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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed February 19, 2026 regarding Claims 1-2, 5, 7,-10, 12, and 13 under 103 (a) in light of Bedu-Amissah in view of Kawachi have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicants argue that “None of the Cited Art Discussing Avoiding Nitridation”, none of the cited art teaches anything at all related to improving nitridation resistance in hydrogen production equipment and that since the problem had not been previously known, there would have been no reason to incur additional time and expense to add another layer, even though the addition would have been technologically possible. Examiner disagrees with these assessments since the plurality of catalyst tubes of the hydrogen production facility of Bedu-Amissah et al. comprising a high temperature fibrous insulation material containing aluminized diffusion coating and aluminide which is the same materials as the claimed nitridation protective layer. MPEP 2112 III state that “A REJECTION UNDER 35 U.S.C. 102 AND 103 CAN BE MADE WHEN THE PRIOR ART PRODUCT SEEMS TO BE IDENTICAL EXCEPT THAT THE PRIOR ART IS SILENT AS TO AN INHERENT CHARACTERISTIC”; “Where applicant claims a composition in terms of a function, property or characteristic and the composition of the prior art is the same as that of the claim but the function is not explicitly disclosed by the reference, the examiner may make a rejection under both 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103”. Therefore, the high temperature fibrous insulation layer can be used as a nitridation protective layer. Kawachi et al. reference was introduced to show that ammonia can be used as the starting material for reforming into a product stream comprising hydrogen (Figure 1 and Solution).
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed February 19, 2026, with respect to Claims 3-4 and 6 and 11 under 103(a) of Bedu-Amissah (U.S. Pub. 2018/0230009) in view of Khan (W095/30779) and Zhao (U.S. 6,720,088) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of Claims 3-4 and 6-11 has been withdrawn.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5, 7-10, 12-15 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bedu-Amissah et al. (US 2018/0230009 A1) in view of Kawachi et al. (JP-2020196646A).
Regarding Claim 1, Bedu-Amissah et al. reference discloses a hydrogen production facility comprising:
a reformer configured to catalytically convert a feed stream into a product stream comprising hydrogen, the reformer having a plurality of catalyst tubes and a plurality of burners configured to provide heat to the catalyst tubes (Abstract and Paragraph [0003] – catalyst-filled tubes and burners); and
means for providing the feed stream to the reformer from a feed source (Paragraph [0003]),
wherein the plurality of catalyst tubes comprise a nitridation protective layer on an inner surface of the catalyst tubes (Paragraph [0005] – high temperature fibrous insulation material, [0013] – aluminized diffusion coating and [0047]-[0048] – aluminide diffusion coating; the high temperature insulation material comprising aluminized diffusion coating and aluminide same as claimed nitridation protective layer).
However, Bedu-Amissah et al. reference does not disclose means for providing the feed stream to the reformer from an ammonia source, wherein the feed stream comprises at least 90% of ammonia. Kawachi et al. reference discloses a reforming system 10 comprises a reformer 13 for reforming ammonia gas to generate a reformed gas containing hydrogen, an ammonia supply unit 23 for supplying the ammonia gas to the reformer 13, an air supply unit 22 for supplying air to the reformer 13, a reformed gas flow passage 18 through which the reformed gas generated by the reformer 13 flows (Figure 1 and Solution). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use ammonia as the feed stream as taught by Kawachi et al., since Kawachi et al. states at Paragraph [0006] that such a modification would burn ammonia and decompose ammonia into hydrogen, and a reformer that reforms ammonia to generate a reformed gas containing hydrogen.
Regarding Claim 2, Bedu-Amissah et al. and Kawachi et al. references disclose the hydrogen production facility as claimed in claim 1, wherein the nitridation protective layer is selected from the group consisting of a protective liner material that is mechanically coupled to the inner surface, an aluminization layer applied to the inner surface, and a weld-overlay applied to the inner surface (Bedu-Amissah et al. - Paragraph [0024] – high temperature fibrous insulation material, [0013] – aluminized diffusion coating and [0047]-[0048] – aluminide diffusion coating).
Regarding Claim 5, Bedu-Amissah et al. and Kawachi et al. references disclose the hydrogen production facility as claimed in claim 1, wherein the nitridation protective layer comprises applying a protective liner that is mechanically coupled to the inner surface (Bedu-Amissah et al. - Paragraphs [0024] and [0038] – internal insulation comprising a cylindrically-shaped can and filled with insulation material such a ceramic fiber blanket securely attached to a blind flange and Figures 2a, 2b and 3a, 3b and 3c).
Regarding Claim 7, Bedu-Amissah et al. and Kawachi et al. references disclose the hydrogen production facility as claimed in claim 5, wherein the protective liner is coupled to the inner surface via at only one end thereby reducing potential damage during thermal expansion (Bedu-Amissah et al. - Figures 2a, 2b and 3a, 3b and 3c, blind flange).
Regarding Claim 8, Bedu-Amissah et al. and Kawachi et al. references disclose the hydrogen production facility as claimed in claim 5, wherein the protective liner is coupled to the inner surface of the equipment via a flange or welding (Bedu-Amissah et al. - Paragraph [0043] – welding).
