DETAILED ACTION
This Final Rejection is in response to the Amendment filed August 14, 2025.
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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
In light of Applicant’s amendments the section 112 rejections are withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by the Klassen reference (hereinafter the “Klassen reference”) (US Patent Publication No. 2004/0112427) in view of the Bernardo reference (Recent advances in membrane technologies for hydrogen purification, International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, Volume 45, Issue 12, 4 March 2020, Pages 7313-7338).
Regarding claim 14, the Klassen reference discloses:
a method for transporting a component
The Klassen reference discloses the invention as essentially claimed. However, the Klassen reference fails to disclose comprising at least one membrane-electrode assembly. The Bernardo reference teaches in Table 2 a variety of Membrane Electrode Assemblies MEA and teaches in the “Section conclusions” section that “in the near future, the H2 produced in large quantities will need to be transported for long distances and the use of the existing natural gas pipelines is considered the best transport option.” Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a membrane-electrode assembly in a natural gas pipeline for the purpose of extracting hydrogen.
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) 1-7, 10-13, and 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Klassen reference (hereinafter the “Klassen reference”) (US Patent Publication No. 2004/0112427) in view of the Coelho Tsou reference (hereinafter the “CT reference”) (US Patent Publication No. 2012/0012471).
14. Regarding claim 1, the Klassen reference discloses:
an extraction unit (21) for extracting a component [Abstract--hydrogen]
- a tube or vessel [Abstract—pipe] comprising a transit channel [Abstract—lumen of pipe] for passing a gas mixture (3) in a feed-through direction from a receiving opening (FIG. 1) to a dispensing opening (FIG. 1), which tube or vessel is arranged to be received in-line in a gas transport pipe (FIG. 1);
- arranged in the tube or vessel [Paragraph 0018—hydrogen separator fluidly connected to pipe (1)]
The Klassen reference discloses the invention as essentially claimed. However, the Klassen reference fails to disclose at least one membrane-electrode assembly with at least one anode, a membrane and a cathode, a drain separated from the feed-through channel and wherein the anode and the cathode are provided with electrical connectors.
The CT reference teaches it is conventional in the art to provide as taught in [Paragraph 0035] at least one membrane-electrode [Paragraph 0035] assembly with at least one anode [Paragraph 0040], a membrane [Paragraph 0035] and a cathode [Paragraph 0041], a drain separated from the feed-through channel [Paragraph 0047—the transport of the hydrogen to the outer wall acts like a drain] and wherein the anode and the cathode are provided with electrical connectors [Paragraph 0052—implied].
Regarding the at least one baffle extending with a direction component perpendicular to the feed direction is located in the feed channel, the examiner takes Official Notice that it is well known in the art of chemical processes to provide baffles positioned perpendicular to the feed direction located in the feed channel for the purpose of exposing more flow to the tubes. For an illustration in the prior art please see: www.petrosync.com/blog/shell-and-tube-heat-exchanger/ which references Heat and Mass Transfer: Fundamentals & Applications which the 6th Edition was published March 21, 2019.
15. Regarding claim 2, the Klassen reference fails to disclose:
wherein the electrical connectors are for connection to a power source (implicit) and wherein the anode surface extends non-rectilinearly between the receiving opening and the discharge opening in order to increase a contact length and thereby a contact surface for passing gas, in particular wherein the anode surface is in a meandering, or wherein in a zigzag saw orientation of the anode surface has been established.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art by the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use wherein the anode surface extends non-rectilinearly between the receiving opening and the discharge opening in order to increase a contact length and thereby a contact surface for passing gas, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.04 (VI-C).
16. Regarding claim 3, the Klassen reference fails to disclose:
wherein there is a widening in the cross section of the tube or vessel between the receiving opening and the anode surface.
This would be obvious to try. The cross section could either narrow, widen, or stay the same and each of these solutions would have a reasonable expectation of success with influencing the flow in the tube. One of ordinary skill in the art by the effective filing date of the claimed invention would therefore find the features of claim 3 obvious.
17. Regarding claim 4, the Klassen reference fails to disclose:
in which there is a taper in the cross section of the tube or vessel between the anode surface and the discharge opening.
The examiner takes Official Notice that it is well known in the art of fluid flow that using a taper can influence the flow depending on the location where the taper is place for the purpose
of fluid flow control. For one example in the prior art discussing this aspect please see US Patent No. 2,912,858 Column 3, lines 10-18.
18. Regarding claim 6, the Klassen reference fails to disclose:
comprising a compressor for the component
The examiner takes Official Notice that it is well known to compress hydrogen with a compressor for the purpose of increasing density of the gases. See US 2016/0272558 for one example.
19. Regarding claim 7, the Klassen reference fails to disclose:
comprising an electrical voltage source connected to the anode and the cathode. The CT reference teaches this implicitly.
