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 Interpretation
The term “low-carbon” when used in conjunction with a compound(s) is interpreted as “having lower carbon intensity (CI) compared to conventional fuels and chemicals produced from conventional feedstock (fossil fuels) using conventional non-renewable energy sources (burning of fossil fuels to produce energy)” (Spec., [0029]).
Claim Objections
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities.
Claim 12: “a pressurize syngas stream” in lines 3-4 should read “a pressurized syngas stream”
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-21 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.
Claim 1 recites “upgrading a natural gas stream in a methanol production unit to produce a methanol reactor effluent, wherein the methanol production unit comprises a syngas synthesis section and a methanol synthesis section downstream of the syngas synthesis section.” Claim 1 is indefinite because it is unclear as to what specific steps are being conducted in the methanol production unit in order to carry out the upgrading of the natural gas stream and produce the methanol reactor effluent. For the purpose of examination, claim 1 is interpreted such that the step of “upgrading a natural gas stream” comprises passing the natural gas stream to the “syngas synthesis section” to produce a syngas and passing the syngas to the methanol synthesis section to produce the methanol reactor effluent (Spec: [0022], [0035]).
Claims 3-18 and 21 are also rejected by virtue of their dependency upon claim 1.
Claims 1, 19, and 20 are indefinite for reciting “based on a mass balance certification basis, an energy balance certification basis, or a trace-the-atom certification basis.” While these terms appear to refer to specific calculations or requirements, they are not defined in the instant specification and it is unclear as to how these values are determined. For the purpose of examination, the “certification” limitations are not given patentable weight.
Claim 16 is indefinite for reciting “the methanol stream” because it lacks antecedent basis and it is unclear what it is referring to. For the purpose of examination, “the methanol stream” is interpreted to be a methanol product stream separated from “the methanol reactor effluent” of claim 1 (Spec., [00153]-[00154]).
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, 6, 7, 17, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Vicari et al. (US 2021/0363007 A1, cited in IDS dated 03/20/2025).
Regarding claim 1, Vicari teaches a process for producing methanol, the process comprising:
feeding a natural gas stream (Figs. 1-5, I) to a synthesis gas production section (A) to produce a synthesis gas stream (II) and introducing the synthesis gas stream to a methanol synthesis section (B) to produce a methanol reactor effluent ([0057]-[0059], [0065], [0070]-[0071], [0149]-[0161]); and
introducing a CO2 feed stream (XIV) and a hydrogen feed stream (XVI, IVa) to the synthesis gas stream (II) downstream of the synthesis gas production section (A) and upstream of the methanol synthesis section (B) ([0055], [0124], [0135], [0159]).
With regard to the CO2 feed stream (XIV), Vicara teaches that the stream is obtained from combustion of gaseous stream (IV) and (V) and/or (VII) ([0091]). It is noted that the gaseous stream (IV) contains CO2 byproduct from the methanol synthesis section ([0091]). Therefore, Vicari suggests that at least a portion of the CO2 feed stream (XIV) is obtained internally, thereby corresponding to a captured CO2.
With regard to the hydrogen stream, Vicari teaches adding hydrogen to the methanol synthesis section (B) via a stream (IVA) containing hydrogen recovered from the gaseous stream (IVa) and/or a stream (XVI) from a renewable source such as electrolysis of water by solar, wind or water energy ([0144], [0159]). A hydrogen steam obtained from an internal source or derived from a renewable source is considered to be a “low-carbon” hydrogen stream.
Because the Vicari process uses carbon dioxide and hydrogen that are at least partially obtained from internal sources and/or hydrogen from renewable sources, at least a portion of the methanol reactor effluent is considered to comprise low-carbon methanol (i.e., having reduced carbon intensity).
Regarding claim 3, Vicari discloses an example where a hydrogen stream (XVI) and a CO2 recycle stream (XIV) are introduced to the methanol synthesis section at a molar ratio of approximately 2.20 (see Table 6), which falls within the claimed range of “from 2 to 5.”
Regarding claim 6, Vicari suggests that its process can be applied to existing methanol synthesis plants ([0022], [0162]).
Regarding claim 7, Vicari teaches that the CO2 feed stream (XIV) may be recycled to the syngas production section (A) ([0055], [0124]; see also Figs. 1-4).
Regarding claim 17, Vicari teaches that the hydrogen stream may contain hydrogen obtained from a renewable source such as electrolysis of water by solar, wind or water energy ([0144]).
Regarding claim 21, Vicari teaches separating a methanol product (X) in a purification unit (C, D, E) and recycling CO2 (XIV) back to the syngas production section ([0076]-[0083], [0091]-[0093]).
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.
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 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vicari et al. (US 2021/0363007 A1).
