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 Objections
Claim 1 recites:
1. A process for maximizing hydrogen production from a hydrogen- containing gas stream comprising…
recovering a hydrogen rich product stream from the reforming zone effluent in a hydrogen recovery zone, wherein the hydrogen-rich product stream comprises the hydrogen in the hydrogen-containing gas stream and the hydrogen made in the reforming zone. Emphasis added.
Claim 1 should be amended to read:
1. A process for maximizing hydrogen production from a hydrogen- containing gas stream comprising…
recovering a hydrogen rich product stream from the reforming zone effluent in a hydrogen recovery zone, wherein the hydrogen rich product stream comprises the hydrogen in the hydrogen-containing gas stream and the hydrogen made in the reforming zone.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 2 is 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 2 recites:
2. (Original) The process of claim 1 wherein the reforming zone further comprises a water-gas shift (WGS) reactor, and wherein reforming the hydrogen-lean residue stream comprises;
reforming the hydrogen-lean residue stream in the reformer to form hydrogen, carbon monoxide, and carbon dioxide; and
reacting the carbon monoxide in the reformer effluent stream with steam in the WGS reactor to form hydrogen and carbon dioxide forming a WGS effluent stream comprising hydrogen and carbon dioxide, wherein the hydrogen comprises the hydrogen in the hydrogen-containing gas stream, the hydrogen made in the reformer, and the hydrogen made in the WGS reactor;
wherein the WGS effluent stream comprises the reforming zone effluent stream. Emphasis added.
Claim 2 is indefinite because it is unclear whether the italicized step is the same or different from the step in claim 1 of—“reforming the hydrogen-lean residue stream in a reforming zone comprising a reformer to convert the methane to hydrogen and carbon monoxide and form a reforming zone effluent stream comprising hydrogen, carbon monoxide, and carbon dioxide.” Further 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.
Claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 12, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Xiao et al., CN 113562695 A.1
Regarding claim 1, Xiao teaches a hydrogen production method, which reads on the claimed “process for maximizing hydrogen production form a hydrogen-containing gas stream.” See Xiao abstract. The method comprises:
Separating a coke oven gas (the claimed “hydrogen-containing gas stream comprising hydrogen, methane, and carbon monoxide”) in a hydrogen membrane separator 5 (the “membrane separation unit”) into a permeate stream that is rich in hydrogen rich (the “hydrogen-rich permeate stream comprising the hydrogen”) and a retentate stream that is rich in CH4 rich that contains at least some CO (the “hydrogen-lean residue stream comprising the methane and the carbon monoxide”). See Xiao Fig. 1, p. 3.
Reforming retentate stream in a steam reformer 12 (the “reformer”) to convert the methane to hydrogen and carbon monoxide and form an effluent stream comprising hydrogen, carbon monoxide and at least some carbon dioxide. See Xiao Fig. 1, ps. 3–4.
This reads on “reforming the hydrogen-lean residue stream in a reformer to convert the methane to hydrogen and carbon monoxide and form a reformer effluent stream comprising hydrogen, carbon monoxide, and carbon dioxide.”
Recovering the hydrogen rich product stream from the steam reformer 12 in a hydrogen membrane separator 18 and in pressure swing adsorption device 9. See Xiao Fig. 1, p. 3. The hydrogen rich product stream exiting pressure swing adsorption device 9 comprises the hydrogen in the hydrogen-containing gas stream and the hydrogen made in the steam reformer 12. Id.
This reads on “recovering a hydrogen rich product stream from the reforming zone effluent in a hydrogen recovery zone, wherein the hydrogen-rich product stream comprises the hydrogen in the hydrogen-containing gas stream and the hydrogen made in the reforming zone.”
PNG
media_image1.png
773
1085
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Xiao teaches that the hydrogen recovery zone comprises a pressure swing adsorption device 9 (the claimed “hydrogen PSA”). See Xiao Fig. 1, p. 3. Also, separating the effluent from the steam reforming reactor 12 comprises separating the effluent in the pressure swing adsorption device 9 into the hydrogen-rich product stream and a hydrogen-lean tail gas stream (sent to compressor 19), as the effluent from the steam reforming reactor 12 is ultimately sent to the pressure swing adsorption device 9. See Xiao Fig. 1, p. 3.
