Detailed Notice
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 8-12 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 10/13/2025.
Claims 1-7 are pending examination.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim of U.S. Patent No. 20230294987. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claim limitations are word for word contained with Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 20230294987.
Claim 2 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim of U.S. Patent No. 20230294987. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claim limitations are word for word contained with Claim 3 of U.S. Patent No. 20230294987.
Claim 3 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim of U.S. Patent No. 20230294987. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claim limitations are word for word contained with Claim 4 of U.S. Patent No. 20230294987.
Claim 4 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim of U.S. Patent No. 20230294987. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claim limitations are word for word contained with Claim 5 of U.S. Patent No. 20230294987.
Claim 5 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim of U.S. Patent No. 20230294987. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claim limitations are word for word contained with Claim 6 of U.S. Patent No. 20230294987.
Claim 7 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim of U.S. Patent No. 20230294987. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claim limitations are word for word contained with Claim 7 of U.S. Patent No. 20230294987.
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 1, 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Selstam et al. (US-20140364517-A1), hereinafter “Selstam”, in view of Kim et al. (US-20100254893-A1), hereinafter “Kim”.
Regarding Claim 1 and 5, Selstam discloses an apparatus for producing a hydrogen gas (see e.g. [0012]), the apparatus comprising:
a plasma reactor configured to generate a hydrogen containing gas from a hydrocarbon containing gas through plasma-based pyrolysis (see e.g. [0012]);
a heat exchanger (see e.g. [0042]) configured to exchange heat between the hydrocarbon containing gas and a low purity hydrogen gas (see e.g. [0042] – [0043])
Selstam discloses a syngas feed being mixed with steam to form a mixture of steam, H2, and CO, which then enters a water gas shift reactor where the steam and CO react to form CO2 and H2. This effectively alters the ratio of H2 to CO such that the ratio is raised. This operation may be controlled to produce a syngas having a desired H2:CO ratio up to, for example, 4:1 (see e.g. [0043]). The instant application specifies the separator as separating “side products including the low purity hydrogen gas and carbon from the hydrogen containing gas”. The exact components and component ratios of the low purity hydrogen gas are not disclosed in the instant application, and therefore the low purity hydrogen gas is interpreted as hydrogen gas that contains a significant amount of non-hydrogen components. The syngas that is leaving the water gas shift reactor taught by Selstam is a low purity hydrogen gas. Additionally, the side products leaving the separator of the instant application are not specified as having any further use. The stream is labeled as “g” and is not used anywhere else in the process. This indicates that the separator’s primary function is to further purify the hydrogen containing gas into a “low purity hydrogen gas”. So, while the water gas shift reactor is not physically identical to a separator, in this scenario, it is producing the same function as the separator claimed in the instant application, and is therefore interchangeable and analogous to the separator.
However, Selstam does not teach a desulfurizer or adsorber.
Kim teaches a hydrogen producing apparatus in the same field of endeavor as Selstam (abstract).
Kim teaches a desulfurizer configured to desulfurize a hydrocarbon containing gas (see e.g. [0024]); and a first adsorber configured to separate the low-purity hydrogen gas that exchanged heat in a second heat exchanger into a first high-purity hydrogen gas and a first off gas (see e.g. [0024], [0038] and Fig. 1), through absorption, wherein at least a portion of the off gas is recirculated (see e.g. Fig. 1). Kim further discloses the first off gas that is circulated to the plasma reactor being more than 0 volume% and not more than 100 volume% of a total volume of the first off gas discharged from the first adsorber (see e.g. Fig. 1). It is understood that the off gas entering the plasma reactor to be 100 volume % of the off-gas leaving the adsorber, as that is the nature of the recycle stream depicted in Fig. 1 of Kim.
Prior to the filing of the present invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the base hydrogen containing gas production system of Selstam and to have incorporated the adsorption and desulfurizer methods of Kim in order that one would arrive at a system capable of generating high purity hydrogen.
