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 § 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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Papile (US 2020/0148547).
Regarding claim 1, the reference Papile discloses an ammonia derivative production plant (see Abstract; Fig. 1), comprising:
an electrolyzer (5) for electrolyzing water (see para. [0057]; Fig. 1);
an ammonia synthesis system (10) for synthesizing ammonia from hydrogen produced by the electrolyzer and nitrogen (see para. [0057]; Fig. 1);
a carbon dioxide generation system (3) for producing carbon dioxide (see para. [0056]; Fig. 1); and
an ammonia derivative synthesis system (not shown) for synthesizing an ammonia derivative from ammonia synthesized by the ammonia synthesis system (10) and carbon dioxide produced by the carbon dioxide generation system (3) (see paras. [0031]; [0062]);
wherein oxygen produced by the electrolyzer (5) is consumed to produce carbon dioxide by the carbon dioxide generation system (3) (see paras. [0013]; [0024]).
The reference Papile is, however, silent with respect to an oxygen storage unit for storing oxygen produced by the electrolyzer; and a carbon dioxide storage unit for storing carbon dioxide produced by the carbon dioxide generation system. However, the reference Papile teaches that while excessively large hydrogen storge device is not needed to hold hydrogen for night time usage, some amount of hydrogen storage is needed to buffer for a fluctuation in operation of the electrolyzer which generates hydrogen for ammonia synthesis and oxygen for oxy-fuel combustion of biomass (see para. [0046]). The reference Papile further teaches that a careful balance of the amount of ingredients to make the right amount of water, steam, power, CO2, H2, N2, and H3PO4 allows for the production of CO2-neutral NH3, Urea, and other ammonia derivative products (see paras. [0036]-[0038]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, in view of the teachings of Papile, to modify the ammonia derivative production plant of Papile to similarly include an oxygen storage unit for storing oxygen produced by the electrolyzer and a carbon dioxide storage unit for storing carbon dioxide produced by the carbon dioxide generation system so as to buffer fluctuations in demand for oxygen in the carbon dioxide generation system (3) and CO2 in the ammonia derivative synthesis system, since the reference Papile suggests for the need to employ gas storage means to serve as buffer against process fluctuations during the production of ammonia and ammonia derivative products (see paras. [0031]; [0046]). Furthermore, the reference Papile teaches that the carbon dioxide generated in the carbon dioxide generation system (3) may suitably be collected to make urea (see para. [0016]), and that oxygen generated in the water electrolyzer, which is often wasted, can suitably be used for oxy fuel generation of water, high-grade heat, phosphorous, and CO2 for urea production (see para. [0052]).
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Papile as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hitoshi et al. (JP 003267725A; cited in the IDS dated 08/09/2022).
Regarding claim 2, the reference Papile discloses that the ammonia derivative production plant further comprises a nitrogen separation system (7) for separating nitrogen from air (see para. [0057]; Fig. 1). The reference Papile, however, does not specifically disclose an oxygen removal system for reacting oxygen that remains in a nitrogen-containing gas containing nitrogen separated by the nitrogen separation system with hydrogen produced by the electrolyzer, wherein, in the ammonia synthesis system, ammonia is synthesized from an outflow gas flowing out of the oxygen removal system.
The reference Hitoshi et al. teaches an ammonia production apparatus for producing ammonia from nitrogen and hydrogen, comprising: a nitrogen generator (1) by air separation (see Machine Translation, paras. [0008]; [0014]; Fig. 1); a hydrogen generator (2) by water electrolysis (see para. [0015]; Fig. 1); a heater (7) for raising the nitrogen gas generated from the nitrogen generator and the hydrogen gas generated from the hydrogen generator to the temperature necessary for ammonia synthesis (see paras. [0008]; [0027]; Fig. 1); and a ruthenium-based catalyst-filled ammonia synthesis reactor (8) for synthesizing ammonia by the reaction of heated nitrogen and hydrogen (see paras. [0008]; [0028]; Fig. 1), wherein an oxidation reactor (5) is installed upstream of the ammonia synthesis reactor (8) for removing trace amounts of oxygen contained in a mixed gas obtained by mixing nitrogen gas from the nitrogen generator and hydrogen gas from the hydrogen generator (see Machine Translation, paras. [0008; [0021]; 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 combine the teachings of Papile and Hitoshi et al., and modified the ammonia derivative production plant of Papile to include an oxygen removal system as taught by Hitoshi et al. upstream of the ammonia synthesis system, for reacting oxygen that remains in the nitrogen-containing gas containing nitrogen separated by the nitrogen separation system with hydrogen produced by the electrolyzer, since the reference Hitoshi et al. teaches that such a modification advantageously allows for reducing the amount of trace amounts of oxygen to an acceptable concentration that will not poison a ruthenium-based catalyst which may be packed in the ammonia synthesis reactor (see paras. [0018]-[0022]).