Regarding claim 5, Xiao teaches compressing the permeate stream from the hydrogen membrane separator 5 (the “hydrogen-rich permeate stream”) in compressor 7 to form a compressed permeate stream and introducing the compressed permeate stream into the pressure swing adsorption device 9 (part of the “hydrogen recovery zone”). See Xiao Fig. 1, p. 3.
Regarding claim 6, Xiao teaches treating the coke oven gas (the “hydrogen-containing gas stream”) in liquid separation tank 3 before separating the coke oven gas in hydrogen membrane separator 5, as claimed. See Xiao Fig. 1, p. 3.
Regarding claim 12, Xiao teaches that the steam reforming reactor 12 (the “reformer”) is a methane steam reforming reactor (a “steam methane reformer”), as claimed. See Xiao p. 3.
Regarding claim 13, Xiao teaches that the “hydrogen-containing gas stream” comprises a coke oven gas stream, as claimed. See Xiao p. 3.
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.
Claims 2, 4, 14–16, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xiao et al., CN 113562695 A in view of Foody et al., GB 2585987 A.
Regarding claim 2, Xiao teaches that the method comprises reforming the retentate from the hydrogen membrane separator 5 (the “hydrogen-lean residue stream”) in the steam reforming reactor 12 (the “reformer”) to form hydrogen, carbon monoxide, and carbon dioxide, as claimed. See Xiao Fig. 1, ps. 3–4.
Xiao differs from claim 2 because it is silent as to the reforming zone comprising a water-gas shift (WGS) reactor with the method comprising the claimed steps.
But Foody teaches a method for producing renewable hydrogen comprising where methane is reacted in a steam methane reactor (SMR) 270b (similar to the steam reformer 12 of Xiao) to produce syngas (containing carbon monoxide), with the syngas being reacted with steam in a WGS 280 to form a WGS effluent stream comprising hydrogen and carbon dioxide. See Foody Fig. 2a, [0114]. The WGS effluent stream is then sent to an adsorption process 290 to separate the WGS effluent stream into a CO2 rich stream and a stream enriched in hydrogen. Id. The stream enriched in hydrogen can then be sent downstream for further processing. Id. The WGS 280 and adsorption process 290 are beneficial because they are able to produce a stream enriched in hydrogen. Id.
PNG
media_image2.png
946
1645
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to provide the WGS 280 (the claimed “water-gas shift (WGS) reactor”) and adsorption process 290 (the claimed “CO2 recovery zone”) of Foody downstream of the steam reformer 12 of Xiao to produce a stream enriched in hydrogen (the claimed “CO2-lean product stream”) that can be sent to the pressure swing adsorption device 9 of Xiao to increase the production of hydrogen.
Regarding claim 4, Xiao teaches the limitations of claim 3, as explained above.
Xiao differs from claim 4 because it is silent as to the hydrogen recovery zone further comprising a CO2 recovery zone, as claimed.
But it would have been obvious provide the WGS 280 (the claimed “water-gas shift (WGS) reactor”) and adsorption process 290 (the claimed “CO2 recovery zone”) of Foody downstream of the steam reformer 12 of Xiao to produce a stream enriched in hydrogen (the claimed “CO2-lean product stream”) that can be sent to the pressure swing adsorption device 9 of Xiao to increase the production of hydrogen, for the reasons explained in the rejection of claim 2 above.
With this modification, the adsorption process 290 of Foody reads on the “CO2 recovery zone.” The adsorption process 290 comprises an amine unit, as claimed. See Foody [0089]. Separating the effluent from the steam reforming reactor 12 of Xiao (the “reforming zone effluent”) comprises separating the effluent into a CO2-rich product stream (exiting the bottom of the adsorption process 290) and a CO2-lean stream (exiting the side of the adsorption process 290). Also, the CO2-lean stream would be introduced into the swing adsorption device 9 of Xiao (the “hydrogen PSA”) to form the hydrogen-rich product stream (exiting the side of the PSA 9) and a hydrogen-lean tail gas stream (exiting the bottom of the PSA 9).
