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 26 May 2026 has been considered. It is acknowledged that claim 1 has been amended by Applicant. Accordingly, claims 1, 5, and 11 are under full consideration.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 26 May 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s respective arguments are addressed below:
Applicant argues that incorporating the coolant guide line of Gueh is improper because it would change the principle of operation of Clawson/Adams. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant’s argument is directed to a modification that is not proposed by the Office Action. The rejection does not modify Clawson such that the Otto engine is replaced or deprived of hydrogen depleted reformate. Nor does the rejection rely on the coolant instead of the exhaust gas as the sole heat source for the metal hydride compressor. Rather, Clawson’s operation remains unchanged, with the exhaust gas continuing to operate the compressor, while Gueh merely teaches routing heated coolant to a compressor via a guide line. Furthermore, claim 1 itself positively recites that the metal hydride compressor is operated by both heat of the exhaust gas discharged from the burner and heat of the coolant discharged from the heat exchanger. Accordingly, incorporation of Gueh’s coolant heating does not replace Clawson’s exhaust gas heating, but merely supplements it, consistent with the claimed invention.
Applicant argues that modifying using the teachings of Gueh is improper because the Office Action fails to provide an objective reason for the combination. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant’s argument is based on an incorrect characterization of the proposed combination. The Office Action does not propose replacing Clawson’s use of exhaust gas with Gueh’s heated coolant, nor does it rely on the heated coolant as a substitute for the exhaust gas. Rather, Clawson continues to operate the compressor using exhaust gas, while Gueh teaches additionally utilizing heated coolant as another heat source for the compressor. This is consistent with claim 1, which affirmatively recites that the compressor is operated by both. Accordingly, Applicant’s comparison between operating the compressor using exhaust gas versus operating using heated coolant is not commensurate with the proposed rejection. The rationale for combining the references is not that one heat source replaces the other, but rather that recovering and utilizing multiple otherwise available waste heat streams to operate downstream components predictably improves thermal utilization and overall system efficiency while reducing external energy requirements. Incorporating Gueh’s additional coolant heating therefore supplements, rather than replaces, Clawson’s existing waste heat recovery strategy.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clawson (US-7434547-B2) in view of Adams (US-20080131744-A1), Gueh (US-20150275108-A1), Hufton (EP-0742172-A2), Colomar (US-11060196-B2), and Hopkins (US-20110303175-A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Clawson discloses a hydrogen reforming system (system for making and storing hydrogen…. Convert hydrocarbon fuels to reformate; see Abstract) comprising: a reforming part configured to extract hydrogen from a source gas (a thermal reactor to convert hydrocarbon fuels to reformate… separate the reformate into a hydrogen stream; see Abstract); and a compressor (engine driven hydrogen compressor; see Col. 3 Line 39) configured to be operated by waste heat discharged from the reforming part (the fuel mixture in the IC engine can comprise a hydrogen-depleted reformate stream from the hydrogen separator… enables operation of the IC engine; see Col. 3 Lines 24-29; and “engine driven hydrogen compressor; see Col. 3 Line 39) and to compress the hydrogen discharged from the reforming part (the high purity hydrogen stream then is compressed… using a hydrogen compressor; see Col. 7, Lines 9-11), wherein the reforming part comprises: a reformer configured to produce a target gas containing the hydrogen by allowing the source gas to react with water (the reformer reacting fuel, water and air to produce a hydrogen-containing reformate; see Col. 2 Lines 26-28), a burner (a thermal reactor coupled with the steam reformer in which a portion of … mixed with high temperature engine exhaust and air, combusts; see Col. 3 Lines 1-4) configured to apply heat to the reformer (the function of the thermal reactor is to combust a fuel/air mixture to supply heat to the steam reformer; see Col. 4 Lines 65-67), a target gas discharge line configured to discharge the target gas from the reformer (see Figs. 1 and 2, “Hi-Pressure Reformate”), and a pressure swing adsorption (PSA) unit connected to the target gas discharge line and configured to separate the hydrogen from the target gas (The PSA separates hydrogen from the reformate; see Col. 6 Lines 44-45); an exhaust gas discharge line configured to discharge the exhaust gas from a burner (a thermal reactor coupled with the steam reformer in which a portion of … mixed with high temperature engine exhaust and air, combusts; see Col. 3 Lines 1-4 and see Figs. 1 and 2 which shows exhaust gas leaving the reformer); and an