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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 09/27/2024 and 12/06/2024 have been considered by the Examiner.
Election/Restrictions
Applicants’ election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-7 and 22, in the reply filed on 07/07/2026 is acknowledged.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-7 and 22, filed on 07/17/2026, are under consideration. Claims 8-21 are canceled.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. The following title is suggested: Conversion of propane and/or butane to syngas using eSMR.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tamhankar et al. (US 2018/0148330).
For claim 1, Tamhankar teaches a system for steam methane reforming comprising a steam methane reformer that is electrically powered. The system comprises feeding a mixture of steam and hydrocarbons to the steam methane reformer; contacting the steam and hydrocarbons with a metal monolith supported catalyst; providing an electric current to the metal monolith supported catalyst; and recovering the hydrogen. The electric current applied to the metal monolith supported catalyst will encounter electrical resistance which will create heat. This heat can supplement that provided for by the reaction of the fuel and air.
This disclosure is interpreted as the claimed “electrical steam methane reformer (e-SMR,), arranged to receive the first stream and carry out an electrical steam methane reforming (e-SMR) step, so as to provide a first syngas stream”-see figure below.
Regarding the claimed “first stream”, Tamhankar teaches the fuel stream comprises propane and/or butane (e.g. rich in these components) [0024]. As can be seen in the figure, the eSMR is arranged to receive this fuel stream, and carry out eSMR, and provide syngas (label 5).
PNG
media_image1.png
482
546
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The disclosure of Tamhankar is viewed as directed to system for reforming a first propane and/or butane rich stream since the prior art meets the claimed limitations and since the claim does not specify that the first stream undergoes reforming.
Claims 1 and 5-6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fuder (DE 10040539A1; translation attached).
For claim 1, Fuder teaches a reactor to produce highly pure hydrogen (derived from syngas) from a hydrocarbon stream and steam (e.g. steam methane reformer), the reactor having hydrogen-permeable diffusion membrane for separating H2 from residual gas and a heater wherein the heater is a hot conductor in the center of the reactor. The system performs steam reforming reaction, separating the resultant H2 using a diffusion membrane, and carrying out a pretreatment stage for hydrogenation of the hydrocarbon stream, with simultaneous production of n-paraffins, in which the hydrocarbon mixture used contains such a fraction of hydrogenatable hydrocarbons (Abstract). The pretreatment step serves to produce n-paraffins, preferably, methane, ethane, propane and/or butane (pg. 3 of translation, 7th paragraph). The SMR is heated electrically (pg. 3 of translation, 14th paragraph). These propane and/or butane from the hydrocarbon stream are considered the claimed first stream. The hydrogen stream generated can be used in a fuel cell to generate electrical energy that is used for heating the diffusion membrane in the membrane reactor (e.g eSMR).
For claim 5, Fuder teaches a hydrogenation section for hydrogenating the first stream to provide a hydrogenated first stream (pretreatment step which provides the n-paraffins propane and butane for the eSMR, as discussed above) to carry out said electrical steam methane reforming (e-SMR) step, so as to provide said first syngas stream.
To gain better understanding of reforming mechanism, please refer to CA 2256801C: hydrocarbon feedstocks are converted into synthesis gas in a two-stage process comprising an initial steam reforming step followed by final conversion to synthesis gas in a mixed conducting membrane reactor. The steam reforming step converts a portion of the methane into synthesis gas and converts essentially all of the hydrocarbons heavier than methane into methane, hydrogen, and carbon oxides. The steam reforming step produces an intermediate feed stream containing methane, hydrogen, carbon oxides, and steam which can be processed without operating problems in a mixed conducting membrane reactor. The steam reforming and mixed conducting membrane reactors can be heat-integrated for maximum operating efficiency and produce synthesis gas with compositions suitable for a variety of final products.
For claim 6, Fuder teaches “Another advantage is that the system is very compact can be built and that the feed streams in countercurrent or can be brought to the necessary temperature by heat exchangers, so that the amounts of heat in the product gas stream are fully used could. “.
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, 7 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fuder, as applied to claims 1 and 5 above, and in further view of KRESNYAK (CA-2751615-A1).
Fuder does not incorporate LPG and does not teach the limitations recited in these claims.
However, KRESNYAK teaches incorporating reforming and hydrogen generation from hydrocarbons (naphtha, including paraffins) as shown below. This system is utilized with gas to liquid (which includes LPG, as relating to claim 2) and comprises separation of off gas (including CO2, H2 and CH4, labels 44 or 56 or 62 or 64), recycling the off gas (label 104, as relating to claim 3). The separation section provides first syngas and condensate (labels 60, 66 and 62, as relating to pending claim 4). The system further comprises hydrogen recovery section (label 33, as relating to pending claim 7) as well as hydrodesulfurization section and pre-reforming section (label 20, as relating to claim 22).
PNG
media_image2.png
798
1176
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Therefore, and before the effective filing date of the instant invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have utilized known reforming techniques (desulfurization, prereformer, and recycle) into the system of Fuder because this involves ability to operate with natural gas liquids (NGL or LPG) to make hydrogen, and because this involves applying known reforming techniques with predictable results and a reasonable expectation of success—see MPEP 2143 I, 2143 A, 2143 D, and 2143.02.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALI Z FADHEL whose telephone number is (571)270-0267. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-6pm PST.
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, In Suk Bullock can be reached at 571-272-5954. 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.
/ALI Z FADHEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1772
