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 Amendments
Applicant’s amendments filed 14 November 2025 are acknowledged. It is acknowledged that claims 7, 13, 17, 21, 23-31, and 43 have been amended, and claim 10 has been cancelled by Applicant. As such, the 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejection of claim 10 has been withdrawn, the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections of claims 13, 17, 23-31, and 43 have been withdrawn, and the 35 U.S.C. 112(d) rejection so of claims 7 and 21 have been withdrawn. Claims 1-9, 11-32, and 43-48 are under full consideration.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 14 November 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The respective arguments are addressed below:
Regarding the arguments concerning claims 9 and 16, upon review of the specification, Examiner acknowledges a general disclosure that buffer tanks may utilize a compression accumulator system connected to a hydraulic tank for pressure maintenance. However, the claims recite the buffer cylinder comprising an accumulator and bladder hydraulic system, which is a specific type of accumulator requiring a gas-liquid separation bladder. The specification does not describe a bladder accumulator, a bladder membrane or elastomeric separator, structural incorporation of such a system into a hydrogen buffer cylinder, or how a bladder hydraulic system interfaces with hydrogen gas storage. Applicant’s arguments rely on general industry knowledge and alleged known uses of hydro-pneumatic accumulators, but do not identify support in the specification as filed for incorporation of the claimed bladder hydraulic system in a buffer cylinder for hydrogen gas storage, nor how the bladder performs a function in the absence of a disclosed liquid phase in the buffer cylinder. Accordingly, the specification does not reasonably convey to a person of ordinary skill in the art that the inventors were in possession of the claimed subject matter, nor does it enable the claimed configuration without undue experimentation. The rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) is maintained.
Regarding the argument concerning claim 2, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is maintained. While applicant points to various hydrogen production methods disclosed in the instant specification, the issue is not whether such methods are disclosed or enabled, but whether the claim language itself clearly defines the metes and bounds of the invention. The phrase, “by other such methods of producing hydrogen from a liquid/vapor medium” is open-ended and lacks objective boundaries, such that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the claim with reasonable certainty. Merely listing examples in the specification does not define what constitutes “other such methods” nor does it indicate what exactly the scope includes. Accordingly, the claim language fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter regarded as the invention.
Regarding the argument concerning claim 3, Applicant asserts that claim 3 narrows the scope of claim 2 by limiting the low temperature electrolyser to PEM, AEM, or alkaline types and by excluding other low-temperature electrolyser technologies that may emerge. However, Applicant has not established that claim 2 encompasses any low temperature electrolyser other than PEM, AEM, or alkaline electrolysers as understood at the time of filing. Speculation regarding potential future technologies does not demonstrate that claim 3 further limits the scope of claim 2. As presently drafted, claim 3 merely enumerates electrolyser types already exclusively encompassed by the “low temperature electrolyser” of claim 2 and does not exclude any subject matter affirmatively covered by claim 2. Accordingly, claim 3 does not further limit the subject matter of claim 2 and remains an improper dependent claim under 35 U.S.C. 112(d).
Regarding the argument concerning claim 21, the phrase “a set number” remains indefinite. Applicant’s reliance on specification examples describing reactor throughput does not defined objective boundaries for the claimed number of reactors. The assertion that the “set number” is selected to achieve a particular process rate merely indicates that any number of reactors may be selected based on design choice, and therefore does not inform one of ordinary skill in the art, with reasonable certainty, of the scope of the claim. As currently claimed, the limitation encompasses any integer number of reactors, without objective lower or upper bounds, such that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the metes and bounds of the claim.
Regarding the argument concerning the 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) rejection of claim 2, applicant does not present or indicate any structure beyond that in the prior art that enables the electrolyzer to produce a purity of at least 99.995%. Therefore, because the prior art anticipates the structure, it is necessarily capable of producing the same purity as that claimed. Regarding the remaining arguments for the associated claim rejection, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (production capacity, response to variable load fluctuation, etc.) are not recited in the rejected claim. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Regarding the argument concerning the 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) rejection of claim 7, the claims broadly recite a “wastewater treatment process” included in a water treatment and storage system. As disclosed in Robertson, the WVRS captures water vapor from hub generation emissions, condenses the vapor into liquid water, and processes the recovered water for reuse via a condensation recovery system (see [0086]). Once condensed, the recovered water constitutes a wastewater stream generated by the hydrogen production process that requires treatment prior to reuse. The condensation and recovery of this water therefore reasonably constitutes a wastewater treatment process under the broadest reasonably interpretation.
