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 § 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, 6, 8-12, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chinta et al. (US 2021/0387934 A1).
Regarding claim 1, the reference Chinta et al. discloses a system for producing methanol (see para. [0020]; Figure), which comprises:
a methanol reactor (200) for producing a methanol reactor output stream (30) (see para. [0087]), the methanol reactor (200) comprising syngas from a syngas stream (15) (see para. [0080]), hydrogen from a hydrogen stream (e.g., a supplemental hydrogen stream) (see para. [0083]) and carbon dioxide from a recycled carbon dioxide stream (13) (see para. [0098]);
a separator (300) for separating the methanol reactor output stream (30) into a vapor stream (50) and a liquid stream (40) (see para. [0091]);
a distillation column (400) for separating the liquid stream (40) into a methanol product stream (45) and a water stream (46) (see para. [0094]);
a hydrogen separation unit (500) for separating the vapor stream (50) into another hydrogen stream (51) and a carbon dioxide off gas stream (52) (see para. [0096]; Figure); and
an amine absorption unit (600) for producing the recycled carbon dioxide stream (13) and a tail gas stream (60), the amine absorption unit (600) comprising carbon dioxide from the carbon dioxide off gas stream (52) and post-combustion carbon dioxide from a carbon dioxide effluent stream (15) (see paras. [0023]; [0099]; Figure).
Regarding claim 6, the reference Chinta et al. discloses the system, wherein the methanol reactor output stream (30) is in direct fluid communication with the separator (300) (see para. [0091]).
Regarding claim 8, the reference Chinta et al. discloses the system, wherein the vapor stream comprises a mixture of unreacted syngas, methane, and CO₂ (and uncondensed methanol vapor and water vapor depending on the prevailing operating conditions in the separator 300) ([0091]).
Regarding claim 9, the reference Chinta et al. discloses the system, wherein the liquid stream comprises a mixture of methanol and water (see para. [0092]).
Regarding claim 10, the reference Chinta et al. discloses the system, wherein the methanol reactor output stream (30) comprises syngas from the syngas stream (15), carbon dioxide from the recycled carbon dioxide stream (13), water, and methanol (see para. [0104]; Figure).
Regarding claim 11, the reference Chinta et al. discloses a method for producing methanol (see Abstract), which comprises:
introducing a syngas stream (15) (see para. [0080]), a hydrogen stream (e.g., a supplemental hydrogen stream) (see para. [0083]) and a recycled carbon dioxide stream (13) into a methanol reactor (200) for producing a methanol reactor output stream (30) (see para. [0104]; Figure);
separating the methanol reactor output stream (30) into a vapor stream (50) and a liquid stream (40) (see para. [0091]);
separating the liquid stream (40) into a methanol product stream (45) and a water stream (46) (see para. [0094]);
separating the vapor stream (50) into another hydrogen stream (51) and a carbon dioxide off gas stream (52) by a hydrogen separation unit (500) (see para. [0096]) and the recycled carbon dioxide stream (13) and the tail gas stream (60) are produced by an amine absorption unit (600) comprising carbon dioxide from the carbon dioxide off gas stream (52) and post-combustion carbon dioxide from a carbon dioxide effluent stream (15) (see para. [0023]; Figure); and
producing the recycled carbon dioxide stream (13) and a tail gas stream (60) (see para. [0099]; Figure).
Regarding claim 12, the reference Chinta et al. discloses the method, wherein the liquid stream (40) is separated into the methanol product stream (45) and the water stream (46) by a distillation column (400) (see para. [0094]).
Regarding claim 18, the reference Chinta et al. discloses the method, wherein the methanol reactor output stream (30) is in direct fluid communication with a separator (300) (see para, [0091]).
Regarding claim 20, the reference Chinta et al. discloses the method, wherein the methanol reactor output stream (30) comprises syngas from the syngas stream (15), carbon dioxide from the recycled carbon dioxide stream (13), water, and methanol (see para. [0104]).
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.
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 3 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chinta et al. as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Meyer-Pittroff (US 2012/0226080 A1).
