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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 9-10, filed 11/26/2025, with respect to claims 1, 3, 5-17, 21, 23, 24 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections of record has been withdrawn.
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) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vinegar (US 2022/0251935) in view of Takahashi (US 5746985).
Regarding claim 22, Vinegar teaches a method of producing hydrogen from methane (abstract) comprising receiving at a gas processing unit methane extracted from a well (gas reservoir 35 housing methane from a well; para. 0076), transferring the methane to a hydrogen production facility (para. 0080-0082), reacting the methane with the steam in the presence of a catalyst to convert the methane and steam into hydrogen and CO (para. 0080), employing hydrogen powered heaters in the hydrogen production facility (para. 0087), flowing the syngas to a water shift reaction to create more hydrogen and CO2 (para. 0080), separating the hydrogen from the CO2 (para. 0136), storing the hydrogen for later use (para. 0146), and storing the CO2 underground (would necessarily use carbon capture and storage technologies; para. 0147), transferring some of the hydrogen separated from the methane in the hydrogen production facility back to the gas processing unit to be used as fuel in the hydrogen powered heaters in the gas processing unit (portion of the H2 produced in the SMR recycled back to the combustion parts in the SMR; para. 0087).
Vinegar fails to teach heating the methane with hydrogen powered heaters in the gas processing unit.
Takahashi, however, teaches a method of reforming methane (abstract) wherein it is known to provide methane preheated with an burner heater for the purpose of providing a heated feed for the reforming reaction (col. 1, lines 50-65).
Additionally, Vinegar teaches that hydrogen burners are used to heat parts of the hydrogen producing process (para. 0087).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the methane of Vinegar preheated with an hydrogen heater in order to provide a heated feed for the reforming reaction as taught by Takahashi and because Vinegar teaches that hydrogen burners are used to heat parts of the hydrogen producing process.
Claim(s) 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vinegar (US 2022/0251935) in view of Takahashi (US 5746985) and Frey (US 2019/0284488) and Iijima (US 2014/0336420).
Regarding claims 25; Vinegar fails to teach heating a portion of the hydrogen produced in the facility with waste heat generated by the facility, and transferring the heated hydrogen through a power recovery turbine to produce electricity with the turbine.
Frey, however, teaches a method for recovering power (abstract) wherein a hydrogen stream is then transferred to a power recovery turbine to produce electricity (abstract; para. 0023).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the hydrogen stream of Vinegar transferred to a power recovery turbine in order to produce electricity as taught by Frey.
Regarding the limitation of heating the hydrogen with waste heat from the facility, it appears that this would be further obvious as providing hydrogen with higher temperature to the recovery turbine would produce more electricity in the absence of unexpected results and because Iijima teaches that steam reforming (hydrogen facility) produces waste heat. See Frey at 0023 and Iijima at 0017.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 3, 5-17, 21 are allowed.
Claims 23, 24 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including 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 fails to teach or suggest generating electricity from delivery of methane and processing the methane in the hydrogen production facility to separate hydrogen and CO2 from the methane in combination with the limitations of claim 22.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 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