Regarding the argument concerning the 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) rejection of claim 11, Examiner reminds Applicant that the features upon which applicant relies (enablement of operation during off-grid conditions, blackouts, etc.) are not recited in the rejected claim. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Regarding the argument concerning the 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) rejection of claim 12, Applicant asserts that use of inverters and batteries reflects general knowledge or assumption. However, Examiner reliance on general knowledge is permitted to explain what a reference would reasonably convey to a person of ordinary skill in the art. In particular, general knowledge may be relied upon to establish inherent characteristics of a disclosed system. In this case, Robertson expressly discloses fuel-cell based power generation. A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that fuel cells produce DC power and therefore necessarily require an inverter to provide usable AC electricity. Further, grids that have integrated renewable energy do indeed necessitate use of inverters. Additionally, a battery is interpreted as consisting of one or more cells, in which chemical energy is converted into electricity and used as a source of power. Robertson states that power is stored in ammonia (chemical energy), uses ammonia to fuel a fuel cell (one or more cells), which reshapes the stored energy to the power grid (converted into electricity and used as a source of power).
Regarding the argument concerning the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claim 8, Examiner reminds Applicant that the features upon which applicant relies (using pressurized air for a mixed gas booster and buffer cylinders to dry and store hydrogen and nitrogen gas) are not recited in the rejected claim. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Regarding the argument concerning the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claim 14, Examiner reminds Applicant that the features upon which applicant relies (structural integration of the air compressor and storage as the working fluid source forth gas boosting system) are not recited in the rejected claim. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). As mentioned in the previous office action, there is no additional structural limitation presented in the claim that enables the function of producing any specified purity, indicating that a PSA naturally produces such a purity. Because the prior art discloses a PSA, it is necessarily capable of the same function necessitated by the claim.
Regarding the argument concerning the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claim 15, Examiner reminds Applicant that the features upon which applicant relies (the configuration of the boosting system and buffer cylinders, designed to address intermittent and fluctuating inputs) are not recited in the rejected claim. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Also, In response to applicant's argument that that Gordon does not disclose integration within a containerized system, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be or is expressly disclosed as being bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
Regarding the argument concerning the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claim 18, Applicant argues against the references individually. One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Regarding the argument concerning the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claim 19, Examiner respectfully disagrees. A reactor is a vessel or device where chemical reactions are intentionally carried out. As pointed out, Gordon discloses that nitrogen and hydrogen react in the presence of catalyst in the compressor (see [0032]), which makes the compressor define a reactor volume, and then the reacted and unreacted gas are fed into loop 118, where additional ammonia is produced (see [0032]), which also makes the loop define a reactor volume. This disclosure inarguably says that the gasses react in the compressor first, and the loop second, which is a direct indication that these reactors work in series. Further, features upon which applicant relies (staged reaction control, modular load-following capability) are not recited in the rejected claim. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Regarding the argument concerning the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claim 20, features upon which applicant relies (distinct function, size, and modularity, and isenthalpic heating) are not recited in the rejected claim. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Regarding the argument concerning the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claim 23, features upon which applicant relies (reactor being separate from compressor and controlling conditions independently of the catalyst bed) are not recited in the rejected claim. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Regarding the argument concerning the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claim 27, features upon which applicant relies (multi-use air storage and controlled regulation of air pressure) are not recited in the rejected claim. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Regarding the argument concerning the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claim 29, features upon which applicant relies (physically distinct stages) are not recited in the rejected claim. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Also, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Regarding the argument concerning the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claim 30, features upon which applicant relies (reactors are separate units, physically distinct stages) are not recited in the rejected claim. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Also, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Regarding the argument concerning the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claim 30, features upon which applicant relies (independent response) are not recited in the rejected claim. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Regarding the argument concerning the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claim 9, features upon which applicant relies (precise pressure management within a closed loop containerized setup) are not recited in the rejected claim. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). In response to applicant’s argument that Elhamid does not relate to a containerized, modular hydrogen-ammonia synthesis system, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor' s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, Robertson and Elhamid are in the same field of the inventor’s endeavor of pressurized gas storage.
Regarding the argument concerning the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claims 16-17, the bladder and accumulator arrangement argument was discussed above.