exhaust gas guide line connected to the exhaust gas discharge line and configured to guide the exhaust gas to the compressor (see Fig. 2, “Exhaust in” line); and an air supply line configured to supply air to the burner (air may be added to the reactant mixture of fuel and steam; see Col. 4 Lines 38-39), an air heat exchanger disposed in the exhaust gas discharge line and configured to allow the exhaust gas and the air to exchange heat with each other (pre-heating at least one of the fuel, water, and air inputs to the fuel reformer by heat transfer with at least one of the hydrogen-containing reformate stream and the high-temperature reformer exhaust stream; see Col. 5 Lines 11-14), wherein the reforming part further comprises a heater disposed in a source gas supply line for supplying the source gas to the reformer (the mixture of natural gas and water then enters the recuperative boiler-heat exchanger; see Col. 6 Lines 15-16 and “Next, this mixture enters the steam reformer; see Col. 6 Line 25) and configured to heat the source gas (preheating at least one of the fuel, water, and air inputs to the fuel reformer by heat transfer; see Col. 5 Lines 11-12 and Col. 6 Lines 15-16 and 25) wherein the exhaust gas discharge line passes through the heater and the exhaust gas is used as a heat medium for the heater (… enters the recuperative boiler-heat exchanger, in which the mixture receives energy from the high-temperature reformate as well as from the exhaust from the thermal reactor though heat transfer; see Col. 6 Lines 15-18), and a heat exchanger disposed in the target gas discharge line to allow a coolant to flow (see Col. 6, Lines 15-19; specifically, Clawson discloses the high-temperature reformate, which is analogous to the claimed target gas, exchanging heat with the source gas, which in this case is effectively a coolant) and configured to allow the target gas and the coolant to exchange heat with each other (the mixture receives energy from the high-temperature reformate; see Col. 6, Lines 15-19), wherein the metal hydride compressor is operated by heat of the exhaust gas discharged from the burner (the fuel mixture in the IC engine can comprise a hydrogen-depleted reformate stream from the hydrogen separator… enables operation of the IC engine; see Col. 3 Lines 24-29; and “engine driven hydrogen compressor; see Col. 3 Line 39).
While Clawson discloses metal hydride storage (see Col. 3 Lines 63-64), Clawson does not explicitly teach the compressor being a metal hydride compressor. However, Adams discloses the use of a metal hydride compressor (the chemical compressor is a metal hydride compressor; see [0090]).
Clawson and Adams are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of hydrogen production and 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 Clawson by incorporating the teachings of Adams and providing a metal hydride compressor. Doing so would enable the use of a chemical compressor as opposed to a mechanical compressor (see Adams [0090]) which would effectively eliminate mechanical moving parts within the compressor.
Clawson does not explicitly teach the claimed coolant guide line. However, Gueh discloses using heated coolant to operate the compressor (“generating steam from a water flowstream by passing water flowstream to receive… heating from synthesis gas”; see [0217] and “steam generated by step (4) is directed for use in a gas compressor drive”; see [0223]). To use this heated coolant to power the compressor, the coolant must physically move from the heat exchanger to the compressor. Therefore, a guide line connected to the heat exchanger and configured to guide the coolant having passed through the heat exchanger to the compressor is required to exist in order for the coolant to operate the compressor, as disclosed by Gueh. It is a necessary component of the system’s function, and is inevitable in the functional design. Therefore, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include a guide line to serve this purpose.
Clawson and Gueh are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of gasification devices. 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 Clawson by incorporating the teachings of Gueh and using a guideline to connect the heat exchanger with the metal hydride compressor in order to use the heated coolant to operate the compressor. Using generated heat from one part of a system as an energy source for a different part of a system, as Clawson does by using exhaust gas to power the compressor, and as Gueh does by using the heated coolant to power the compressor, is a very common practice in the art. It is very well known across the art that using generated heat, that would otherwise be released into the atmosphere, as a heat source for other parts of the system effectively decreases input cost, energy input, and increases efficiency.
Clawson does not explicitly teach that the coolant is different from the source gas. However, Hufton discloses use of a coolant, different from the source gas, in a heat exchanger directly upstream of a PSA unit (Shift reactor effluent 8 is further cooled… by indirect heat exchange with cooling water in condenser… exiting the condenser is introduced to a hydrogen pressure swing adsorption unit; see Pg. 3 Lines 5-8).
