-3 (col. 4, lines 55-65). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Regarding claim 11, Karpenko teaches the reactor is heated to 700-1300 C (para. 0100). Roden additionally teaches that the reforming takes place at 705 C, inter alia (col. 6, lines 29-60). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Regarding claim 12, Roden teaches that the second feed stream is heated to a temperature of 700-844 C (col. 6, lines 45-60).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roden (US 6527980) in view of Karpenko (US 20150129805) and Allam (US 2017/0267524).
Roden teaches a process as described above in claim 1,but fails to teach that he first stream further comprises nitrogen, inter alia.
Allam, however, teaches producing syngas from a natural gas feed wherein the natural gas feed includes nitrogen (para. 0025).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the natural gas of Roden comprising nitrogen in order to provide a configuration known in the art as taught by Allam.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL A WARTALOWICZ whose telephone number is (571)272-5957. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9 am - 5 pm.
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, Keith Walker can be reached at 571-272-3458. 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.
/PAUL A WARTALOWICZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1735
Prosecution Insights