Regarding claim 14, Xiao teaches a hydrogen production method, which reads on the claimed “process for maximizing hydrogen production form a hydrogen-containing gas stream.” See Xiao abstract. The method comprises:
Separating a coke oven gas (the claimed “hydrogen-containing gas stream comprising hydrogen, methane, and carbon monoxide”) in a hydrogen membrane separator 5 (the “membrane separation unit”) into a permeate stream that is rich in hydrogen rich (the “hydrogen-rich permeate stream comprising the hydrogen”) and a retentate stream that is rich in CH4 rich that contains at least some CO (the “hydrogen-lean residue stream comprising the methane and the carbon monoxide”). See Xiao Fig. 1, p. 3.
Reforming retentate stream in a steam reformer 12 (the “reformer”) to convert the methane to hydrogen and carbon monoxide and form an effluent stream comprising hydrogen, carbon monoxide and at least some carbon dioxide. See Xiao Fig. 1, ps. 3–4.
This reads on “reforming the hydrogen-lean residue stream in a reformer to convert the methane to hydrogen and carbon monoxide and form a reformer effluent stream comprising hydrogen, carbon monoxide, and carbon dioxide.”
Separating a CO2-lean product stream in a pressure swing adsorption device 9 (the “H2 PSA”) into a hydrogen-rich product stream and a hydrogen-lean tail gas stream (sent to compressor 19). See Xiao Fig. 1, p. 3.
This reads on “separating the CO2-lean product stream in a H2 PSA unit into a hydrogen-rich product stream and a hydrogen-lean tail gas stream.”
PNG
media_image1.png
773
1085
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Xiao differs from claim 14 because it is silent as to the method comprising reacting the carbon monoxide int eh effluent stream in a water-gas shift reactor to form hydrogen and carbon dioxide, forming a WGS effluent stream comprising hydrogen and carbon dioxide, separating the WGS effluent stream in a CO2 recovery zone into a CO2-rich product stream and a CO2-lean stream.
But Foody teaches a method for producing renewable hydrogen comprising where methane is reacted in a steam methane reactor (SMR) 270b (similar to the steam reformer 12 of Xiao) to produce syngas (containing carbon monoxide), with the syngas being reacted with steam in a WGS 280 to form a WGS effluent stream comprising hydrogen and carbon dioxide. See Foody Fig. 2a, [0114]. The WGS effluent stream is then sent to an adsorption process 290 to separate the WGS effluent stream into a CO2 rich stream and a stream enriched in hydrogen. Id. The stream enriched in hydrogen can then be sent downstream for further processing. Id. The WGS 280 and adsorption process 290 are beneficial because they are able to produce a stream enriched in hydrogen. Id.
PNG
media_image2.png
946
1645
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to provide the WGS 280 (the claimed “water-gas shift (WGS) reactor”) and adsorption process 290 (the claimed “CO2 recovery zone”) of Foody downstream of the steam reformer 12 of Xiao to produce a stream enriched in hydrogen (the claimed “CO2-lean product stream”) to increase the production of hydrogen.
Regarding claim 15, Xiao teaches compressing the permeate stream from the hydrogen membrane separator 5 (the “hydrogen-rich permeate stream”) in compressor 7 to form a compressed permeate stream and introducing the compressed permeate stream into the pressure swing adsorption device 9 (the “H2 PSA unit”). See Xiao Fig. 1, p. 3.
Regarding claim 16, Xiao teaches treating the coke oven gas (the “hydrogen-containing gas stream”) in liquid separation tank 3 before separating the coke oven gas in hydrogen membrane separator 5, as claimed. See Xiao Fig. 1, p. 3.
Regarding claim 20, Xiao teaches that the “hydrogen-containing gas stream” comprises a coke oven gas stream, as claimed. See Xiao p. 3.
Claims 6–9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xiao et al., CN 113562695 A in view of Zeng et al., CN 107512702 A.
Regarding claims 6–9, Xiao teaches the limitations of claim 1, as explained above.
Xiao differs from claims 6–9 because it is silent as to treating the coke gas stream (the “hydrogen-containing gas stream”) before it is separated in the membrane 5 comprises removing naphthalene, benzene or combinations in a TSA to form a purified hydrogen-containing gas stream and regenerating an adsorber in the TSA unit using a portion of the purified hydrogen-containing gas stream forming a regenerated gas stream.
