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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment filed on January 27, 2026 has been received. Claim 5 is canceled. Claims 9-10 and 16 are withdrawn from further consideration. Claims 1-4, 6-8, and 11-15 are under consideration.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on January 27, 2026 have been fully considered.
Applicant (at page 7, second paragraph, to page 8, last paragraph) argues that the combination of Hsu (US 2016/0060537 A1), van der Ploeg (US 2021/0113980), and Van Egmond (US 2004/0127759) fails to disclose or teach the new limitations of amended claim 1, including:
"… the product purification system comprising a gas separation unit configured to separate hydrogen from methane, a hydrogen compressor, and a hydrogen storage tank and storage apparatus; and
a hydrogen fuel cell configured to receive the hydrogen separated from the methane and hydrogen from the hydrogen storage tank and configured to provide energy to the one or more reactors, the feed preparation system, and the product purification system,
wherein the chemical synthesis plant is configured such that at least 50% of the net energy needed for at least 10 hours for the following combination of operations: heating, cooling, and compressing, utilized via the following combination of units: the one or more reactors, the feed preparation system, and the product purification system, is provided from the hydrogen fuel cell.”
The argument is considered persuasive, and therefore, the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 as set forth in the previous Office action have been withdrawn. However, while the prior art does not disclose or adequately teach the chemical synthesis plant of amended claim 1, the claims are not deemed to be allowable because the new limitations do not appear to be supported by the original disclosure, as detailed in the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), below.
The provisional rejection of claims 1 and 2 on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-11, 25-28, and 32-35 of copending Application No. 17/310,073 has been withdrawn in view of the abandonment of the copending application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-4, 6-8, and 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 1, the new limitation “wherein the chemical synthesis plant is configured such that at least 50% of the net energy needed for at least 10 hours for the following combination of operations: heating, cooling, and compressing, utilized via the following combination of units: the one or more reactors, the feed preparation system, and the product purification system, is provided from the hydrogen fuel cell” (at lines 21-24; with emphasis) does not appear to be supported by the original disclosure.
Applicant has not pointed out where the amendment is supported, nor does there appear to be a written description in the application as filed of a hydrogen fuel cell being configured to provide, specifically, “at least 50% of the net energy needed for at least 10 hours” for the recited combination of operations, as utilized via the recited combination of units, in the claimed chemical synthesis plant.
The specification (at paragraph [0003]) states,
“… the chemical synthesis plant is configured such that a majority (e.g., greater than 50, 60, 70, 80, 90, or 100%) of the net energy needed for heating, cooling, compressing, or a combination thereof utilized via the one or more reactors, the feed preparation system, the production purification system, or a combination thereof is provided from an intermittent energy source (IES).” (with emphasis).
Therefore, the specification states that at least 50% of the net energy needed for the recited combination of operations, as utilized via the recited combination of units, is provided from an intermittent energy source (IES), not a hydrogen fuel cell. The hydrogen fuel cell, on the other hand, is merely configured to “generate electricity to handle intermittency of electric supply” (see paragraph [00103]).
Furthermore, the specification (at paragraph [00125]), in describing “Example 2: Electrified Olefin Synthesis (e.g., Cracking) Plus PSA and H2 Compression/Storage”, states,
“… As one possibility, if some renewable electricity is available on a diurnal basis, 172 tons hydrogen could be collected and stored over a twelve hour period. When released over the next twelve hours and combined with the 14.3 t/hr hydrogen still being produced by the process, this would result in approximately 503 MW of electricity being available continuously for the twelve hours. This could supply 80% of the 603 MW of electricity required for the operation of the process.” (with emphasis).
Therefore, in the chemical synthesis plant which produces olefins as the chemical product, the hydrogen fuel cell provides 80% of the net energy needed for 12 hours.
The specification (at paragraph [00127]), in describing “Example 4: Electrified Ammonia Synthesis – Electrified Primary (SMR) Reforming Plus PSA and H2 Compression/ Storage”, further states,
“As one possibility, if some renewable electricity is available on a diurnal basis, 22.1 tons hydrogen could be collected and stored over a twelve hour period. When released over the next twelve hours and combined with the 1.84 t/hr hydrogen in line 268 still being produced by the process, this would result in approximately 64 MW of electricity 272 being available continuously for the twelve hours. This could supply 17% of the 375 MW of electricity required for the operation of the process XII.” (with emphasis).
Therefore, in the chemical synthesis plant which produces ammonia as the chemical product, the hydrogen fuel cell merely provides 17% of the net energy needed for twelve hours.
The specification (at paragraph [00128]), in describing the “Example 6: Electrified Methanol Synthesis Plus PSA and H2 Compression/Storage”, further states,
“… As one possibility, if some renewable electricity is available on a diurnal basis, 32.4 tons hydrogen could be collected, compressed at C4 and stored at 297 over a twelve hour period. When released over the next twelve hours and combined via stored hydrogen stream 293A with the 2.7 t/h hydrogen 293 still being produced by the process IX, approximately 96 MW of electricity can be available continuously for the twelve hours. This electricity would supply approximately 53% of the 180 MW of electricity required for the operation of the process XI.” (with emphasis).
Therefore, in the chemical synthesis plant which produces methanol as the chemical product, the hydrogen fuel cell provides 53% of the net energy needed for twelve hours. It is noted, however, that “methanol” is not one of the claimed chemical products.
Thus, the specific percentage of the net energy needed by the chemical synthesis plant and the duration at which said energy was provided by the hydrogen fuel cell is dependent on the particular chemical synthesis plant and the type(s) of chemical product(s) to be produced by the plant. The disclosure lacks support for a hydrogen fuel cell which provides “at least 50% of the net energy needed for at least 10 hours” in the claimed chemical synthesis plant, which scope includes the chemical synthesis plant being configured to produce “at least one chemical product selected from the list of chemical products consisting of: selected from the list of chemical products consisting of: ammonia, ethylene, propylene, ethylene oxide, monoethylene glycol, ethylene dichloride, vinyl chloride, isoparaffins, ethylbenzene, phenol, terephthalic acid, MTBE, polyethylene (PE), polypropylene (PP), polyvinylchloride (PVC), polystyrene (PS), polycarbonate (PC), polyethylene terephthalate (PET), acetic acid, vinyl acetate, acrylic acid, methacrolein, methyl methacrylate, acrylonitrile, sulfuric acid, nitric acid, propylene glycol, adipic acid, caprolactam, cyclohexanone, 1,6 diaminohexane, polyvinyl alcohol (PVA), polyacrylates, polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA), and a nylon” (as recited at lines 2-10).
The remaining claims are also rejected because they depend from a rejected base claim.
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 1-4, 6-8, and 11-15 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.
Regarding claim 1, the recitation “a hydrogen storage tank and storage apparatus” (at line 17) is unclear because the difference between a “hydrogen storage tank” and a “[hydrogen] storage apparatus” is unclear.
Also, the recitation of “the hydrogen storage tank” (at line 19) is unclear because the claim previously set forth “a hydrogen storage tank and storage apparatus” (at line 17).
Also, the limitation “a gas separation unit configured to separate hydrogen from methane” (at lines 15-17) is unclear because the “hydrogen” and “methane” materials lack proper positive antecedent basis. Furthermore, the relationship between the hydrogen and the methane and the “reaction byproducts, unreacted reactants, or a combination thereof within the process stream” previously set forth in the claim (at line 15) is unclear. Furthermore, based on the disclosure, it is unclear that “hydrogen” and “methane” would be present in every process stream which comprises at least one of the listed chemical products (at lines 4-10).
Regarding claim 4, the relationship between the “storage apparatus” (at line 6) and the “storage apparatus” of “a hydrogen storage tank and storage apparatus” previously set forth in claim 1 (at line 17) is unclear.
The remaining claims are also rejected because they depend from a rejected base claim.
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 JENNIFER A LEUNG whose telephone number is (571)272-1449. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:30 AM - 4:30 PM EST.
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 X 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.
/JENNIFER A LEUNG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1774
Prosecution Insights