DETAILED ACTION
Application 17/894720, “RENEWABLE ENERGY INTEGRATION WITH NATURAL-GAS BASED COMBINED HYDROGEN AND ELECTRICITY PRODUCTION (CHEP) SYSTEM AND METHOD”, was filed in the US on 8/24/22. International application PCT/US2023/030919 was later filed as a related case.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This Office Action on the merits is in response to communication filed on 12/18/25.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 12/8/25 have been fully considered, and are persuasive in part. Applicant presents the following arguments.
The cited art does not teach or suggest claim 1 as presently amended. In response, this argument has been found persuasive and claim 1 has been found allowable.
The arguments against claims 13 and 22 are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection necessitated by amendment.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-2, 4-12 and 23 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding independent claim 1, the closest prior art includes Jahnke (US 2016/0351930) and Ovshinsky (US 2006/088739) which are relevant to the claimed invention as described in the 8/7/25 Final Rejection, and the rejection of independent claims 13 and 22 below. As described, the cited art considered in combination teaches embodiments similar to the claimed invention, such as a method for integrating renewable power with a natural gas power plant comprising providing electricity from an SOFC stack to an electrolyzer to generate hydrogen and providing additional electricity to the electrolyzer from a renewable energy source.
However, the cited art fails to teach the method further including “when excess electricity from the second stream of electricity is available: operating a portion of the SOFC stack as a solid oxide electrolytic cell (SOEC) stack; providing the excess electricity from the second stream of electricity to the SOEC stack: and generating hydrogen with the SOEC stack while a remainder of the SOFC stack continues to generate the reformed hydrogen stream and electricity”, at least because the SOFC stacks of the cited art is not disclosed such that a portion thereof is operated as an electrolytic cell to generate hydrogen and a portion thereof is operated as a conventional SOFC to generate reformed hydrogen and electricity, when excess electricity from the renewable energy facility is available.
Upon an updated search, no new and closer prior art has been discovered which cures this deficiency of the previously applied art, or which independently fairly teaches or suggests claim 1 as a whole including the above-described features. Accordingly, claim 1 and all claims dependent therefrom are found to be allowable.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
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 of this title, 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 13-14 and 20-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Jahnke (US 2016/0351930), Ovshinsky (US 2006/088739), Reichholf (WO 2022/032323) and Weingaertner (US 2023/0420715).
Regarding claim 13 and 20, Jahnke teaches an integrated hydrogen production system (e.g. Fig. 9A), comprising: a solid oxide fuel cell (SOFC) (item 920; paragraph [0094]); an electrolyzer (item 910) electrically coupled to a power line from the SOFC (paragraphs [0092-0096, 0039] with paragraph [0039] expressly characterizes an REP [electrolyzer] receiving power from a fuel cell of the system; a power line for facilitating the described power couplings is a well-known structural feature within fuel cell systems (see disclosures of Ovshinsky and/or Reicholf as described below), therefore, the use of a powerline would be implicit or at least obvious as less common wireless power transfer would be the alternative to a physical power line); a carbon dioxide capture system fluidically coupled to an exhaust line from the SOFC (See Fig. 9A where carbon dioxide output of the SOFC is captured and then utilized to operate the electrolyzer 910; see also paragraph [0062] which teaches an auxiliary carbon dioxide capturing system that may be used with an electrolyzer comprising REP of the invention); a steam source fluidically coupled to the SOFC (paragraph [0094]); a hydrocarbon source fluidically coupled to the SOFC to provide a gaseous hydrocarbon feed to the SOFC (paragraph [0094]).
Jahnke does not appear to teach the system further comprising a renewable energy source, such as a solar power plant, wherein the electrolyzer is coupled to a power line from the renewable energy source.
In the fuel cell art, Ovshinsky teaches a system for integrating renewable power with a hydrogen production plant comprising generating a stream of electricity in a renewable energy facility, such as a solar power plant (item 10 may be solar cells as in paragraph [0015]), when available; and providing the stream of electricity to the electrolyzer (Fig. 2; paragraph [0015]) to increase the generation of the electrolysis hydrogen stream (paragraph [0015]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the system of Jahnke by adding a renewable energy source, such as a solar power plant, and electrically connecting the renewable energy source to the electrolyzer via power lines for the benefit of realizing the renewable energy use/production suggested by Jahnke paragraph [0092], using the renewable energy collection/use/storage teachings of Ovshinsky. Ovshinsky appears to schematically illustrates powerlines (Fig. 1 where “I” is a current carrying means as described in paragraph [0015]), thus powerlines are implicitly taught or at least obvious to include as a conventional means for connecting electrical devices in the art at the time of invention.
Jahnke does not appear to teach the system wherein at least a portion of the SOFC can be operated as a solid oxide electrolytic cell (SOEC) and the SOFC is coupled by a power line to the renewable energy source.
In the fuel cell art, Reicholf teaches that it is desirable to configure an electrolyzer [or equivalently a fuel cell] to operate in a reversible manner so that it produces a gas [such as hydrogen] when excess energy is available, and produces electricity from the gas when needed so as to provide flexibility and capacity (T019, T035, T004).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to configure the SOFC stack of Jahnke to operate in a reversible manner such that excess electricity supplied via a power line from the second stream [the renewable stream in the combined embodiment] may be stored as hydrogen by the SOFC as taught by Reicholf for the benefit of improving the capacity and versatility of the combined system. Reicholf appears to schematically illustrates powerlines (Fig. 1), thus powerlines are implicitly taught or at least obvious to include as a conventional means for connecting electrical devices in the art at the time of invention.
Claim 13 as amended on 12/8/25 further requires that a carbon dioxide separator fluidically coupled to the exhaust line of the SOFC and configured to separate hydrogen and carbon dioxide from the SOFC exhaust; and a tank fluidically coupled to the SOFC exhaust and configured to receive hydrogen from the carbon dioxide separator.
Jahnke further teaches (Fig. 9a) that the SOFC (item 920) exhausts a gaseous mixture including hydrogen and CO2, where the CO2 is reacted in the REP 910 [electrolyzer of claim 13] to produce hydrogen, and the hydrogen in the exhaust is added to this produced hydrogen (paragraph [0095]).
This process seems to require separation of the hydrogen and CO2 of the exhaust; however, Jahnke does not expressly teach that the hydrogen and CO2 of the exhaust are separated with the hydrogen being collected in a tank.
In the fuel cell art, Weingaertner teaches a fuel cell system including a separator for separating hydrogen and carbon dioxide from a fuel exhaust stream (abstract; paragraph [0017]). Weingaertner further teaches that the system may include a hydrogen storage device/vessel for use when the separated hydrogen is not intended to be provided directly to a hydrogen using device (paragraph [0044]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to provide the integrated hydrogen production system of Jahnke with a carbon dioxide separator coupled to the exhaust line of the SOFC for separating the carbon dioxide and the hydrogen, and a tank to receive and store the hydrogen, as taught by Weingaertner, for the benefit of facilitating the operation of Jahnke paragraph [0095] which suggests taking the hydrogen exhaust from the fuel cell, and only subsequently adding that hydrogen to other hydrogen produced in the electrolyzer.
Regarding claim 14, the cited art remains as applied to claim 13. Jahnke further teaches the system comprising an oxygen line from the electrolyzer to the SOFC (Fig. 9A).
Regarding claim 21, the cited art remains as applied to claim 13. Jahnke and Ovshinsky teach solar energy as the source of renewable energy, but do not expressly teach the system wherein the renewable energy source comprises a wind generation facility.
In the fuel cell art, Reichholf further teaches system wherein the renewable energy source comprises a solar generator or a wind generation facility (see Figure 5 items 300).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to utilize a wind generation facility as the renewable energy source as taught by Reichholf for the benefit of employing a renewable source that can operate without sunlight.
Claims 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Jahnke (US 2016/0351930), Ovshinsky (US 2006/088739), Reichholf (WO 2022/032323) and Jamal (US 2013/0126038).
Regarding claim 15, the cited art remains as applied to claim 13. Jahnke does not appear to teach wherein the steam source comprises a refinery, chemical plant, or both.
In the fuel cell art, Jamal teaches that chemical processing facilitates create steam, which is useful and convertible into other forms for export, transmission or local usage (paragraph [0007]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to utilize steam byproduct from a chemical plant as the feed steam for the SOFC of Jahnke for the benefit of employing an available waste resource as taught by Jamal.
Claims 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Jahnke (US 2016/0351930), Ovshinsky (US 2006/088739), Reichholf (WO 2022/032323) and Blutke (US 2004/0251241).
Regarding claim 17 and 18, the cited art remains as applied to claim 13. Jahnke further teaches the system wherein the hydrocarbon source comprises a natural gas feed (Fig. 9A), but is silent as to the source of the natural gas feed being a gas plant, and does not appear to teach the system comprising a pyrolysis unit, wherein the gaseous hydrocarbon feed comprises pyrolysis gas.
In the fuel cell art, Blutke teaches a gas plant which process and provides fuel, such as natural gas, to a power generation system, such as an SOFC (see Figure 4, paragraphs [0064-0066]). Blutke further teaches the system including pyrolysis means in order to further optimize the feed gas (paragraph [0050]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to employ a gas plant as the source of natural gas and/or provide the system with a pyrolysis unit in order to further reform the incoming gas for the benefit of providing a suitable or more favorable product gas to the SOFC as taught by Blutke.
Claims 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Jahnke (US 2016/0351930), Ovshinsky (US 2006/088739), Reichholf (WO 2022/032323) and Dionne (US 2013/0101873).
Regarding claim 19, the cited art remains as applied to claim 13. Jahnke does not appear to teach the system further comprising a water gas shift reactor, wherein the gaseous hydrocarbon feed comprises water gas.
In the fuel cell art, Dionne teaches that a gas feed for a fuel cell may include a water gas shift reactor (Fig. 1A item 113, Fig. 2 item 200) for the benefit of converting natural gas to a hydrogen rich stream (paragraph [0048]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to include in the system a water gas shift reactor, wherein the gaseous hydrocarbon feed comprises water gas, for the benefit of increasing the hydrogen content of the feed to the fuel cell as taught by Dionne.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Jahnke (US 2016/0351930) and Ovshinsky (US 2006/088739).
Regarding claim 22, Jahnke teaches a method for integrating renewable power with a natural gas hydrogen production plant (non-limiting statements of intended use within a preamble), comprising: simultaneously generating electricity and a reformed hydrogen stream in a solid oxide fuel cell (SOFC) stack (Figure 9A item 920; “The fuel and steam mixture is then supplied to the anode side 922 of the DFC 920 where the fuel is internally reformed using a direct reforming catalyst and undergoes an electrochemical reaction with an oxidant gas supplied to the cathode side 924 of the DFC 920 to produce base load power. Base load power (DC power) is output from the DFC 920” paragraph [0094]; simultaneous execution of the reforming and electricity generating acts is implicit, or at least obvious, as they are both part of the normal operation of the device and the reformed fuel is used to facilitate the electricity generating reaction); providing electricity from a SOFC stack to an electrolyzer to generate an electrolysis hydrogen stream (“REP” item 910 is functional as an electrolyzer; “DFC or SOFC operated to provide baseload power with the REP assembly that consumes excess power to generate hydrogen output”, paragraph [0092]; “DC power is provided to the REP assembly from a power supply 975 to apply a reverse voltage to the at least one electrolyzer fuel cell of the REP assembly”, paragraph [0096]; “The voltage applied to the fuel cell operating as an electrolyzer is supplied from a power supply, which may be a battery, another fuel cell or fuel cell assembly operating in a power production mode (or even fuel cells in the REP stack operating in the power production mode), or any other power storage or power supply device”, paragraph [0039] and Figure 3A).
Jahnke further teaches generating a second stream of electricity in a renewable energy facility (“high power generation from renewable generators”, paragraph [0092]); and providing the second stream of electricity to the electrolyzer (paragraph [0092] indicates that the REP [electrolyzer] may operate in combination with a renewable generator to store energy, suggesting the claimed limitation; paragraph [0039] indicates that any power supply may be used to power the REP [electrolyzer]).
Jahnke does not appear to teach the method wherein the electricity from the renewable source and the SOFC stack are supplied to the electrolyzer at the same time in order to increase the generation of the electrolysis hydrogen stream.
In the fuel cell art, Ovshinsky teaches or suggests a system (e.g. Fig. 2) for integrating renewable power with a hydrogen production plant, wherein electricity from a renewable source (item 10) and an SOFC stack (item 90) are supplied to an electrolyzer (item 40) at the same time in order to increase the generation of the electrolysis hydrogen stream (Fig. 2 illustrates each of the renewable energy source 10, a battery 10, and the fuel cell 90 each supply current “I” to a distribution system 30, which supplies the current to an electrolyzer 40; Paragraph [0015] expressly teaches that the electrolyzer is supplied by the battery “and/or” suggesting the sources may be applied sequentially or simultaneously as alternatives for the Fig. 1 embodiment; Paragraph [0015] goes on to explain that a fuel cell 90 may be additionally “for providing additional power as needed”. Thus, the description suggests supplying an electricity stream from a renewable energy source 10 and a fuel cell 90 together, in order to provide additional power).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to supply the electrolyzer with an electricity stream from the renewable power source and the fuel cell, at the same time, for the benefit of providing additional power as taught by Ovshinsky.
Relevant or Related Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure, though not necessarily pertinent to applicant’s invention as claimed.
Tison (USP 4341607) DC power source comprising solar cell, fuel cell and electrolyzer to store excess energy from solar cell;
Jahnke (US 2018/0261860) fuel cell system comprising power generating fuel cell and electrolytzer fuel cell;
Jahnke (US 2020/0251755) fuel cell system comprising power generating fuel cell and electrolyzer fuel cell.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEREMIAH R SMITH whose telephone number is (571)270-7005. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 9 AM-5 PM (EST).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Tiffany Legette-Thompson can be reached on (571)270-7078. 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.
/JEREMIAH R SMITH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1723