Regarding Claim 6, Selstam and Kim together disclose the apparatus of claim 1.
However, Selstam in view of Kim does not teach that an off-gas is discharged and re-introduced to the reactor.
Kim teaches an off gas being recirculated to the reformer/burner in order to be used as fuel for enabling more hydrogen gas production (see e.g. Fig. 1), Kim further discloses the first off gas that is circulated to the plasma reactor being more than 0 volume% and not more than 100 volume% of a total volume of the first off gas discharged from the first adsorber (see e.g. Fig. 1 and [0039-0040]). It is obvious that at most 100 % of the volume of off-gas leaving the adsorber becomes reintroduced to the reactor by means of the burner.
Prior to the filing of the present invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have incorporated the gas recirculation method of Kim into the modified hydrogen containing gas producing apparatus of Selstam in view of Kim in order that one would arrive at a system for generating hydrogen containing gas with improved energy efficiency via the use of combusting the off-gases separated from the high purity hydrogen stream to make for hydrogen containing gas.
Regarding Claim 7, Selstam and Kim together disclose the apparatus of claim 1. Kim further discloses the first adsorber performing pressure swing adsorption (PSA) (see e.g. [0024]). PSA is generally employed by those skilled in the art in order to separate hydrogen, and is a method of producing high-purity hydrogen by absorbing and removing impurities from highly-concentrated hydrogen-containing gas (see e.g. Kim [0038]).
Prior to the filing of the present invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the PSA system of Kim into the modified teaching of Selstam in view of Kim in order to arrive at a process that produces high purity hydrogen from a hydrogen containing gas.
Claims 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Selstam et al. (US-20140364517-A1) in view of Kim et al. (US-20100254893-A1), as applied to Claim 1, further in view Eurlings (US-20230303393-A1).
Regarding Claim 2 and 3, Selstam and Kim together disclose the apparatus of claim 1.
However, Selstam in view of Kim does not teach a cooler nor a compressor for acting upon a low-purity hydrogen gas.
Eurlings teaches an apparatus for producing hydrogen rich gas from fuel feedstocks (abstract). Eurlings teaches that shifted syngas can be introduced toa gas cleaning unit whereby the gas is passed through an H2S adsorption means and a CO2 adsorption means [0088] which is conveyed by means of a multistage intercooled compression system [0081] in order that the purified gas be both compressed to 40 bar and purified into hydrogen gas [0028]. Eurling teaches that there may be more than one compressor [0081].
Prior to the filing of the present invention it would have been obvious to have modified Selstam in view of Kim further with the multistaged intercooled compression system of Eurlings in order that one would arrive at a hydrogen gas producing apparatus which can effectively convey a purified gas to a storage area by means of a multistage intercooled compression system in order that the gas not be both high temperature and pressurized (e.g. a bomb).
Regarding Claim 4, Selstam in view of Kim further in view of Eurlings together disclose the apparatus of claim 3.
However, Selstam in view of Kim further in view of Eurlings does not teach the use of a flare stack.
Eurlings further teaches a flare (element 435 of Fig. 5 shown below), understood to be a flare stack, which is configured to burn and discharge the remaining portions of the syngas (analogous to the off-gas), which was not introduced into the second compressor (see e.g. [0076] and Fig. 5).
Prior to the filing of the present invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the modified system of Selstam in view of Kim in view of Eurlings was ready for further improvement by the incorporation of the flare stack system of Eurlings in order that the hydrogen gas production plant would have a means to remediate unwanted waste gas.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHANAEL J DOWNES whose telephone number is (571)272-1141. The examiner can normally be reached 8am to 5pm.
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, James Lin can be reached at (571) 272-8902. 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.
NATHANAEL JASON. DOWNES
Examiner
Art Unit 1794
/NATHANAEL JASON DOWNES/Examiner, Art Unit 1794
/BRIAN W COHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759