Regarding the argument concerning the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claims 22, as pointed out in the previous office action, Gordon discloses the same scheme of using heat energy from a compressor to provide heat energy for the electrolysis cell. This is the same configuration claimed by Applicant, absent the compressor being an air compressor. The obvious equivalency of using an air compressor was explained. Applicant’s arguments do not clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made.
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 9 and 16 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 enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Regarding Claim 9, the limitation claiming that the “buffer cylinders for hydrogen gas storage further comprise an accumulator and bladder hydraulic system” requires more explanation that is not provided in the specification or the drawings. Bladder hydraulic systems are specifically designed for liquid systems and are fundamentally incompatible with gas storage. A person of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to reasonably understand how to incorporate this system into a gas system. The instant specification states that the bladder hydraulic system is included to maintain pressure, yet in a buffer cylinder for gas storage, this would cause redundant compression and certainly would not maintain pressure. In a gas-only storage vessel, there’s no liquid to separate from the gas, so the bladder has no function, which is one example of the forementioned incompatibility. It is possible, because the claimed invention can be considered a hybrid system, that a bladder hydraulic system may be included elsewhere in the process and that Applicant is not intending for it to be directly disposed on/in the buffer cylinder. However, this is not reflected in the specification or the drawings and leaves a person of ordinary skill in the art incapable of making and/or using the claimed invention.
Regarding Claim 16, the limitation claiming that the “buffer cylinders for nitrogen gas storage further comprise an accumulator and bladder hydraulic system” requires more explanation that is not provided in the specification or the drawings. Please see the rejection for claim 9 above as the same rationale applies to claim 16.
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 2-5, 14, and 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.
Regarding Claim 2, the limitation claiming, “by other such methods of producing hydrogen from a liquid/vapor medium” is indefinite because one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the metes and bounds of the claim limitations so as to understand how to avoid infringement if the claim were allowed to issue.
Claims 3-5 are rejected because they do not mitigate any of the deficiencies in parent claim 2.
Regarding Claim 14, the limitations claiming, “other methods” and “other such methods” are indefinite because one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the metes and bounds of the claim limitations so as to understand how to avoid infringement if the claim were allowed to issue.
Regarding Claim 21, the term “a set number” is indefinite because any number is “a set number”, therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the metes and bounds of the claim limitations so as to understand how to avoid infringement if the claim were allowed to issue.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Regarding Claim 3, the claim in which claim 3 depends specified a low temperature electrolyser. Claim 3 does not further limit the structure of the claim as it lists that the low temperature electrolyser can be either a PEM, AEM, or alkaline electrolyser, which are the only 3 electrolysers, as of today, that qualify as a low temperature electrolyser. Therefore, when structurally limiting the electrolyser to a low temperature electrolyser, it already limits it to one of the three options listed in claim 3. Listing the 3 types of low temperature electrolysers as in claim 3 does not further limit the low temperature electrolyser.
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, and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Robertson (US-20090257940-A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Robertson discloses a containerized system (modules can be sized within standard steel cargo containers; see [0133]) for producing anhydrous ammonia from air, water, and a power source (see [0018]) capable of following up with electrical load variations (grid connected hubs; see [0017] and “load follow”; see [0066]), comprising: a containerized (see [0133]) hydrogen production unit that produces hydrogen gas from a water source (see [0057]); a containerized (see [0133]) nitrogen production unit that extracts nitrogen gas from an air source (see [0051]); a containerized (see [0133]) ammonia production unit that synthesizes ammonia from an upstream, nitrogen and hydrogen gas source (see [0059]).
Regarding Claim 2, Robertson discloses the system of claim 1. Robertson further discloses the hydrogen production unit comprising a low temperature electrolyser (see [0057]). Specifically, Robertson states “hydrogen is extracted from water in the electrolysis-air separation Haber-Bosch process through the electrolysis of water using megawatt-scale electrolyzers available on the market today” (see [0057]). This inherently must be a low temperature electrolyser because high temperature electrolyzers are not yet available at the megawatt scale, while low temperature electrolyzers are commercially available at a megawatt scale.
Regarding the limitation claiming a “purity of 99.995%”, the claim indicates that a low temperature electrolyser, high temperature electrolyser, and battolyser all produce a minimum purity of 99.995% because there is no additional structural limitation enabling the function of producing any specified purity. The Courts have held that apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art in terms of structure, not function. See In re Danley, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959); and Hewlett-Packard Co. V. Bausch and Lomb, Inc., 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (see MPEP §§ 2114 and 2173.05(g)).
