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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 5/29/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed with respect to the claim objections have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of the amendment. Accordingly, the previously set forth claim objections have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments regarding the drawing rejection and new matter rejection are not persuasive since claim 11 does not implicitly recite line 64r and system 70 also produces nitrogen vapor.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the new matter rejection for "GOK" acronym is not persuasive since the prior art that is incorporated by reference does not spell out the "GOK" acronym.
Applicant’s arguments filed with respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Please see below for new grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) necessitated by the amendment.
Applicant’s arguments filed with respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of the amendments. Accordingly, the previously set forth rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments regarding the prior art rejections are not persuasive since Guillard teaches that the letdown energy can be obtained by combinations of components/streams (see par 0017- 0018) and therefore Applicants arguments that Schwartz would change Guillard's approach is not persuasive.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to for including line 64r which is considered to add new matter (see specification objection below). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The amendment filed 5/29/2025 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows: “(i.e., Grenier over knee ("GOK" type)”; “As used herein, GOK type refers to an air separation unit having a high pressure (i.e.,>15 bara) main air compressor without the presence of a downstream booster air compressor (BAC)”; “e.g. recycled back to the ASU via line 64r)”. Regarding the “GOK type” amendment, there is no support for “Grenier over knee” in the original disclosure nor of a “downstream” booster air compressor. Regarding the amendment that defines line 64r, there is no indication in the original disclosure that supports the presence of line 64r as branching off from line 64. For example, system 70 also uses nitrogen with the nitrogen being vaporized in precooler 20 (see par 0056 and Fig 3) and claim 11 does not specify from which line the nitrogen is being recycled from. Applicant is reminded to indicate in the reply where there is support for the amendments in the original disclosure.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
Claim Objections
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the the high pressure feed air compressor” appears to be in error for –the high pressure feed air compressor--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “hydrogen generation unit” (i.e. unit [for] hydrogen generation) in claims 2, 9-13, 16-17, “primary refrigeration system” (i.e. system [for] primary refrigeration) in claim 1-17, “secondary refrigeration system” (i.e. system [for] secondary refrigeration) in claims 1-17.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
In the case of the “primary refrigeration system”, the corresponding structure is found in par 0024: “wherein the primary refrigeration system comprises compressors and expanders”. In the case of the “secondary refrigeration system”, the corresponding structure is found in par 0024: “a secondary refrigeration system (62,64)” (62: liquid nitrogen; 64: gaseous nitrogen). In the case of “hydrogen generation unit”, the corresponding structure is found in par 0051: “…introduced into HGU 40, which can be an SMR, ATR, POX or the like”.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claims 10 and 17 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 10 and 17, the specification does not support “wherein the liquid nitrogen has a mass flow rate between about 5% to about 50% of a mass flow rate of the oxygen stream sent to the hydrogen generation unit” in the original disclosure and the amendment does not appear to be supported since the original disclosure did not define the flow rate. Units “mtd” is not sufficient support for the mass flow rate to be “about 5% to about 50%...” . Claims 10 and 17 are therefore considered to introduce new matter.
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(s) 1-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guillard (US-20180038638-A1: previously cited) in view of Schwartz (US-20100272634-A1: previously cited).
Regarding claim 1, Guillard discloses a method for liquefaction of hydrogen in a hydrogen liquefaction unit (Fig 5 par 0089-0097, note: refer to Fig 4 for missing reference characters), the method comprising the steps of:
introducing a hydrogen stream into a precooling system (Fig 5, stream 315) under conditions effective (see 112 rejections above) for cooling the hydrogen stream, to produce a cooled hydrogen stream (par 0089-0097), wherein the precooling system comprises a primary refrigeration system and a secondary refrigeration system (see annotated Fig A);
introducing the cooled hydrogen stream to a liquefaction system under conditions effective for liquefying the cooled hydrogen stream to produce liquid hydrogen; (Fig 5 second heat exchanger 355, stream 369: liquefied portion) and
withdrawing the liquid hydrogen from the liquefaction system (Fig 5, see stream 369 withdrawn from exchanger 355 as liquid hydrogen product 346).
