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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group II, claims 23-25, 27-38 and 40-48 (all pending claims due to the amendment filed with the election) in the reply filed on 05/22/26 is acknowledged.
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.
Claim 43 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.
Dependent claim 43 is indefinite in regards to the actually H2/CO ratio being claimed because the claim sets forth multiple H2/CO ratios.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claim(s) 23-25, 27-38 and 40-48 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dean et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication No.: 2022/0401906 A1.
Dean et al. discloses systems and methods for using fuel-rich partial oxidation to produce an end product from waste gases, such as flare gas. In an embodiment, the system and method use air-breathing piston engines and turbine engines for the fuel-rich partial oxidation of the flare gas to form synthesis gas, and reactors to convert the synthesis gas into the end product. In an embodiment the end product is methanol, see abstract, see abstract, examples, claims and figures, such as Fig. 1 and Fig 3.
Dean et al.’s paragraph [0100] reads as followed: “Generally, the hydrocarbon fuel source, e.g., flare gas, and an oxygen source, e.g., air, are feed to a reformer unit, where the hydrocarbon fuel source is converted through preferably a controlled and predetermined combustion into reprocessed gas, e.g., syngas. This reformer stage of the general system and method, can also have equipment for handling and processing the incoming hydrocarbon fuel source, e.g., flare gas and oxygen source, e.g., air, as well as, equipment to process the reprocessed gas, e.g., syngas, such as for example, valves, controllers, compressors, sensors and monitors, temperature control systems, mixers, filters and screens, separators, equipment to remove water, guard beds, guard bed reactors, deoxo reactors, and other handling and processing equipment and methods. It being understood that some or all of the reprocessed gas, e.g., syngas, processing equipment and methods can be in stages, or located in the general system places other than the reformer stage.”.
Dean et al.’s independent claim 1 reads as followed: “A system for converting flare gas into an end product, the system comprising: a. a reformer stage and a synthesis stage; b. the reformer stage comprising: i. an intake for receiving a flow of a flare gas; ii. an intake for receiving a flow of air; iii. a mixer for combining the flow of air and the flow of the flare gas; wherein the mixer is configured to provide a mixture having a rich fuel/air equivalence ratio; iv. an air breathing reformer, configured to operate under rich fuel/air conditions; wherein the reformer is configured to operate in a partial oxidation combustion window; whereby the reformer is configured to convert the mixture into a syngas; v. a line for flowing the syngas to the synthesis stage; c. the synthesis stage comprising: i. a line for receiving a flow of syngas from the reformer stage; ii. a synthesis unit configured to receive the syngas and convert the syngas into an end product; d. a control system configured to operate the reformer stage at a predetermined partial oxidation temperature and a predetermined partial oxidation pressure; and the synthesis stage at a predetermined synthesis temperature and a predetermined synthesis pressure.”, [Emphasis added].
Dean et al.’s paragraph [0115] reads as followed: “It being understood that oxygen can be added to the air. And that water or steam may also be injected into the mixture of air and fuel, or to air or fuel individually. From about 1 to about 20% (molar) water can be injected, from about 10 to about 15% (molar water), from about 5 to about 17% (molar) water, more than 5% (molar) water, more than 10% (molar) water, more than 15% (molar) water, and less than 25% (molar) water, water can be injected. Following oxygen enrichment, the combustion air can have from about 21% to about 90% oxygen. “Air-breathing” reformers, and air breathing engines as used herein are understood to also include engines using air modified with the addition of water, oxygen or both.” [Emphasis added]. Also see paragraphs [0174], [0185], [0229], [0271] and [0296] for same general disclosure of the addition of an oxygen-enriched air stream to perform the reforming process with the hydrocarbon gas source (e.g. flare gas).
Dean et al. can be said to “differ” from applicant’s claimed invention in the following ways: 1) it is unclear if there is a direct teaching (i.e. by way of an example) to where, in the method of operating the engine reactor for reforming, that at least two oxidizer streams are actually used, 2) there does not seem to be direct disclosure to applicant’s specifically claimed limitations of where the two oxygen streams differ in oxygen concentration from at least 20 vol.%, specific entropy of at least 0.4 kJ/kg .K at 298 K and pressure of at least 0.1 bar (see dependent claims 31 and 33-34) and 3) there does not seem to be direct disclosure to applicant’s specifically claimed limitations of where the two oxygen streams differ in nitrogen concentration from at least 20 vol.% (see dependent claim 32).
It would have been very obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to use Dean et al.’s overwhelming disclosure, see paragraphs [0115], [0174], [0185], [0229], [0271] and [0296], that two oxygen streams (e.g. an air stream and an oxygen enriched stream) can preferably be used in the reforming operations using an engine to make syngas, as motivation to actually employ two oxygen streams (e.g. an air stream and an oxygen enriched stream). It is well known in the art that it is not inventive to merely follow the direct disclosure of a prior-art reference.
While Dean et al. does not seem to directly disclosure applicant’s specifically claimed limitations of where the two oxygen streams differ in oxygen concentration from at least 20 vol.%, specific entropy of at least 0.4 kJ/kg .K at 298 K and pressure of at least 0.1 bar (see dependent claims 31 and 33-35), to employ two oxidizer streams meeting said limitations, is deemed to be well within the skill of the ordinary artisan and are deemed to fall within Dean et al.’s broad disclosure of “Following oxygen enrichment, the combustion air can have from about 21% to about 90% oxygen”, see paragraphs [0115], [0174], [0185], [0229], [0271] and [0296]. It also goes without saying, that if one air oxidizer stream is enriched to say 70 vol. % oxygen, the specific entropy of that oxidizer stream would easily meet applicant’s limitation of dependent claim 33. Furthermore, the volume percent of nitrogen in the 70 vol.% enriched air stream, would drastically decrease, thus fully meeting the nitrogen concentration limitation of Applicant’s dependent claim 32.
Finally, to employ two oxidizer streams having different supply pressures would be at once envisaged over Dean et al.’s disclosure, especially note Dean et al.’s process step d: “d. a control system configured to operate the reformer stage at a predetermined partial oxidation temperature and a predetermined partial oxidation pressure; and the synthesis stage at a predetermined synthesis temperature and a predetermined synthesis pressure.”, see independent claim 1. One again, it is not inventive to merely follow the direct disclosure of a prior-art reference.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH DAVID ANTHONY whose telephone number is (571)272-1117. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 10:00AM-6:30PM.
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, Arrie (Lanee) Reuther can be reached at 571-270-7026. 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.
/JOSEPH D ANTHONY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1764
Prosecution Insights