Regarding Claim 3, Robertson discloses the system of claim 2, wherein said low temperature electrolyser further comprises a proton exchange membrane (PEM) electrolyser, anion exchange membrane (AEM) electrolyser, or alkaline electrolyser. Robertson discloses the low temperature electrolyser as described in the rejection of claim 2. The low temperature electrolyzer would inherently be one of the options (PEM, AEM, or alkaline) listed in the claim 3 limitation because these are the only 3 types of electrolyzers, as of today, that qualify as low temperature electrolyzers.
Regarding Claim 6, Robertson discloses the system of claim 1, wherein said containerized hydrogen production unit comprises a water treatment (recycling of water; see [0083]) and storage unit (see [0083]), wherein the water comprises at least one of water (see [0083]), brine, sea water, salty water, or waste water (water vapor from Hub generation emissions; see [0086]).
Regarding Claim 7, Robertson discloses the system of claim 6, wherein said water treatment and storage includes a wastewater treatment process (The WVRS is designed to capture water vapor from Hub generation emissions and recycle the water through a condensation recovery system; see [0086]).
Regarding Claim 11, Robertson discloses the system of claim 1, wherein said power source comprises a power generation and storage unit (power grid; see [0017]) to provide power to any system components that require electricity (fully integrated Hydrogen Hub connected to the power grid; see [0017]).
Regarding Claim 12, Robertson discloses the system of claim 11, wherein said power generation and storage unit further comprises an inverter and a battery integrated system to provide electricity when power is interrupted (Grid-connected hubs may capture off-peak energy from many sources, including intermittent renewable energy; see [0017] and chemically stores the power in hydrogen-dense anhydrous ammonia, then reshapes the stored energy to the power grid… by using anhydrous ammonia to fuel… fuel cell; see Abstract). It is understood that inverters are essential to grids that have renewable integration, and are further essential to fuel cells. Further, under BRI, Robertson’s abstract describes a battery system.
Regarding Claim 13, Robertson discloses the system of claim 11, wherein said source of power comprises renewable energy resources of at least one of wind (see [0017]), solar (see [0017]), tidal, geothermal, and hydropower (see [0019]) connected to a grid (see [0017]).
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.
Claims 8, 14-15, 18-21, 23-25, 27, 29-30, and 47 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robertson (US-20090257940-A1) in view of Gordon (US-20130272926-A1).
Regarding Claim 8, Robertson discloses the system of claim 1. Robertson does not explicitly disclose a gas boosting system for hydrogen, but Robertson does disclose the hydrogen being used in a Haber-Bosch catalytic synthesis loop process, which necessitates the use of a hydrogen compressor because the ammonia synthesis occurs at elevated pressures, while electrolyzers typically output hydrogen at a pressure lower than 30 bar. This would have made it obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention that a hydrogen compressor, or gas boosting system, would have been included in Robertson. Robertson also discloses tanks for hydrogen gas storage (see [0047]). Robertson does not explicitly disclose the tanks being in the form of buffer cylinders. However, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the tanks disclosed by Robertson were required to have some sort of buffer system due to the nature of the process disclosed by Robertson. Robertson disclosed the hydrogen being produced by an electrolyzer (see [0057]) powered by solar or wind energy (see [0057]), which naturally will not allow hydrogen to be produced continuously. This heavily increases the probability of hydrogen production not matching the requirements of the synthesis loop, which is known by those of ordinary skill in the art. It is also known that a buffer vessel would have been required to avoid surges or drops in pressure.
Additionally, Gordon discloses a hydrogen gas boosting system (see Abstract). Robertson and Gordon are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of systems for making ammonia using hydrogen and nitrogen gases. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Robertson by incorporating the teachings of Gordon and using a hydrogen gas booster system. Doing so would produce pressurized hydrogen gas (see Gordon Abstract).
Regarding Claim 14, Robertson discloses the system of claim 1, wherein said containerized nitrogen production unit comprises an onboard air compression unit that produces pressurized air (“Air Separation Unit”; see [0058]; an air compressor is a key and necessary component of an air separation unit).
Robertson does not explicitly teach pressurized air storage or a PSA. However, Gordon discloses a storage unit (“storage tank containing the source of nitrogen gas”; see [0007]) that stores pressurized air (see Fig. 1 where source of nitrogen gas is air) and a pressure swing adsorption process (see [0029]). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Robertson by incorporating these features taught by Gordon in order to produce pressurized nitrogen from air (see Gordon [0031]).