Clawson and Hufton are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of hydrogen production. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Clawson by incorporating the teachings of Hufton and using water as the coolant. Doing so enables water to be condensed and removed from the reformate stream (see Pg. 3 Line 7).
Modified Clawson does not explicitly teach heat of coolant being used as a heat medium. However, Colomar discloses heat of a coolant being used as a heat medium for heating the metal hydride compressor (a heat circuit 30 (typically containing a liquid coolant…) is preferentially used to transfer the recovered heat to the reactor of the chemical compressor; see Col. 8 Lines 5-10).
Clawson and Colomar are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of hydrogen production. This modification would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because Colomar offers to motivation of making use of recovered heat that would have otherwise been wasted (see Col. 7 Line 39 – Col. 8 Line 10).
Modified Clawson does not explicitly teach use of exhaust gas as a heat medium. However, Hopkins disclose use of heat of exhaust gas as a heat medium for heating the metal hydride compressor (the working fluid carries the thermal energy captured from the waste heat to the metal hydride compression stages; see Abstract).
Clawson and Hopkins are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of hydrogen compression. This modification would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art because Hopkins provides the motivation of the waste heat driving the hydrogen compression (see Abstract).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clawson (US-7434547-B2) in view of Adams (US-20080131744-A1), Gueh (US-20150275108-A1), Hufton (EP-0742172-A2), Colomar (US-11060196-B2), Hopkins (US-20110303175-A1) and Kim (US-20100254893-A1).
Regarding Claim 5, Clawson, Adams, Gueh, Hufton, Colomar, and Hopkins together disclose the hydrogen reforming system of claim 1.
Clawson does not explicitly teach a desulfurizer. However, Kim discloses a desulfurizer disposed in the source gas supply line (see Kim, Fig. 1 Part 1) and positioned at an upstream side from the heater (see Kim, Fig. 1 Part 1 and Part 20).
Clawson and Kim are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of reformer systems for hydrogen generation. 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 Clawson by incorporating the teachings of Kim and providing a desulfurizer. Doing so would enable to desulfurization of the feed stream (see Kim, [0024]).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clawson (US-7434547-B2) in view of Adams (US-20080131744-A1), Gueh (US-20150275108-A1), Hufton (EP-0742172-A2) Colomar (US-11060196-B2), Hopkins (US-20110303175-A1), and Ennis (PT-1053394-E), further in view of Brinkmeier (DE-102017220635-A1).
Regarding Claim 11, Clawson, Adams, Gueh, Hufton, Colomar, and Hopkins together disclose the hydrogen reforming system of claim 1.
Clawson does not explicitly teach the compressor including a plurality of compressors. However, Ennis discloses the compressor comprising: a first compressor configured to compress the hydrogen (“compressor supplies a smaller portion of the recycle stream”; see [0130] and “a portion of said hydrogen… is recycled”; see [0037]) and a second compressor configured to compress the hydrogen with the first compressor (the other compressor delivers the bulk of the recycle flow; see [0130]) and connected in parallel with the first branch line (two compressors in parallel; see [0130]).
Regarding the limitation of the two compressors operating alternately, this is a common practice and would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention as an obvious engineering choice, as it is a well-known technique in the art, as taught by Brinkmeier (see Brinkmeier [0018]).
Regarding the limitation of the first and second compressors being disposed in a first and second branch, respectively, branching off from the hydrogen discharge line, this is obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art because of how parallel flow systems are fundamentally structured. In a parallel setup, each compressor must receive flow independently from the same source. This requires the flow to split into separate paths, or branches. Two compressors in parallel cannot physically be fed from a single, unbranched path.
Clawson and Ennis are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same fields of fuel conversion transformations and hydrogen production. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Clawson by incorporating the teachings of Ennis and providing a parallel compressor system. Doing so would enable independent pressure development by the two different compressors (see Ennis [0132]).
Clawson and Brinkmeier are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of hydrogen fuel processing. Therefore, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Clawson by incorporating the teachings of Brinkmeier and configuring the compressors to operate alternately. Doing so would enable a lower minimum load point of the compressor (see Brinkmeier [0018]).
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
Prosecution Insights