Regarding claims 4 and 5, Vicari does not teach a weight ratio of the natural gas-to-hydrogen introduced to the syngas production section and/or methanol synthesis section is from 1 to 200. Vicari also does not teach a weight ratio of natural gas-to-the CO2 feed stream introduced to the syngas production section and/or methanol synthesis section is from 0.1 to 40. However, Vicara teaches a desirable range for “stoichiometric number S” ([n(H2) – n(CO2)]/[n(CO) + n(CO2)]) ([0133]-[0134]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the natural gas-to-hydrogen weight ratio and the natural gas-to-the CO2 feed ratio. In doing so, one would arrive at ratios within the claimed ranges, which are visibly broad. It has been held that, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. MPEP 2144.05 II
Regarding claim 16, Vicari does not explicitly teach that the methanol product contains 0.01-40 wt% low-carbon methanol. However, Vicara does not limit the amounts of CO2 and/or H2 with low carbon footprint. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one skilled in the art to optimize the amount of the CO2 feed stream and/or H2 feed stream and arrive at a low-carbon methanol value falling within the claimed range by routine experimentation.
Claims 9 and 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vicari et al. (US 2021/0363007 A1), as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Banquy (4,888,130) and Osman (4,545,976).
Regarding claim 9, Vicari teaches the process of claim 1, as discussed above.
Vicari does not teach that the process comprises hydrodesulfurizing the natural gas stream to produce a desulphurized natural gas stream, reforming the desulfurized natural gas stream in the presence of steam in a primary reformer to produce a primary reformer outlet stream, and reforming the primary reformer outlet stream in the presence of oxygen in a secondary reformer to produce a syngas stream, which is subjected to the methanol synthesis.
However, Banquy teaches a reforming process for producing a synthesis gas, the process comprising obtaining a desulfurized natural gas stream; reforming a portion of the desulfurized natural gas stream in the presence of steam in a primary reformer to produce a primary reformer outlet stream; and reforming the primary reformer outlet stream in the presence of oxygen in a secondary reformer downstream of the primary reformer to produce a syngas stream (col. 5, line 42 – col. 6, line 10).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the instant invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Vicari by operating the synthesis gas production section in two stages comprising steam reforming and partial oxidation, because this involves application of a known reforming technique to yield predictable results.
Vicari/Banquy does not teach that the desulphurized natural gas is obtained by hydrodesulphurization.
However, Osman, directed to a process for reforming natural gas to produce syngas, teaches subjecting a natural gas feed stream to hydrodesulfurization in a reactor containing conventional a hydrodesulfurization catalyst to remove sulfur prior to the reforming step (col. 4, lines 31-38).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the instant invention, it would have been obvious to modify Vicari/Banquy by hydrodesulfurizing a natural gas stream to obtain a desulfurized natural gas stream, as taught by Osman, because sulfur compounds are catalyst poisons (see Osman, col. 1, lines 24-32) and this involves application of a known desulfurization method to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 11, Vicari teaches introducing a CO2 feed stream (XIV) and a hydrogen feed stream (XVI, IVa) to the synthesis gas stream (II) downstream of the synthesis gas production section (A) and upstream of the methanol synthesis section (B) ([0055], [0124], [0135], [0159]). Thus, in the modified Vicari process, in view of Banquy and Osman, it would be obvious to introduce the CO2 feed stream and the hydrogen feed stream to the methanol synthesis section downstream of the secondary reformer.
Regarding claim 12, Vicari teaches compressing the syngas stream and the CO2 feed stream upstream of the methanol synthesis section ([0151], [0156]). Therefore, in the modified Vicari process, in view of Banquy and Osman, it would be obvious to compress the syngas stream and the CO2 feed stream in a syngas compressor downstream of the secondary reformer and upstream of the methanol reactor to produce a pressurized stream, which is then passed to the methanol reactor.
Regarding claim 13, Vicari teaches that the syngas stream and the CO2 feed stream can be compressed together in the compressor before being introduced to the methanol synthesis section ([0127]).
Regarding claim 14, Vicari teaches that the CO2 stream can be recycled to the syngas production section or to the methanol synthesis section and that the hydrogen stream is introduced to the methanol synthesis unit ([0124], [0135). Therefore, Vicari is considered to suggest that the CO2 stream may be recycled to the syngas production section while only the hydrogen stream is introduced to the methanol synthesis unit, i.e., downstream of the second reformer and upstream of a syngas compression unit, or downstream of the syngas compression unit and upstream of the methanol reactor, in the modified Vicari process, in view of Banquy and Osman.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8, 10, 15, and 18-20 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter. The prior art of record, individually or in combination, fails to teach introducing the captured CO2 feed stream and/or the low-carbon hydrogen feed stream specifically to the secondary reformer, as required in claims 8 and 10. The prior art of record also fails teach or suggest combining a first portion of the low-carbon H2 feed stream with the primary reformer outlet stream upstream of the secondary reformer, while a second portion of the low-carbon H2 feed stream is combined with the syngas stream downstream of the secondary reformer and upstream of the methanol reactor, as required in claim 15. Furthermore, the prior art of record does not teach or suggest that the CO2 feed stream comprises CO2 directly captured from the atmosphere; CO2 produced from biogenic sources; CO2 captured from industrial point sources; or combinations thereof. With regard to claims 19 and 20, no prior art of record, individually or in combination, teaches the claimed feature of obtaining a low-carbon methanol according to claim 1, and employing as a feed material into a FCC reactor system.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON Y CHONG whose telephone number is (571)431-0694. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00am-5:30pm.
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.
/JASON Y CHONG/Examiner, Art Unit 1772
Prosecution Insights