Regarding the limitation claiming a “purity of 99.995%”, the claim indicates that a PSA produces a minimum purity of 99.995% by nature because there is no additional structural limitation enabling the function of producing any specified purity. The Courts have held that apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art in terms of structure, not function. See In re Danley, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959); and Hewlett-Packard Co. V. Bausch and Lomb, Inc., 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (see MPEP §§ 2114 and 2173.05(g)).
Regarding Claim 15, Robertson discloses the system of claim 1. Robertson does not explicitly disclose a gas boosting system for nitrogen, but Robertson does disclose the hydrogen being used in a Haber-Bosch catalytic synthesis loop process, which necessitates the use of a nitrogen compressor because the ammonia synthesis occurs at elevated pressures, while air separation units typically output nitrogen at a pressure lower than 10 bar. This would have made it obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention that a nitrogen compressor, or gas boosting system, would have been included in Robertson. Robertson also discloses tanks for nitrogen gas storage (see [0053]). Robertson does not explicitly disclose the tanks being in the form of buffer cylinders. However, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the tanks disclosed by Robertson were required to have some sort of buffer system due to the nature of the process disclosed by Robertson. Robertson disclosed the system being powered by solar or wind energy (see [0057]), which naturally will cause fluctuating feed rates. It is understood by those of ordinary skill in the art that a buffer system is necessary to absorb flow/pressure variations caused by upstream compressors or ASUs as they do not always operate at a constant output. It is also known that a buffer vessel would have been required to avoid surges or drops in pressure.
Additionally, Gordon discloses a nitrogen gas boosting system (see Abstract). Doing so produces pressurized nitrogen gas.
Regarding Claim 18, Robertson discloses the system of claim 1.
Robertson does not explicitly teach a mixed gas system. However, Gordon discloses the containerized ammonia production unit comprising a mixed gas boosting system that increases the pressure of a mixture of the hydrogen gas and the nitrogen gas (the pressurized nitrogen and hydrogen gases are mixed, further pressurized, and heated in compressor; see [0032]) using pressurized air (hydrogen gas booster uses compressed air; see [0092] and nitrogen gas booster uses compressed air; see [0093]). Including a mixed gas boosting system would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention because doing so would further pressurize the mixture (see Gordon [0032]).
Regarding Claim 19, Robertson and Gordon together disclose the system of claim 18. Gordon further discloses the containerized ammonia production unit comprising a multi-reactor assembly joint in series (see [0032] and Fig. 1). Specifically, Gordon discloses a compressor which contains a catalyst bed, and in which hydrogen and nitrogen react to produce ammonia. This acts as the first reactor of the multi reactor assembly. The reacted and unreacted gases are then fed into a loop where they react further. The loop acts as the second reactor of the multi reactor assembly. This is exemplified in Figure 1, with focus on parts 108 and 118. Including a multi reactor assembly enables additional ammonia to be produced (see Gordon [0032]).
Regarding the limitation claiming “suitable to control the production and maximize the yield of ammonia”, this is a consequential function of the structure of the assembly, but is not a structural limitation of the assembly. The Courts have held that apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art in terms of structure, not function. See In re Danley, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959); and Hewlett-Packard Co. V. Bausch and Lomb, Inc., 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (see MPEP §§ 2114 and 2173.05(g)).
Regarding Claim 20, Robertson and Gordon together disclose the system of claim 19. Gordon further discloses a first reactor that preheats the mixture of the hydrogen and nitrogen gases from the mixed gas boosting system (the synthesis reactor preferably has… a heating zone downstream from the inlet for heating the mixture of the hydrogen and nitrogen gases; see [0013]) and a second reactor is loaded with a catalyst for catalyzing the preheated mixture of the hydrogen and nitrogen gases to form ammonia (a catalyst zone downstream from the heating zone for catalyzing a reaction of the mixture of the hydrogen and nitrogen gases to form ammonia; see [0013]), and a recycle loop (see [0019]) that separates the ammonia (see Fig. 1, part 120) from unreacted gases (a recycle loop for re-circulating the by-product back to the inlet of the synthesis reactor; see [0019]).