Guillard is silent regarding wherein the primary refrigeration system is independent of the secondary refrigeration system.
Schwartz teaches a primary refrigeration system (Schwartz Fig 1 nitrogen in gas stream 92) and a secondary refrigeration system (Schwartz Fig 1 streams 96/100/104/106) wherein the primary refrigeration system is independent of the secondary refrigeration system (Schwartz Fig 1 streams 92 and streams 96/100/104/106 do not fluidly communicate with each other).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the method of Guillard with wherein the primary refrigeration system is independent of the secondary refrigeration system, as taught by Schwartz, as doing so would benefit the system of Guillard by enabling the operations of the primary system and secondary system to be independent such that refrigerants with different physical properties can be used to optimize cooling efficiencies when desired. The modification to Guillard would result in eliminating the section of stream 326 that supplies separator 336, and including a stream that supplies nitrogen directly to separator 336.
Inclusive of claims 1, 3, 4, and 6, Guillard is silent regarding cooling the hydrogen stream to a temperature between about 75K and about 100K with the precooling system; wherein the primary refrigeration system is configured to provide cooling within the precooling system to the hydrogen stream to a first temperature between about 100K and about 120K; wherein the first temperature is within about 30K of a vaporization temperature of liquid nitrogen used within the secondary refrigeration system; wherein the secondary refrigeration system is configured to provide cooling within the precooling system to the temperature of between about 75K and about 100K.
However, a temperature that the hydrogen stream is cooled to in the precooling system, including with the primary and secondary refrigeration systems, is a result effective variable, as recognized by the teachings of Guillard (see paragraph(s) 0084: purified hydrogen is cooled in the first heat exchanger 345 to a temperature sufficient to remove impurities by adsorption).
It would, therefore, have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to operate the system of Guillard with introducing a hydrogen stream into the precooling system under conditions effective for cooling the hydrogen stream to a temperature between about 75K and about 100K wherein the primary refrigeration system is configured to provide cooling within the precooling system to the hydrogen stream to a first temperature between about 100K and about 120K, wherein the first temperature is within about 30K of a vaporization temperature of liquid nitrogen used within the secondary refrigeration system, and wherein the secondary refrigeration system is configured to provide cooling within the precooling system to a temperature of between about 75K and about 100K, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art (see In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955); In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977)).
Examiner notes that the modification would result in precooling the hydrogen to 75K-100K in the precooling system, where the primary refrigeration system cools the hydrogen stream to 100K-120K, and the secondary refrigeration system cools the hydrogen stream to 75K-100K. Since the secondary refrigeration system uses liquid nitrogen which cools near 77K, operating with the aforementioned temperatures would permit more of the cooling capacity of the primary system to be applied at warmer temperatures and improve the efficiency of the cooling operation overall.
PNG
media_image1.png
819
697
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Guillard further discloses wherein the hydrogen stream is sourced from a hydrogen generation unit (Guillard Fig 2 pressure swing adsorber PSA, par 0019).
Regarding claim 5, Guillard further discloses wherein the primary refrigeration system uses refrigeration produced by a refrigerant selected from the group consisting of a hydrocarbon refrigerant, a mixed hydrocarbon refrigerant, nitrogen as part of a closed loop refrigeration cycle, argon, fluorocarbons, vaporization of liquid nitrogen, ammonia, and combinations thereof (Guillard Fig 5 par 0089: nitrogen is vaporized as it passes through exchanger #345 in primary refrigeration system depicted in annotated Fig A).
Regarding claim 7, Guillard further discloses wherein the secondary refrigeration system comprises vaporization of liquid nitrogen (Guillard par 0083), wherein the liquid nitrogen is received directly from an air separation unit (Guillard Fig 5 nitrogen coming from a nitrogen pipeline #320, par 0075, par 0066, and 0083: nitrogen sourced from a pipeline is considered to be a pressurized gas stream originating from an ASU and delivered at least partially in condensed form; since the flow of nitrogen is unobstructed, the nitrogen is therefore considered to be directly received from the air separation unit).