20. Regarding claim 10, the Klassen reference fails to disclose:
a method for extracting hydrogen from a gas mixture, comprising passing the gas mixture through an extraction unit according to claim 1, applying an electric voltage between the anode and cathode by means of an electric voltage source and passing
the component
The CT reference teaches it is conventional in the art to provide as taught that a method for extracting hydrogen from a gas mixture, comprising passing the gas mixture through an extraction unit according to claim 1 (obvious), applying an electric voltage between the anode and cathode by means of an electric voltage source (implicit) and passing the component, such as hydrogen or ammonium extracted from the gas mixture through the discharge channel (implicit).
21. Regarding claim 11, the Klassen reference fails to disclose:
wherein the gas mixture is a mixture comprising helium and hydrogen, derived from mining helium from a natural source.
The examiner takes Official Notice that it well known to use a helium and hydrogen mixture during a separation process and to mine helium for the purpose of obtaining helium and obtaining the gases individually. See JP 2006105917 for one example.
22. Regarding claim 12, the Klassen reference fails to disclose:
wherein the gas mixture is derived from ammonia, split into nitrogen and hydrogen.
The examiner takes Official Notice that it is well known that ammonia can be split into nitrogen and hydrogen. See US 2017/0203963 for one example.
23. Regarding claim 13, the Klassen reference fails to disclose:
wherein the gas mixture is a mixture of H2, CO2 and CO, in particular a mixture formed by a steam methane reforming process from fossil raw materials
The examiner takes Official Notice that it is well known to have mixtures of gases for the purpose of conducting chemical reactions. See US 2017/0312718 [Paragraph 0055] for one example.
25. Regarding claim 15, the Klassen reference fails to disclose:
wherein [[the]] a volume percentage of hydrogen or ammonium is between 5 and 25%
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art by the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use wherein the volume percentage is between 5 and 25%, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.04 (II-A).
26. Regarding claim 16, the Klassen reference fails to disclose:
wherein the current density across the membrane is below 0.5 A / cm2
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art by the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use wherein the current density across the membrane is below 0.5 A / cm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.04 (II-A).
27. Claim(s) 8, 9, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Klassen reference, in view of the CT reference, and further in view of the Alcantara reference (US Patent Publication No. 2015/0056303).
28. Regarding claim 8, the Klassen reference fails to disclose:
wherein the cathode comprises a channel structure for a cooling liquid.
The Alcantara reference teaches it is conventional in the electrolysis art to provide as taught in [Paragraph 0056] wherein the cathode comprises a channel for a cooling liquid [Paragraph 0056]. Such configurations/structures would allow the generation of a product having high performance, stability and efficiency [Paragraph 0056].
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art by the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the unit of the reference, such that the unit further includes wherein the cathode comprises a channel for a cooling liquid, as clearly suggested and taught by the Alcantara reference, in order to allow the generation of a product having high performance, stability and efficiency [Paragraph 0056].
29. Regarding claim 9, the Klassen reference fails to disclose:
wherein the cathode comprises a channel structure for moistening the membrane.
The Alcantara reference teaches it is conventional in the electrolysis art to provide as taught in [Paragraph 0056] wherein the cathode comprises a channel structure for moistening the membrane [Paragraph 0056--permeable to liquids and the membrane is between the anode and cathode]. Such configurations/structures would allow the generation of a product having high performance, stability and efficiency [Paragraph 0056].
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art by the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the unit of the reference, such that the unit further includes wherein the cathode comprises a channel structure for moistening the membrane [Paragraph 0056], as clearly suggested and taught by the Alcantara reference, in order to allow the generation of a product having high performance, stability and efficiency [Paragraph 0056].
30. Regarding claim 17, the Klassen reference further discloses:
comprising supplying
The Alcantara reference teaches it is conventional in the electrolysis art to provide as taught in [Paragraph 0056] wherein the cathode comprises a channel structure for moistening the membrane [Paragraph 0056--permeable to liquids and the membrane is between the anode and cathode]. Such configurations/structures would allow the generation of a product having high performance, stability and efficiency [Paragraph 0056].
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art by the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the unit of the reference, such that the unit further includes wherein the cathode comprises a channel structure for moistening the membrane
[Paragraph 0056], as clearly suggested and taught by the Alcantara reference, in order to allow the generation of a product having high performance, stability and efficiency [Paragraph 0056].
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed August 14, 2024 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Initially, claim 14 is rejected because the amendment, when combined with the newly located Bernardo reference, is obvious as explained in the rejection. Concerning the 103 rejections, each limitation of the claim has been mapped and taught and the motivation to combine has been clearly defined. Furthermore, the Bernado reference teaches how it was well known in the prior art to use these types of membranes in natural gas pipelines. Accordingly, all claims are finally rejected.
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 CHARLES J BRAUCH whose telephone number is (313)446-6511. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 AM to 6 PM.
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, Lindsay Low can be reached at (571) 272-1196. 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.
/CHARLES JOSEPH BRAUCH/
Examiner
Art Unit 3747
/LINDSAY M LOW/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3747