Regarding Claim 21, Robertson and Gordon together disclose the system of claim 20. The limitation claiming, “a set number of reactors” was previously discussed in the 35 U.S.C. 112 rejections of this claim. Claiming that “the production rate of ammonia is largely dependent on the number of reactors assembled together” is a consequential function of multiple reactors being present in a system and is not a structural limitation. The Courts have held that apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art in terms of structure, not function. See In re Danley, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959); and Hewlett-Packard Co. V. Bausch and Lomb, Inc., 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (see MPEP §§ 2114 and 2173.05(g)). Regarding the limitation claiming the reactors have a volume of 0.008 to 0.8 m3, In Gardnerv.TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. Robertson further discloses that the hubs can be scaled up or down in size (see [0021]), indicating that they are capable of being made and operable within the claimed volume range.
Regarding Claim 23, Robertson discloses the system according to claim 1.
Robertson does not explicitly teach a first reactor increasing mixed gas pressure. However, Gordon discloses a first reactor increasing the pressure of the mixture of the hydrogen and nitrogen gases (The pressurized nitrogen and hydrogen gases are mixed, further pressurized, and heated in compressor 108, which contains a catalyst bed; see [0032]). This pressurizes the mixed gas to enable reaction in the presence of catalyst (see Gordon [0032]).
Regarding Claim 24, Robertson discloses the system according to claim 1 wherein exit gases from the second reactor first pass through a heat exchanger (During withdrawal, liquid anhydrous ammonia will be converted into vapor by waste heat provided from the generator. The EHS will take coolant from the generator and route it to a heat exchanger installed on the ammonia storage tank; see [0095]) that delivers excess heat to an input line for the first reactor (recycling of heated steam and nitrogen from Hub generation emissions directly into the solid-state ammonia synthesis process; see [0061]).
Robertson does not explicitly teach cooling of the exit gases. However, Gordon discloses cooling the exit gases to promote condensation of the ammonia (see [0099]). Employing cooling enables ammonia gases to be condensed into a liquid product (see Gordon [0099] and [0091]).
Regarding Claim 25, Robertson discloses the system according to claim 1.
Robertson does not explicitly teach exit gases heating water. However, Gordon discloses excess heat in exit gases from the reactor assembly being used to heat water entering the hydrogen production unit (… to remove heat generated by the reaction. The removed heat energy may be provided to another component, such as the unit for generating hydrogen with electrolysis cell; see [0073]). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art that supplying heat to the hydrogen generator also means supplying heat to the water in the hydrogen generator, effectively heating the water. The motivation to do so would have been compressor temperature control (see Gordon [0073]). The limitation claiming, “to reduce the energy required for hydrolysis” is a consequential function of the structure claimed, but is not a structural limitation itself. The Courts have held that apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art in terms of structure, not function. See In re Danley, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959); and Hewlett-Packard Co. V. Bausch and Lomb, Inc., 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (see MPEP §§ 2114 and 2173.05(g)).
Regarding Claim 27, Robertson discloses the system according to claim 1.
Robertson does not explicitly disclose an air storage tank. However, Gordon discloses a compressed air storage tank (“storage tank containing the source of nitrogen gas”; see [0007]) that stores pressurized air (see Fig. 1 where source of nitrogen gas is air) from the air compression and storage unit (This limitation would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention because this is the only source of pressurized air in the system). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Robertson by incorporating these features taught by Gordon in order to produce pressurized nitrogen from air (see Gordon [0031]).
Regarding Claim 29, Robertson discloses the system according to claim 1.
Robertson does explicitly teach a mixed gas boosting system. However, Gordon discloses an exit of a mixed gas boosting system being connected to a first reactor (see [0032] where compressor 108 is both a mixed gas booster and a first reactor) where the mixture of the hydrogen and nitrogen gases are preheated and produce ammonia (see [0032]) and wherein an exit of the first reactor is connected to a second reactor where further conversion of the mixture of the hydrogen and nitrogen gases to ammonia occurs (Both reacted and unreacted gases are then fed into loop 118, where additional ammonia is produced; see [0032]). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Robertson by incorporating the reactor setup taught by Gordon because it would have produced addition ammonia (see Gordon [0032]).
Regarding Claim 30, Robertson and Gordon together disclose the system according to claim 18. Gordon further teaches the exit of the mixed gas boosting system being connected to both the first reactor and the second reactor (see [0032]). Specifically, Gordon discloses a compressor for the mixed gas (which acts as the mixed gas boosting system) that also contains a catalyst bed where ammonia synthesis occurs, thereby acting as the first reactor. The gases then exit the compressor and are fed to loop 118 where additional ammonia is synthesized, thereby acting as a second reactor. The exit of the mixed gas boosting system would also be the exit of the first reactor. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the are prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention that, by nature of the invention, the reactor setup taught by Gordon comprises a mixed gas boosting system exit that is connected to both the first and second reactors.