But Zeng teaches a coke oven gas hydrogen gas production technique comprising a pretreatment step of using a TSA column to remove contaminants, such as naphthalene from the coke oven gas. See Zeng p. 6. The TSA column is then regenerated using hydrogen (a portion of the “purified hydrogen-gas containing gas stream”). Id. at abstract. The pre-treatment step of Zeng (using the TSA column) is beneficial because it removes harmful contaminants, such as naphthalene, from the coke oven gas. It would have been obvious to use the pre-treatment step of Zeng to purify the coke oven gas of Xiao before it enters the membrane 5 to remove harmful contaminants, such as naphthalene.
Claims 10 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xiao et al., CN 113562695 A in view of Foody et al., GB 2585987 A and in further view of Tenhumberg et al., US 2023/0219815 A1.
Regarding claims 10 and 19, Xiao as modified teaches the limitations of claims 2 and 14, as explained above.
Xiao as modified differs from claims 10 and 19 because it is silent as to introducing a blast furnace gas stream comprising carbon monoxide from a blast furnace into the WGS reactor 280 of Foody.
But Foody teaches that the WGS 280 can be a high temperature WGS reactor. See Foody [0114]. Also, Tenhumberg teaches a water-gas shift reactor where the thermal energy required for the reactor is provided by the off gases from a chemical plant such as a blast furnace (comprising CO). See Tenhumberg [0042]. It would have been obvious to introduce blast furnace gas into the WGS 280 of Foody to provide thermal energy for the WGS 280.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xiao et al., CN 113562695 A in view of Zeng et al., CN 107512702 A and in further view of Vauk et al., US 2011/0097260 A1.
Regarding claim 11, Xiao as modified teaches the limitations of claim 9, as explained above.
Xiao as modified differs from claim 11 because it is silent as to introducing all of the regenerated gas stream to the steam reformer 12 of Xiao as fuel.
But Vaulk teaches a hydrogen recovery method where regeneration gas from the TSA is used as fuel for a boiler raising steam. See Vaulk [0034]. It would have been obvious for the regenerated gas stream from the TSA of Zeng to be used as fuel for producing steam in the reformer 12 to provide a fuel source for the reformer 12.
Claims 16–18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xiao et al., CN 113562695 A in view of Foody et al., GB 2585987 A in view of Zeng et al., CN 107512702 A and in further view of Vauk et al., US 2011/0097260 A1.
Regarding claims 16–18, Xiao as modified teaches the limitations of claim 14, as explained above.
Xiao as modified differs from claims 16–18 because it is silent as to treating the coke gas stream (the “hydrogen-containing gas stream”) before it is separated in the membrane 5 comprises removing naphthalene, benzene or combinations in a TSA to form a purified hydrogen-containing gas stream and regenerating an adsorber in the TSA unit using a portion of the purified hydrogen-containing gas stream forming a regenerated gas stream, and introducing all of the regenerated gas stream to the steam reformer 12 of Xiao as fuel gas.
But Zeng teaches a coke oven gas hydrogen gas production technique comprising a pretreatment step of using a TSA column to remove contaminants, such as naphthalene from the coke oven gas. See Zeng p. 6. The TSA column is then regenerated using hydrogen (a portion of the “purified hydrogen-gas containing gas stream”). Id. at abstract. The pre-treatment step of Zeng (using the TSA column) is beneficial because it removes harmful contaminants, such as naphthalene, from the coke oven gas. Also, Vaulk teaches a hydrogen recovery method where regeneration gas from the TSA is used as fuel for a boiler raising steam. See Vaulk [0034]. It would have been obvious to use the pre-treatment step of Zeng to purify the coke oven gas of Xiao before it enters the membrane 5 to remove harmful contaminants, such as naphthalene. It also would have been obvious for the regenerated gas stream from the TSA of Zeng to be used as fuel for producing steam in the reformer 12 to provide a fuel source for the reformer 12.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Lin et al., CN 110127613 A (coke oven gas hydrogen production technique).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to T. BENNETT MCKENZIE whose telephone number is (571)270-5327. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 7:30AM-6:00PM.
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, Jennifer Dieterle can be reached at 571-270-7872. 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.
T. BENNETT MCKENZIE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1776
/T. BENNETT MCKENZIE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1776
1 Xiao is in the record as the 15-page Foreign Reference filed June 05, 2026.
Prosecution Insights