Regarding Claim 9, Bedu-Amissah et al. and Kawachi et al. references disclose the hydrogen production facility as claimed in claim 5, wherein the protective liner is configured to have a substantially similar thermal expansion coefficient to that of the piece of equipment (Bedu-Amissah et al. – Paragraph [0009]).
Regarding Claim 10, Bedu-Amissah et al. and Kawachi et al. references disclose the hydrogen production facility as claimed in claim 1, wherein the nitridation protective layer comprises a protective weld-overlay applied to the inner surface (Bedu-Amissah et al. – Paragraph [0048] - The substrate material to be aluminized is prepared so that it is free of surface flaws or defect detrimental to the coating process).
Regarding Claim 12, Bedu-Amissah et al. and Kawachi et al. references disclose the hydrogen production facility as claimed in claim 1, wherein the hydrogen production facility was formerly used to catalytically crack hydrocarbons in the presence of steam to produce hydrogen (the apparatus of Bedu-Amissah et al. and Kawachi et al. is capable of performing an ammonia reforming).
Regarding Claim 13, Bedu-Amissah et al. and Kawachi et al. references disclose the hydrogen production facility as claimed in claim 1 except for additional equipment having the nitridation protective layer, wherein the additional equipment is selected from the group consisting of feed piping, a feed preheater, process gas heat exchangers, and combination thereof. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the claimed nitridation protective layer for additional equipment being used/part of the system since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding Claim 14, Bedu-Amissah et al. and Kawachi et al. references disclose the hydrogen production facility as claimed in Claim 1, wherein the reformer is configured to maintain a reducing atmosphere within the plurality of catalyst tubes, the reducing atmosphere being characterized by an oxygen partial pressure insufficient to form a protective oxide scale on the inner surface of the catalyst tubes (Process limitation and does not add additional structure to the hydrogen production facility of Bedu-Amissah et al. and Kawachi et al.).
Regarding Claim 15, Bedu-Amissah et al. and Kawachi et al. references disclose the hydrogen production facility as claimed in Claim 1, wherein the nitridation protective layer is configured to limit the diffusion of atomic nitrogen into the base metal of the catalyst tubes at temperatures between 700°C and 1000°C (Process limitation and does not add additional structure to the hydrogen production facility of Bedu-Amissah et al. and Kawachi et al.).
Regarding Claim 17, Bedu-Amissah et al. and Kawachi et al. references disclose the hydrogen production facility as claimed in Claim 1, wherein the plurality of catalyst tubes are configured for continuous industrial-scale cracking of an ammonia feed at a pressure significantly above ambient pressure (Process limitation and does not add additional structure to the hydrogen production facility of Bedu-Amissah et al. and Kawachi et al.).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-4, 6, 11 and 16 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding Claim 3, closest prior arts, Bedu-Amissah et al. (US 2018/0230009 A1) and Kawachi et al. (JP-2020196646A) disclose the claimed hydrogen production facility except for the nitridation protective layer comprises the diffusion barrier layer in conjunction with the aluminization layer applied to the inner surface and wherein the diffusion barrier layer comprises a chrome-silicon barrier layer. Zhao et al. reference discloses a substrate comprising a gas turbine engine component, said component comprising a nickel-based superalloy; a diffusion barrier layer disposed over said substrate, said diffusion barrier layer comprising an alloy comprising, in atomic percent, from about 20% to about 45% Ru, from about 15% to about 40% Cr, from about 2% to about 50% Al, and the balance comprising at least one of Ni, Co, and mixtures thereof, a layer of oxidation-resistant material, said material comprising an aluminide, disposed over said diffusion barrier layer; and a thermal barrier coating disposed over said layer of oxidation-resistant material (Claim 27). Zhao (U.S. 6,720,088) relates to diffusion barriers for gas turbine components in oxidative environments to prevent secondary reaction zone (SRZ) growth. Therefore, Zhao reference does not provide any teaching regarding the protection of industrial catalyst tubes against nitridation in a reducing ammonia atmosphere.
Claims 4 and 16 directly depend on Claim 3.
Regarding Claims 6 and 11, Bedu-Amissah et al. and Kawachi et al. references disclose the claimed hydrogen production facility including a metal aluminide diffusion coating having aluminum content 20-50 wt % or 30-35 wt % (Bedu-Amissah et al. – Paragraph [0050]). However, Bedu-Amissah et al. does not disclose that the protective liner material is selected from a group of alloys having a nickel content in excess of 60% and wherein the protective weld-overlay is selected from a group of alloys having a nickel content in excess of 60%. Khan et al. reference discloses a coated superalloy article having a substrate of a nickel-base composition, with an oxidation resistant diffusion aluminide coating thereupon having improved resistance to spalling (Description) wherein the nickel-base superalloy substrate comprising up to 8 percent by weight aluminum, 5 to 18 percent chromium, and a small but effective amount of an additive element selected from the group consisting of zirconium, yttrium, and mixtures thereof (Summary of the Invention section – Paragraph [0002]). However, Khan (W095/30779) relates to improving oxidation and spalling resistance for turbine engine blades. Therefore, Khan reference does not provide any teaching regarding the protection of industrial catalyst tubes against nitridation in a reducing ammonia atmosphere.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUY-TRAM NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-3167. The examiner can normally be reached M-W, 7:00am - 3pm, 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, Claire X 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.
/HUY TRAM NGUYEN/Examiner, Art Unit 1774