Regarding Claim 47, Robertson discloses the system of claim 1 wherein the reactor can respond to variation (This allows maximum flexibility of Hubs to respond to unpredictable natural wind events; see [0069]).
Robertson does not explicitly teach more than one reactor. However, Gordon discloses a set of reactors (see [0032]). Including a set of reactors enables additional ammonia synthesis (see Gordon [0032]).
Claims 9, 16, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robertson (US-20090257940-A1) in view of Gordon (US-20130272926-A1) and Abd Elhamid et al. (US-20140290611-A1), hereinafter “Elhamid”.
Regarding Claim 9, Robertson and Gordon together discloses the system of claim 8.
Robertson does not explicitly teach the hydrogen gas storage having an accumulator. However, Elhamid discloses buffer cylinders (pressure vessels; see [0002]) for hydrogen gas storage (see [0019]) further comprising an accumulator (see [0002]).
Robertson and Elhamid are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of pressurized gas storage. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Robertson by incorporating the teachings of Elhamid and including an accumulator. Doing so may contain fluids under pressure (see Elhamid [0002]).
Regarding Claim 16, Robertson and Gordon together discloses the system of claim 15.
Robertson does not explicitly teach the hydrogen gas storage having an accumulator. However, Elhamid discloses buffer cylinders (pressure vessels; see [0002]) for nitrogen gas storage (see [0019]) further comprising an accumulator (see [0002]). Including an accumulator may contain fluids under pressure (see Elhamid [0002]).
Regarding Claim 17, Robertson and Gordon together disclose the system of claim 15.
Robertson does not disclose a molecular sieve. However, Elhamid discloses buffer cylinders (pressure vessels; see [0002]) for nitrogen gas storage (see [0019]) containing molecular sieve (see [0019] and [0021]) to further dry the nitrogen gas (examples of suitable adsorbents; see [0021]). Including a molecular sieve would act as a suitable adsorbent (see Elhamid [0021]).
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robertson (US-20090257940-A1) in view of Gordon (US-20130272926-A1) and Dunn (US-1582028-A).
Regarding Claim 22, Robertson discloses the containerized system according to claim 1.
Robertson does not explicitly disclose a loop where heat rejected by an air compressor from the air compression and storage unit is used to warm the purified water source entering the hydrogen production unit. However, using heat produced by one component of a system to heat another component of a system is a very commonly employed method. Gordon discloses a compressor that provides heat energy for the electrolysis cell for generating hydrogen (see [0073]) which in turn provides heat energy to the water in the cell. While Gordon does not explicitly teach the compressor being an air compressor, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have tried, through routine experimentation, this approach with any compressor in the system in order to achieve optimal heat exchange. Regarding the limitation claiming “a first line that allows water heated by the air compressor to exit the air compressor”, this is effectively describing a compressor with a cooling jacket, or some sort of mechanism capable of employing a cooling medium to traverse an area of the compressor. A compressor with a cooling jacket is a well-known method in the art, as exemplified by Dunn (see Col. 1 Lines 19-21). When modifying Robertson with the teachings of Gordon to supply compressor cooling and/or water heating, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to try a compressor with a cooling jacket during routine experimentation in order to maintain desired temperatures (see Dunn Col. 1 Line 27). As described by Dunn, the water in the jackets is kept in circulation (see Col. 1 Lines 25-26). When modifying Robertson by Gordon and Dunn, it would have naturally followed that the water would exit the air compressor and then enter the hydrogen production unit. Regarding the limitation claiming “a second line that allows unreacted water and oxygen to exit the hydrogen production unit and return to the loop”, this second line is simply interpreted as a line exiting the hydrogen production unit, which is taught by Robertson (see [0057]) and by Gordon (see Fig. 1).
Claims 26 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robertson (US-20090257940-A1) in view of Gordon (US-20130272926-A1) and Inagaki (JP-H1123084-A).
Regarding Claim 26, Robertson discloses the system according to claim 1.