Regarding claim 8, Guillard further discloses wherein the vaporization of liquid nitrogen in the secondary refrigeration system occurs at a vaporization pressure that is less than a discharge pressure of a cold turbine used within the primary refrigeration system (Guillard Fig 5 turbines #328 or #332, par 0091: streams #329 and #334 from turbines are at 8.5 bara which is greater than atmospheric pressure of stream #337).
Claim(s) 9, 10, 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guillard (US-20180038638-A1: previously cited) in view of Schwartz (US-20100272634-A1: previously cited), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Turney (US-20200141640-A1: previously cited).
Regarding claim 9, Guillard further discloses comprising the step of providing an air separation unit (Guillard Fig 3 ASU) and hydrogen generation unit (Guillard Fig 2 pressure swing adsorber PSA, par 0019), wherein the air separation unit is configured to produce an oxygen stream (Guillard Fig 3 ASU, oxygen stream 244, par 0103).
Guillard does not disclose wherein the air separation unit is configured to produce a liquid nitrogen stream, wherein the air separation unit is in fluid communication with the hydrogen generation unit and a secondary refrigeration system, such that the air separation unit is configured to send the oxygen stream to the hydrogen generation unit and the liquid nitrogen to the secondary refrigeration system.
However, Turney teaches wherein an air separation unit (Turney Fig 8 ASU #106) is configured to produce a liquid nitrogen stream (Turney Fig 8 liquid N2 #402 from ASU #106, par 0143-0144), wherein the air separation unit is in fluid communication with a hydrogen generation unit (Turney Fig 8 ASU #106 and hydrogen generator #101 communicate via oxygen stream #103) and a secondary refrigeration system (Turney Fig 8 ASU #106 and secondary refrigeration cycle communicate via liquid nitrogen stream #402, see par 0086), such that the air separation unit is configured to send the oxygen stream to the hydrogen generation unit (Turney Fig 8 #106 sends #103 to #101) and the liquid nitrogen to the secondary refrigeration system (Turney Fig 8 #106 sends #402 to secondary refrigeration cycle, par 0086).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Modified Guillard so that the air separation unit produces a liquid nitrogen stream, wherein the air separation unit is in fluid communication with the hydrogen generation unit and the secondary refrigeration system, such that the air separation unit is configured to send the oxygen stream to the hydrogen generation unit and the liquid nitrogen stream to the secondary refrigeration system, as taught by Turney, as doing so would benefit the system of Modified Guillard by sourcing both the nitrogen and oxygen products efficiently from ambient air. Therefore, the utilization of the available oxygen and nitrogen being produced from the ASU with the demands of the other processes such as hydrogen generation unit and hydrogen liquefaction is optimized (see Turney par 0115).
Regarding claim 10, Guillard does not disclose wherein the liquid nitrogen has a mass flow rate between about 5% to about 50% of a mass flow rate of the oxygen stream sent to the hydrogen generation unit.
However, the flow rate (volumetric, mass flow etc.) of the oxygen stream is a result effective variable, as recognized by Turney (see paragraph(s) Turney par 0118: the oxygen required from the ASU is a function of liquid hydrogen product flow). Likewise, the amount of the liquid nitrogen would ordinarily be determined based on the cooling required therefrom and would obviously be less than the oxygen flow rate in situations where the hydrogen generation unit requires larger quantities of oxygen and the cooling requirements of the liquid nitrogen are smaller. It would, therefore, have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the system of Modified Guillard with wherein the liquid nitrogen has a mass flow rate between about 5% to about 50% of a mass flow rate of the oxygen stream sent to the hydrogen generation unit, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art (see In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955); In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977)).
Regarding claim 12, Guillard further discloses wherein the air separation unit comprises a high pressure feed air compressor (Guillard Fig 7 main air compressor #210, compressed oxygen will be compressed to a high pressure).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guillard (US-20180038638-A1: previously cited) in view of Schwartz (US-20100272634-A1: previously cited) and Turney (US-20200141640-A1: previously cited), as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Turney2017 (US-20170038137-A1: previously cited).
Regarding claim 11, Guillard does not disclose further comprising recycling a vaporized nitrogen stream from the hydrogen liquefaction unit to the air separation unit.