Regarding claims 3 and 15, the reference Chinta et al. does not specifically disclose an autothermal reactor for producing the carbon dioxide effluent stream and the syngas stream, the autothermal reactor comprising a natural gas feed from a feed stream and oxygen from an oxygen stream: and an electrolyzer for producing the oxygen stream and the hydrogen stream, the electrolyzer comprising demineralized water from a water stream.
The reference Meyer-Pittroff teaches a system for producing methanol comprising: a methanol reactor for producing methanol from a syngas or reaction between carbon dioxide and hydrogen (see paras. [0014]; [0052]-[0055]; Fig. 3); an autothermal reactor for producing syngas which may be supplied to the methanol reactor (see paras. [0014]; [0026]); and an electrolyzer (105) for producing an oxygen stream, which may be supplied to the autothermal reactor, and a hydrogen stream, which may be supplied to the methanol reactor (see Fig. 3).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system and method of Chinta et al. to include an autothermal reactor to produce syngas needed for methanol synthesis in the methanol reactor of Chinta et al. and further include an electrolyzer for supplying oxygen needed for the autothermal reactor and hydrogen needed for methanol synthesis in the methanol reactor so as to produce methanol from renewable energy resources as suggested by Meyer-Pittroff (see paras, [0070]-[0074]).
Claims 4, 5, 7, 16, 17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chinta et al. as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Rising (US 2009/0289227 A1).
Regarding claims 4 and 16, the reference Chinta et al. does not specifically disclose a steam methane reformer for producing the carbon dioxide effluent stream and the syngas stream, the steam methane reformer comprising a natural gas, naphtha or liquified petroleum gas feed from a feed stream and steam from a steam stream; and an electrolyzer for producing the hydrogen stream, the electrolyzer comprising demineralized water from a water stream.
The reference Rising teaches a system for producing methanol from syngas or hydrogen produced using a renewable energy resource and carbon dioxide recovered from carbon dioxide containing waste stream (see paras. [0001]: [0010]: [0028]-[0029]; [0040]: [0041]: Fig. 6). The reference Rising teaches that the system includes a methanol reactor for converting syngas or hydrogen and carbon dioxide to methanol (see paras. [0040]; [0041]; Fig. 6); a steam methane reformer for producing the syngas (see paras. [0035]-[0036]); and an electrolyzer for producing a hydrogen stream which may be supplied to the methanol reactor (see paras. [001]]-[0013]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system and method of Chinta et al. to include a steam methane reformer to produce syngas needed for methanol synthesis in the methanol reactor of Chinta et al. and further include an electrolyzer for supplying hydrogen needed for methanol synthesis in the methanol reactor so as to produce methanol from renewable energy resources as suggested by Rising (see paras. [0001]; [0040]-[0041]; Fig. 6).
Regarding claims 5 and 17, the reference Chinta et al. does not specifically disclose a gasifier for producing the carbon dioxide effluent stream and the syngas stream; and an electrolyzer for producing the oxygen stream and the hydrogen stream.
The reference Rising teaches a system for producing methanol from syngas or hydrogen produced using a renewable energy resource and carbon dioxide recovered from carbon dioxide containing waste stream (see paras. [0001]; [0010]; [0028]-[0030]; Fig. 2). The reference Rising teaches that the system includes a methanol reactor for converting syngas or hydrogen and carbon dioxide to methanol (see paras. [0028]-[0030]; Fig. 2); a gasifier for producing the syngas (see paras. [0029]-[0030]); and an electrolyzer for producing an oxygen stream, which may be supplied to the gasifier, and a hydrogen stream, which may be supplied to the methanol reactor (see Fig. 2).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system and method of Chinta et al. to include a gasifier to produce syngas needed for methanol synthesis in the methanol reactor of Chinta et al. and further include an electrolyzer for supplying oxygen needed in the gasifier and hydrogen needed for methanol synthesis in the methanol reactor so as to produce methanol from renewable energy resources as suggested by Rising (see paras. [0001]; [0028]-[0030]; Fig. 2).
Regarding claims 7 and 19, the reference Chinta et al. does not specifically suggest having the recycled carbon dioxide stream from the amine absorption unit in direct fluid communication with the methanol reactor. However, the reference Rising teaches that carbon dioxide recovered from carbon dioxide containing waste stream may suitably be supplied to a methanol reactor for producing methanol (see paras. [0001]; [0010]-[0011]; [0019]-[0020]; Fig. 1).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to similarly have the recycled carbon dioxide stream from the amine absorption unit in direct fluid communication with the methanol reactor in the system and method of Chinta et al., since the reference Rising suggests directing carbon dioxide recovered from carbon dioxide containing waste stream to a methanol reactor for producing methanol (see paras. [0001]; [0010]-[0011];[0019]-[0020]; Fig. 1).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 09 June 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that there is no disclosure in the reference Chinta et al. of a hydrogen stream fed to the methanol reactor and the hydrogen stream produced by the hydrogen separation unit being two separate hydrogen streams (see Remarks page 6).
The examiner respectfully disagrees. The reference Chinta et al. explicitly teaches that the gaseous feed stream 15 supplied to the methanol reactor 200 can be processed to enrich its hydrogen content by adding a supplemental hydrogen gas into the feed stream (see para. [0083]). Although the reference Chinta et al. teaches an embodiment wherein a portion 51a of the hydrogen stream 51 discharged from the hydrogen separation unit 500 is added to the gaseous feed stream 15 to enrich it with hydrogen (see paras. [0083]; [0097]; Figure), there is no requirement in the reference Chinta et al. that the supplemental hydrogen source is exclusively limited to hydrogen recovered from the hydrogen separation unit 500. Ruther, one of ordinary skill in the art, in view of the reference Chinta et al. as a whole, would readily recognize that the supplemental hydrogen that may be added into the gaseous feed stream 15 can be a hydrogen stream from any suitably source including a hydrogen stream from a source other than the hydrogen separation unit 500 of Chinta et al.. In considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom. In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826, 159 USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968).
Furthermore, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term “another hydrogen stream” as recited in claims 1 and 11 includes a hydrogen stream which is not supplied to the methanol reactor recited in claims 1 and 11. Thus, the portion of the hydrogen stream 51 not supplied to the methanol reactor 200 of Chinta et al. (see paras. [0083]; [0097]; Figure) can also be equated to the “another hydrogen stream” recited in claims 1 and 11.
Applicant also argues that the reference Chinta does not disclose an amine absorption unit comprising carbon dioxide from the carbon dioxide off gas stream separated by the hydrogen separation unit and post-combustion carbon dioxide from a carbon dioxide effluent stream (see Remark, page 7).
The examiner respectfully disagrees. The broadest reasonable interpretation of the expression “post-combustion carbon dioxide from a carbon dioxide effluent stream” in view of the specification, paragraph [0020], includes a reaction effluent stream having a high concentration of post-combustion carbon dioxide. Thus, because the CPOx reactor effluent stream 15 which is supplied as a gaseous feedstock to the methanol reactor 200 of Chinta et al. includes a high concentration of post-combustion carbon dioxide as a result of a catalytic partial oxidation reaction in the CPOx reactor 100, as compare to the reactant mixture 10 fed into the CPOx reactor 100, the CPOx reactor effluent stream 15 in the reference Chinta et al. may also be referred to as a stream containing post-combustion carbon dioxide since the CPOx reactor effluent stream 15 inherently contains a carbon dioxide effluent stream as a component of the CPOx reactor effluent stream 15 fed into the methanol reactor 200 (see paras. [0008]; [0080]-[0081]; [0083]; Figure). Thus, in accordance to the teachings of Chinta et al., the carbon dioxide that would reside in the amine absorption unit 600 of Chinta et al. would be composed of unreacted (unconsumed) portions of the carbon dioxide fed through the recycled carbon dioxide stream 13 and the post-combustion carbon dioxide generated in the CPOx reactor 100.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Lessanework T Seifu whose telephone number is (571)270-3153. The examiner can normally be reached M-T 9:00 am - 6:30 pm; F 9:00 am - 1:00 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, Claire Wang can be reached at 571-270-1051. 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.
/LESSANEWORK SEIFU/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1774
Prosecution Insights