Regarding claim 3, the references Papile and Hitoshi et al. are silent with respect to using water produced by the reaction between oxygen and hydrogen in the oxygen removal system as part of water electrolyzed by the electrolyzer. However, the reference Papile teaches that the water for use in the electrolyzer can be a prized commodity and suggests recovering water generated during an oxy-fuel combustion reaction by condensing the water from the combustion product to use it as part of a feed source to the electrolyzer (see paras. [0055]; [0057]). 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 recover water produced by the reaction between oxygen and hydrogen in the oxygen removal system to use it as part of water for feed to the electrolyzer, since the reference Papile teaches that the water generated during an oxy-fuel combustion reaction may readily be recovered from the combustion product to use it as feed to the electrolyzer (see paras. [0055]; [0057]).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Papile as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Handagama et al. (US 2016/0369411).
Regarding claim 4, the reference Papile is silent with respect to the ammonia derivative production plant further comprising a water preheater for preheating water to be supplied to the electrolyzer, wherein the water preheater is configured to preheat water by exhaust heat generated by the synthesis of ammonia in the ammonia synthesis system.
The reference Handagama et al. teaches an electrolysis unit (102) for generating Hydrogen gas and oxygen gas by electrolysis of water (see paras. [0007]; 0036]; Fig. 1). The reference Handagama et al. further teaches that by elevating the water feed temperature and pressure supplied to the electrolysis unit, the overall electrical energy needed for the water splitting reaction can be reduced (see paras. [0007]; [0036]). The reference Handagama et al. further teaches that the heat input needed to preheat the water to be supplied to the electrolysis unit can be obtained from either solar energy or internal heat dissipation means such as a heat recovery steam generation unit capable of recovering heat from more than one source and producing steam (see paras. [0039]; [0044]; [0007]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Papile and Handagama et al., and modified the ammonia derivative production plant to include a water preheater for preheating water to be supplied to the electrolyzer using thermal energy from any suitable heat source, including exhaust heat generated by the synthesis of ammonia in the ammonia synthesis system, as claimed by applicant, since the reference Handagama et al. teaches that preheating the water lowers the amount of electrical energy required for the electrolytic water-splitting reaction as compare to room temperature electrolytic water-splitting conditions (see para. [0036]).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Papile in view of Hitoshi et al. as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view Handagama et al. (US 2016/0369411).
Regarding claim 5, the references Papile and Hitoshi et al. are silent with respect to the ammonia derivative production plant further comprising a water preheater for preheating water to be supplied to the electrolyzer, wherein the water preheater is configured to preheat water by exhaust heat generated by the reaction between oxygen and hydrogen in the oxygen removal system.
The reference Handagama et al. teaches an electrolysis unit (102) for generating Hydrogen gas and oxygen gas by electrolysis of water (see paras. [0007]; 0036]; Fig. 1). The reference Handagama et al. further teaches that by elevating the water feed temperature and pressure supplied to the electrolysis unit, the overall electrical energy needed for the water splitting reaction can be reduced (see paras. [0007]; [0036]). The reference Handagama et al. further teaches that the heat input needed to preheat the water to be supplied to the electrolysis unit can be obtained from either solar energy or internal heat dissipation means such as a heat recovery steam generation unit capable of recovering heat from more than one source and producing steam (see paras. [0039]; [0044]; [0007]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Papile, Hitoshi et al., and Handagama et al., and modified the ammonia derivative production plant to include a water preheater for preheating water to be supplied to the electrolyzer using thermal energy from any suitable heat source, including exhaust heat generated by the reaction between oxygen and hydrogen in the oxygen removal system, as claimed by applicant, since the reference Handagama et al. teaches that preheating the water lowers the amount of electrical energy required for the electrolytic water-splitting reaction as compare to room temperature electrolytic water-splitting conditions (see para. [0036]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 22 July 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
While the reference Papile states that an excessively large hydrogen storage device is not needed to hold H2 for night time usage, since the electrolyzer (AWE) would be in operation 24 hours a day to generate hydrogen and oxygen, the reference Papile nevertheless makes clear that some amount of H2 storage is needed and that H2 will be stored to buffer any fluctuations in the operation of the electrolyzer (AWE) (see para. [0046]). Thus, the reference Papile suggests for the provision of gas storage means, albeit of a moderate size, to serve as buffer against process fluctuations during the production of ammonia and ammonia derivative products. 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).
Accordingly, the examiner reasserts that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, in view of the teachings of Papile, to modify the ammonia derivative production plant of Papile to similarly include an oxygen storage unit for storing oxygen produced by the electrolyzer and a carbon dioxide storage unit for storing carbon dioxide produced by the carbon dioxide generation system so as to buffer fluctuations in demand for oxygen in the carbon dioxide generation system (3) and CO2 in the ammonia derivative synthesis system, since the reference Papile suggests for the need to employ gas storage means to serve as buffer against process fluctuations during the production of ammonia and ammonia derivative products (see paras. [0031]; [0046]). Furthermore, the reference Papile teaches that the carbon dioxide generated in the carbon dioxide generation system (3) may suitably be collected to make urea (an ammonia derivative product)(see para. [0016]), and that oxygen generated in the water electrolyzer, which is often wasted, can suitably be used for oxy fuel combustion of biomass to generation high-grade heat for the energy storage system (ESS) (4), water for the electrolyzer (5), and CO2 for urea production (see paras. [0035]; [0052]).
In response to applicant's argument that the present claims address the scenario where the CO2 generation system is deliberately throttled or shutdown when renewable power is scarce (see Remarks, paragraph bridging pages 3-4), a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
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