Turney2017 teaches recycling a vaporized nitrogen stream (Turney2017 Fig 1 gaseous nitrogen #28 to nitrogen recycle #44) from a liquefaction unit (Turney2017 Fig 1 heat exchanger #10 and LNG heat exchanger #120) to an air separation unit (Turney2017 Fig 1 air separation unit #19) (Turney2017 par 0037).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the method of Modified Guillard with recycling a vaporized nitrogen stream from the hydrogen liquefaction unit to the air separation unit, as taught by Turney2017, as doing so would benefit the system of Modified Guillard by utilizing nitrogen that would otherwise be vented to the atmosphere to provide heat to components of the air separation unit, such as a boiler (see Turney2017 par 0041), thereby increasing the efficiency of the system.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guillard (US-20180038638-A1: previously cited) in view of Schwartz (US-20100272634-A1: previously cited) and Turney (US-20200141640-A1: previously cited), as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of AAPA (Applicant admitted prior art: previously cited).
Regarding claim 13, Guillard is silent regarding the high pressure feed air compressor has an outlet pressure greater than 15 bara.
However, AAPA teaches that a GOK air separation unit having a high pressure (i.e. >15 bara) air compressor (AAPA paragraph 0035-0036 of the specification, GOK defined in paragraph 0021 of the amended specification).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Modified Guillard with wherein the high pressure feed air compressor has an outlet pressure greater than 15 bara, as taught by AAPA, as doing so would benefit the system of Modified Guillard by producing gaseous oxygen with a single compressor which can minimize equipment costs.
Claim(s) 14, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guillard (US-20180038638-A1: previously cited) in view of Schwartz (US-20100272634-A1: previously cited).
Regarding claim 14, Guillard discloses a method for liquefaction of hydrogen in a hydrogen liquefaction unit (Fig 5 par 0089-0097, note: refer to Fig 4 for missing reference characters), the method comprising the steps of:
introducing a hydrogen stream into a precooling system (Fig 5, hydrogen stream 315) under conditions effective for cooling the hydrogen stream, to produce a cooled hydrogen stream (par 0089-0097), wherein the precooling system comprises a primary refrigeration system and a secondary refrigeration system (see annotated Fig A);
introducing the cooled hydrogen stream to a liquefaction system under conditions effective for liquefying the cooled hydrogen stream to produce liquid hydrogen; (Fig 5 second heat exchanger 355, stream 369: liquefied portion) and withdrawing the liquid hydrogen from the liquefaction system (Fig 5, see stream 369 withdrawn from exchanger 355 as liquid hydrogen product 346).
wherein the primary refrigeration system comprises compression and expansion of a primary refrigerant with expansion outlet pressure of P1 (Fig 5 par 0089: streams 329 and 334 are expanded to a medium pressure, i.e. P1, see annotated Fig A: nitrogen in primary cooling system is considered as primary refrigerant) and the secondary refrigeration system comprises vaporization of a secondary refrigerant at pressure P2, wherein the secondary refrigerant is nitrogen (Fig 5 par 0083: stream 337 is at atmospheric pressure when it is introduced to separator 336 and vented to atmosphere, i.e. P2, see annotated Fig A: nitrogen in secondary cooling system considered as secondary refrigerant).
Guillard does not disclose cooling the hydrogen stream to a temperature between 75K and 100K.
However, temperature of a hydrogen stream is a results effective variable, as recognized by the teachings of Guillard (see paragraph(s) 0084: purified hydrogen is cooled in the first heat exchanger 345 to a temperature sufficient to remove impurities by adsorption).
It would, therefore, have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to operate the system of Guillard with introducing a hydrogen stream into a precooling system under conditions effective for cooling the hydrogen stream to a temperature of between 75K and 100K, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art (see In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955); In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977)).
Guillard does not disclose wherein the primary and secondary refrigerants are not in fluid communication.