Robertson does not explicitly teach a cooled condenser. However, Gordon discloses the recycle loop comprising: a cooled condenser that condenses ammonia gas into liquid ammonia (see [0099]). The condenser taught by Gordon is not explicitly taught as being air or water cooled, but the use of cooling water to cool condensers is a very common and conventional method, as taught by Inagaki (see [0009]), and therefore would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have employed this method during routine experimentation.
Regarding Claim 31, Robertson and Gordon together disclose the system according to claim 20. Gordon further discloses the recycle loop comprising a cooling system-based refrigeration unit (refrigerating cooling coil in which refrigerating cooling will be employed to cool the reactor outlet stream; see [0099]); that operates via waste heat in the system (to remove heat generated by the reaction; see [0073]) and liquefies ammonia gas (the ammonia gas is condensed upon cooling; see [0099]) and a line that allows the unreacted gases to return to the gas booster or the first reactor. Employing such methods allows for a liquid product (see Gordon [0100]).
Neither Robertson or Gordon explicitly teach the refrigeration unit employing absorption based cooling. However, there are a finite number of cooling methods to choose from in the art, one being absorption-based cooling as taught by Inagaki (see [0013]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have tried an absorption cooling system-based refrigeration unit when modifying Robertson.
Claims 28, 45, and 46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robertson (US-20090257940-A1).
Regarding Claim 28, Robertson discloses the system according to claim 6, wherein the recycle loop further comprises an ammonia collection vessel (see [0095]). Regarding the limitation claiming “two or more ammonia collection vessels connected in parallel”, the duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced (see In reHarza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960)). The claimed result of “to allow the liquid ammonia to settle in both collection vessels and to keep the pressure in the collection vessels at equilibrium” is not a new or unexpected result of more than one collection vessel.
Regarding Claim 45, Robertson discloses the system of claim 1, wherein said containerized hydrogen production unit comprises a low temperature electrolyser (please refer to the claim 2 rejection for this rationale). Robertson does not explicitly teach the electrolyser having intermittent hydrogen storage, but does disclose the ability to “allow rapid response to changing intermittent energy patterns”. This would have made it obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the electrolyser taught by Robertson had intermittent hydrogen storage. Additionally, Robertson disclosed the use of intermittent energy sources such as wind (see [0057]), which would not allow the electrolyser to produce hydrogen continuously. It would have been well understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art that intermittent storage was incorporated as production in Haber-Bosch synthesis processes needs to be decoupled from usage.
Regarding Claim 46, Robertson discloses the system of claim 45, wherein said intermittent storage can be adapted in accordance to power availability. As described in the rejection of claim 45 above, intermittent storage would be required by the invention of Robertson due to the intermittent power source of wind. Following that logic, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the intermittent storage adapts based on the intermittent power.
Claims 32, 43-44, and 48 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robertson (US-20090257940-A1) in view of Gordon (US-20130272926-A1) and Carpenter et al. (US-20140072499-A1), hereinafter “Carpenter”.
Regarding Claim 32, Robertson and Gordon together disclose the system according to claim 20.
Robertson does not explicitly teach the use of a multi-bed catalyst. However, the use of a multi-bed catalyst in ammonia synthesis is extremely common, as taught by Carpenter (see [0008]).
Robertson and Carpenter are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of ammonia synthesis. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Robertson by incorporating the teachings of Carpenter and providing multiple catalyst beds. Doing so would increase efficiency (see Carpenter [0008]).
Regarding Claim 43, Robertson, Gordon, and Carpenter together disclose the system of claim 32. Robertson further discloses the system comprising a single containerized system or multiple containerized subsystems forming the transportable hydrogen and ammonia system (Hydrogen Hubs modules can be sized within standard steel cargo containers; see [0133]).
Regarding Claim 44, Robertson, Gordon, and Carpenter together disclose the system of claim 43. Robertson further discloses said containerized system comprising shipping containers that can be of different standard sizes and classification (Hydrogen Hubs modules can be sized within standard steel cargo containers; see [0133]).
Regarding Claim 48, Robertson and Gordon together disclose the system of claim 47. Robertson does not explicitly teach the type of reactor. However, Carpenter discloses the reactor being a radial flow reactor (with axial or radial flow; see [0008]). Using a radial flow reactor would increase efficiency (see Carpenter [0008]).
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 ALYSSA LEE KUYKENDALL whose telephone number is (571)270-3806. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday 9:00am-5:00pm.
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.
/A.L.K./Examiner, Art Unit 1774
/CLAIRE X WANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1774