Schwartz teaches a primary (Schwartz Fig 1 nitrogen in gas stream 92) and a secondary (Schwartz Fig 1 nitrogen in streams 96/100/104/106) refrigerant wherein the primary and secondary refrigerants are not in fluid communication (Schwartz Fig 1 streams 92 and streams 96/100/104/106 do not fluidly communicate with each other).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the system of Guillard with wherein the primary and secondary refrigerants are not in fluid communication, as taught by Schwartz, as doing so would benefit the system of Guillard by enabling the operations of the primary system and secondary system to be independent such that refrigerants with different physical properties can be used to optimize cooling efficiencies when desired. The modification to Guillard would result in eliminating the section of stream 326 that supplies separator 336, and including a stream that supplies nitrogen directly to separator 336.
Regarding claim 15, Modified Guillard further discloses wherein P1 is at least 0.5 bar greater than P2 (par 0091: streams 329 and 334 are at 8.5 bara which is greater than atmospheric pressure of stream 337).
Claim(s) 16 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guillard (US-20180038638-A1: previously cited) in view of Schwartz (US-20100272634-A1: previously cited), as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Turney (US-20200141640-A1: previously cited).
Regarding claim 16, Guillard further discloses comprising the step of providing an air separation unit (Guillard Fig 3 ASU) and hydrogen generation unit (Guillard Fig 5 purified hydrogen stream #315), wherein the air separation unit is configured to produce an oxygen stream (Guillard Fig 3 ASU, oxygen stream 244, par 0103).
Guillard does not disclose wherein the air separation unit is configured to produce a liquid nitrogen stream, wherein the air separation unit is in fluid communication with the hydrogen generation unit and a secondary refrigeration system, such that the air separation unit is configured to send the oxygen stream to the hydrogen generation unit and the liquid nitrogen to the secondary refrigeration system.
However, Turney teaches wherein an air separation unit (Turney Fig 8 ASU #106) is configured to produce a liquid nitrogen stream (Turney Fig 8 liquid N2 #402 from ASU #106, par 0143-0144), wherein the air separation unit is in fluid communication with a hydrogen generation unit (Turney Fig 8 ASU #106 and hydrogen generator #101 communicate via oxygen stream #103) and a secondary refrigeration system (Turney Fig 8 ASU #106 and secondary refrigeration cycle communicate via liquid nitrogen stream #402, see par 0086), such that the air separation unit is configured to send the oxygen stream to the hydrogen generation unit (Turney Fig 8 #106 sends #103 to #101) and the liquid nitrogen to the secondary refrigeration system (Turney Fig 8 #106 sends #402 to secondary refrigeration cycle, par 0086).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the system of Modified Guillard so that the air separation unit produces a liquid nitrogen stream, wherein the air separation unit is in fluid communication with the hydrogen generation unit and the secondary refrigeration system, such that the air separation unit is configured to send the oxygen stream to the hydrogen generation unit and the liquid nitrogen stream to the secondary refrigeration system, as taught by Turney, as doing so would benefit the system of Modified Guillard by sourcing both the nitrogen and oxygen products efficiently from ambient air. Therefore, the utilization of the available oxygen and nitrogen being produced from the ASU with the demands of the other processes such as hydrogen generation unit and hydrogen liquefaction is optimized (see Turney par 0115).
Regarding claim 17, Guillard does not disclose wherein the liquid nitrogen has a mass flow rate of about 5% to about 50% of a mass flow rate of the oxygen stream sent to the hydrogen generation unit.
However, the flow rate (volumetric, mass flow rate etc.) of the oxygen stream is a results effective variable, as recognized by Turney (see paragraph(s) Turney par 0118: the oxygen required from the ASU is a function of liquid hydrogen product flow). Likewise, the amount of the liquid nitrogen would ordinarily be determined based on the cooling required therefrom and would obviously be less than the oxygen flow rate in situations where the hydrogen generation unit requires larger quantities of oxygen and the cooling requirements of the liquid nitrogen are smaller.
It would, therefore, have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the system of Modified Guillard with wherein the liquid nitrogen has a mass flow rate of about 5% to about 50% of a mass flow rate of the oxygen stream sent to the hydrogen generation unit, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art (see In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955); In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977)).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ESMERALDA ARREGUIN-MARTINEZ whose telephone number is (571)270-0174. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am - 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, Jianying Atkisson can be reached at (571) 270-7740. 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.
/ESMERALDA ARREGUIN-MARTINEZ/Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/MIGUEL A DIAZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights