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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 February 10, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed February 10, 2026 have been fully considered.
Applicant (at page 6, second paragraph) argues,
“… while Hatama discloses a heat exchanger, it does not disclose heating degassed raw material using reaction heat following a dehydrogenation reaction. Particularly, Hatama fails to disclose a degassing unit…”
The argument is not considered persuasive because one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In this case, the argued feature of a degassing unit for producing a degassed raw material was taught by the secondary reference to Spadaccini ‘919.
Applicant (at page 6, last paragraph) further argues,
“… Spadaccini '919 also fails to disclose a heat exchange unit that uses heat emitted by the hydrogen-containing gas, following the dehydrogenation reaction, to heat the degassed organic hydride supplied by the degassing unit, as generally recited in amended independent claim 1. For example, the heat exchange in Spadaccini '919 is merely for the purpose of cooling (i.e., heat sink) during endothermic decomposition of the fuel. In other words, the heat exchange unit of Spadaccini '919 is used for cooling propulsion system components. Thus, the system of Spadaccini ‘919 differs from the design and configuration of the present application, which uses heat exchange to effectively raise the temperature of the degassed raw material to the reaction temperature…”.
The Office respectfully disagrees.
Spadaccini ‘919 was merely relied upon as a secondary reference to teach a degassing unit (i.e., a fuel deoxygenator 22,22’) for removing dissolved oxygen from an endothermic fuel (i.e., an organic hydride such as methylcyclohexane, as defined by Spadaccini ‘672), so that thermo-oxidative reactions caused by the dissolved oxygen in the fuel, which can cause the formation of coke that fouls the catalyst in an endothermic decomposition reaction (i.e., the catalyst in a dehydrogenation reaction of methylcyclohexane to hydrogen and toluene, as defined by Spadaccini ‘672), are reduced.
Also, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
Applicant (at page 7, second paragraph) further argues,
“Moreover, Maria and Spadaccini '672 fail to cure the deficiencies of Hatama and Spadaccini '919. For example, the Official Action does not rely on either Maria or Spadaccini '672 for disclosing degassing units.”
The Office respectfully disagrees.
Maria et al. was merely relied upon to further evidence that coking and deactivation of dehydrogenation catalysts during the dehydrogenation of organic hydrides, such as MCH, is a well-known problem.
Also, Spadaccini ‘672 was merely relied upon to define the terms “endothermic decomposition” and “endothermic fuels” as used in the Spadaccini ‘919 disclosure.
Applicant (at page 7, last paragraph, to page 8, second paragraph) further argues,
“… Hatama, Spadaccini '919, and Spadaccini '672 are fundamentally different in their technical fields and the problems they intend to solve. For example, Hatama describes a technology for decomposing an organic hydride into hydrogen and a dehydrogenation product by a dehydrogenation reaction. Particularly, the Hatama technology obtains hydrogen and recovers the dehydrogenation product (e.g., recovered toluene), which is then reacted with hydrogen again to be repeatedly used as a hydride (organic hydride) (i.e., using organic hydride as a hydrogen carrier). See e.g., paragraph [0007] of Hatama. Accordingly, the downstream processes of Hatama are directed to gas-liquid separation, purification, and compression of products.
In contrast, Spadaccini '919 and Spadaccini '672 relate to propulsion systems (e.g., jet engines) for aircraft and the like. Particularly, in both of the Spadaccini systems, after the fuel is deoxygenated and decomposed, the entire amount of remaining product is sent to a combustion chamber and consumed. Thus, Spadaccini '919 and Spadaccini '672 are not at all related to the concept of separating, recovering, and reusing products, and therefore would not be used to solve the problems of a circulating hydrogen production plant, as described in Hatama.”
The Office respectfully disagrees.
In response to applicant's argument that Spadaccini ‘919 and ‘672 are nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art would have considered the references to Spadaccini ‘919 and ‘672 to be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which applicant was concerned; namely, how to remove an inorganic gas, such as oxygen, dissolved in an organic hydride raw material for a dehydrogenation reaction (see Applicant’s specification, at paragraphs [0004]-[0005], [0012]).
Also, while Hatama et al. describes a hydrogen supply system, and Spadaccini ‘919 describes a fuel system for a propulsion system, both the hydrogen supply system and the fuel system employ a similar catalytic reaction; namely, the dehydrogenation of an organic hydride (see Spadaccini ‘672). Thus, it would have been further obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the known technique of degassing the organic hydride, as taught by the combination of Spadaccini ‘919 and Spadaccini ‘672, to likewise improve the dehydrogenation of the organic hydride in the hydrogen supply system of Hatama et al., and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP § 2143, I.C.
In response to applicant’s arguments (at page 8, third paragraph, to page 9, first paragraph) that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, the teachings of Spadaccini ‘919 and ‘672 would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art that the provision of a degassing unit, which removes dissolved oxygen from an organic hydride raw material to be subjected to heating and dehydrogenation, substantially reduces the formation of coke caused by thermo-oxidative reactions, and thereby decreases the rate at which the dehydrogenation catalyst would be fouled by coke deposits.
Applicant (at page 9, second to last paragraph) further argues that, “… Spadaccini ‘919 and Spadaccini ‘672 at least fail to disclose or render obvious a gas-liquid separation unit and a compression unit…”.
The argument is not found persuasive because Spadaccini ‘919 was merely relied upon to teach a degassing unit (i.e., a fuel deoxygenator 22,22’) for removing dissolved oxygen from an endothermic fuel (i.e., an organic hydride raw material). Also, Spadaccini ‘672 was merely relied upon to define the terms “endothermic decomposition” and “endothermic fuels” as used in the Spadaccini ‘919 disclosure.
Applicant (at page 10, first paragraph) further argues,
“… Spadaccini '919 and Spadaccini '672 are intended to prevent coke deposition in engine piping. Whereas the current application is intended to reduce the purification load in the hydrogen purification unit (e.g., suppression of dew point rise due to removal of inorganic gas).”
However, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
Lastly, with respect to new claims 4 and 5, a new ground of rejection is made in view of the newly discovered prior art to Kokubu et al. (JP 2004-197705 A).
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.
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.
Claims 1 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hatama et al. (JP 2016-169133 A) in view of Maria et al. (Chemical Engineering Science, Vol. 51, No. 11, pp. 2891-2896, 1996), Spadaccini ‘919 (US 2005/0204919), and Spadaccini ‘672 (US 5,232,672).
Regarding claim 1, Hatama et al. discloses a hydrogen supply system that supplies hydrogen (see embodiment of FIG. 4-5 and translation), comprising:
a dehydrogenation reaction unit (i.e., a dehydrogenation reactor 10 containing a dehydrogenation catalyst; see page 3, fourth to sixth paragraphs) that subjects an organic hydride (i.e., an organic hydride supplied from a tank T1, e.g., the description is made using methylcyclohexane (MCH) as the organic hydride; see page 2, last paragraph) to a dehydrogenation reaction to obtain a hydrogen-containing gas (i.e., a dehydrogenation reaction product stream V3 containing hydrogen, toluene, and undecomposed MCH);
a hydrogen purification unit (i.e., a hydrogen purifier 50, e.g., a pressure swing adsorption (PSA) type hydrogen purifier, as shown, or a temperature swing adsorption (TSA) type hydrogen purifier; see page 8, second paragraph) that removes a dehydrogenation product (i.e., an off-gas G31) from the hydrogen-containing gas obtained in the dehydrogenation reaction unit 10 to obtain a purified gas including hydrogen (i.e., purified hydrogen V31, which is sent to the outside as product hydrogen V32);
a heat exchange unit that performs heat exchange between the hydrogen-containing gas and the organic hydride (i.e., a heater 13 that exchanges heat between the dehydrogenation reaction product V3 and the MCH input V1; see paragraph bridging pages 3-4), and wherein the heat exchange unit 13 uses heat emitted by the hydrogen-containing gas V3, following the dehydrogenation reaction, to heat the organic hydride V1;
a liquid transfer pump (i.e., a pump P1; see page 3, fifth paragraph);
a gas-liquid separation unit (i.e., a first gas-liquid separation system 35 and a second gas-liquid separation system 36; see page 5, third paragraph) that separates a liquid dehydrogenation product (i.e., a liquid substance comprising liquid impurities L21 and L22; e.g., toluene; see page 6, first paragraph) from the hydrogen-containing gas, wherein the gas-liquid separation unit 35,36 is downstream from the dehydrogenation reaction unit 10; and
a compression unit (i.e., a compressor P3; see page 5, third paragraph) that is configured to compress the hydrogen-containing gas (i.e., in stream V7) from the gas-liquid separation unit 35,36, wherein the compression unit P3 is provided between the gas-liquid separation unit 35,36 and the hydrogen purification unit 30;
wherein the liquid transfer pump P1 supplies the organic hydride from an organic hydride supply source (i.e., the tank T1 containing the organic hydride, e.g., MCH) to the dehydrogenation reaction unit 10.
Hatama et al. discloses that coking and deterioration of the dehydrogenation catalyst is a problem encountered during the dehydrogenation reaction. Hatama et al. therefore discloses the inputting of a relatively small amount of hydrogen (i.e., from off-gas G31) to the dehydrogenation reactor 10, so the coking phenomenon and deterioration of the dehydrogenation catalyst “can be more effectively suppressed” (see page 6, second paragraph).
As further evidenced by Maria et al., coking and deterioration of dehydrogenation catalysts during the dehydrogenation of organic hydrides, such as the dehydrogenation of MCH to hydrogen and toluene, is a well-known problem. Even with an input of hydrogen, coking and deterioration of the dehydrogenation catalyst occur (see Experiments).
Hatama et al., however, fails to disclose that the system further comprises:
a degassing unit that removes an inorganic gas contained in the organic hydride on an upstream side of the dehydrogenation reaction unit 10 in a flow of the organic hydride, such that the degassed organic hydride is supplied to the dehydrogenation reaction unit 10;
wherein the degassing unit comprises a degassing membrane separator; wherein the heat exchanger 13 uses the heat emitted by the hydrogen-containing gas V3, following the dehydrogenation reaction, to heat the degassed organic hydride supplied by the degassing unit; wherein the liquid transfer pump P1 directly supplies the organic hydride from the organic hydride supply source T1 to the degassing unit, and wherein that the degassing unit removes the inorganic gas contained in the organic hydride supplied from the liquid transfer pump P1.
Spadaccini ‘919 discloses an apparatus (see FIG. 1) comprising: a reaction unit 24 that subjects an “endothermic fuel” to an “endothermic decomposition” reaction (i.e., a catalyst module 24 containing a catalytic material 36 that promotes the endothermic decomposition of an endothermic fuel into combustible products with lower molecular weights than the original fuel after absorbing a heat of reaction; see paragraphs [0003], [0021]); and a fuel delivery system 20 including a degassing unit (i.e., a fuel deoxygenator 22, configured as a fuel deoxygenator 22’; see FIG. 2, paragraphs [0027]-[0028]); wherein the degassing unit 22’ comprises a degassing membrane separator (i.e., a housing 40 containing a plurality of tubes 42 including a composite permeable membrane 48; see FIG. 4; paragraphs [0028], [0030]-[0032]); wherein the degassing unit 22’ removes an inorganic gas (i.e., dissolved oxygen) in the endothermic fuel on an upstream side of the reaction unit 24; and wherein the degassed endothermic fuel is supplied to the reaction unit 24.
Spadaccini ‘919 (see paragraphs [0004]-[0005]; with emphasis) further discloses,
“… thermo-oxidative reactions caused by dissolved oxygen within the fuel can cause formation of coke that foul the catalyst and prevent the preferred catalytic reactions.
At temperatures between approximately 250° F. to 800° F. dissolved oxygen within the fuel reacts to form coke precursors that initiate and propagate reactions that lead to coke deposit formation. At temperatures above approximately 800° F. the mechanism for formation of coke deposits is controlled by thermal cracking (pyrolysis) reactions where chemical bonds are broken forming coke. Reducing the amount of oxygen dissolved within the fuel decreases the rate of coke deposition at relatively lower temperatures…”.
Spadaccini ‘672 is further relied upon to define the terms “endothermic decomposition” and “endothermic fuels” as used in the context of the Spadaccini ‘919 disclosure.
Spadaccini ‘672 discloses an apparatus comprising a reaction unit (i.e., a heat exchanger-reactor; see FIG. 1-6) containing a catalyst 6 that subjects an endothermic fuel to an endothermic decomposition reaction. Spadaccini ‘672 defines the term “endothermic decomposition” as a reaction in which “an endothermic fuel is catalytically decomposed into reaction products having lower molecular weights than the original endothermic fuel after absorbing a heat of reaction”, wherein “Common endothermic decomposition reactions include the dehydrogenation of naphthenes to hydrogen and aromatics” (see column 3, lines 42-59). Spadaccini ‘672 further defines the term “endothermic fuel” as a fuel capable of undergoing an endothermic decomposition reaction, wherein “Fuels capable of undergoing dehydrogenation … include C6 to C20 naphthenes, such as methylcyclohexane” (see column 3, lines 59-62). (i.e., organic hydrides). Spadaccini ‘672 also notes that most of the prior work on endothermic fuel systems is based on the dehydrogenation of naphthenes over precious metal catalysts, for example, the dehydrogenation of methylcyclohexane (MCH) to hydrogen and toluene over a platinum on alumina catalyst (see column 2, lines 6-12).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a degassing unit comprising a degassing membrane separator on an upstream side of the dehydrogenation reaction unit 10 in the hydrogen supply system of Hatama et al., wherein the pump P1 directly supplies the organic hydride from the organic hydride supply source T1 to the degassing unit and the degassing unit supplies the degassed organic hydride to the heat exchange unit 13, because the coking and deterioration of the catalyst during the dehydrogenation of organic hydrides, such as methylcyclohexane, is a well-known problem, as recognized by Hatama et al. and Maria et al., and the degassing unit would enable the removal of dissolved oxygen from the organic hydride raw material in order to substantially reduce the formation of coke caused by thermo-oxidative reactions, so that the rate at which the dehydrogenation catalyst is fouled by coke deposits would be further reduced, as taught by the combined teachings of Spadaccini ‘919 and Spadaccini ‘672.
Regarding claim 4, Hatama et al. discloses that the hydrogen purification unit 50 (see FIG. 4-5) employs at least one of a pressure swing adsorption (PSA) method and a temperature swing adsorption (TSA) method as a hydrogen separation method (i.e., the hydrogen purifier 50 comprises a pressure swing adsorption (PSA) type hydrogen purifier, shown, or a temperature swing adsorption (TSA) type hydrogen purifier; see page 8, second paragraph).
Claims 1, 4, and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kokubu et al. (JP 2004-197705 A) in view of Spadaccini ‘649 (US 2005/0274649), Spadaccini ‘919 (US 2005/0204919), and Spadaccini ‘672 (US 5,232,672).
Regarding claim 1, Kokubu et al. discloses a hydrogen supply system that supplies hydrogen (see FIG. 1-2 and translation), comprising:
a dehydrogenation reaction unit (i.e., a reactor 5 of a hydrogen production apparatus 4, wherein the reactor 5 is filled with a dehydrogenation catalyst in a catalyst loading region 5a, and wherein the reactor 5 is heated by a high-temperature exhaust gas of about 500 °C that flows through an exhaust gas flow area 5b; see paragraph [0034]-[0035]) that subjects an organic hydride (i.e., a raw material organic hydride, for example, cyclohexane or decalin, stored in a raw material storage tank 1) to a dehydrogenation reaction to obtain a hydrogen-containing gas (i.e., a reaction mixture containing hydrogen);
a hydrogen purification unit (i.e., a hydrogen purifier 23; see paragraphs [0039]-[0040]) that removes a dehydrogenation product (i.e., unsuitable impurities, usable as fuel at a combustion turbine generator 6) from the hydrogen containing gas obtained in the dehydrogenation reaction unit 5 to obtain a purified gas including hydrogen (i.e., purified hydrogen, sent to a subsequent compressor 25);
a heat exchange unit (i.e., a heat exchanger 3; see FIG. 2; paragraph [0037]) that performs heat exchange between the hydrogen-containing gas (i.e., the reaction mixture leaving the reactor 5) and the organic hydride (i.e., the organic hydride supplied by a pump 2), wherein the heat exchange unit 3 is provided between an organic hydride supply source 1 and the dehydrogenation reaction unit 5; and wherein the heat exchange unit 3 uses heat emitted by the hydrogen-containing gas, following the dehydrogenation reaction, to heat the organic hydride supplied from the organic hydride supply source 1 (i.e., the organic hydride is indirectly heated by the reaction mixture to a temperature of 150 to 170 °C in the heat exchanger 3; see paragraph [0033]);
a liquid transfer pump (i.e., the pump 2; see paragraph [0033]);
a gas-liquid separation unit (i.e., a gas-liquid separator 12; see paragraph [0037]) that separates a liquid dehydrogenation product (i.e., aromatic compounds, for example, benzene or naphthalene, as dehydrogenation products through line 15) from the hydrogen-containing gas, wherein the gas-liquid separation unit 12 is downstream from the dehydrogenation reaction unit 5 (see FIG. 2); and
a compression unit (i.e., a pre-compressor 14; see FIG. 1, paragraphs [0038]-[0039]) that is configured to compress the hydrogen-containing gas (i.e., in line 13) from the gas-liquid separation unit 12, wherein the compression unit 14 is provided between the gas-liquid separation unit 12 and the hydrogen purification unit 23.
Kokubu et al. fails to disclose that the system further comprises:
a degassing unit that removes an inorganic gas contained in the organic hydride on an upstream side of the dehydrogenation reaction unit 5 in a flow of the organic hydride;
wherein the degassed organic hydride is supplied to the dehydrogenation reaction unit 5, and wherein the degassing unit comprises a degassing membrane separator; wherein the heat exchanger 3 uses the heat emitted by the hydrogen-containing gas (i.e., the reaction mixture leaving the reactor 5), following the dehydrogenation reaction, to heat the degassed organic hydride supplied by the degassing unit; wherein the liquid transfer pump 2 directly supplies the organic hydride from the organic hydride supply source 1 to the degassing unit, and wherein that the degassing unit removes the inorganic gas contained in the organic hydride supplied from the liquid transfer pump 2.
Spadaccini ‘649 (see FIG. 1; paragraphs [0004],[0020]) discloses that fuel 14 is typically stored in containers 12 that include a quantity of air 18 that fills a space not occupied by the fuel; wherein the oxygen 20 in the air 18 becomes dissolved in the fuel 14, and, upon heating, the oxygen dissolved in the fuel is known to initiate auto-oxidative reactions that lead to the formation of coke deposits on the interior surfaces of fuel systems. It is therefore desirable to remove the dissolved oxygen from the fuel. Thus, Spadaccini ‘649 discloses a degassing unit (i.e., a fuel deoxygenator 30; see FIG. 2, 3) for removing an inorganic gas (i.e., dissolved oxygen) in a hydrocarbon fuel 14 supplied from a fuel tank 28, wherein the degassing unit 30 comprises a degassing membrane separator (i.e., a permeable membrane 50 for diffusion of the dissolved oxygen; see paragraphs [0024]-[0025]) for removing the inorganic gas contained in the fuel.
Spadaccini ‘919 discloses an apparatus (see FIG. 1) comprising: a reaction unit 24 that subjects an “endothermic fuel” to an “endothermic decomposition” reaction (i.e., a catalyst module 24 with a catalytic material 36 promoting the endothermic decomposition of an endothermic fuel to combustible products with lower molecular weights than the original fuel after absorbing a heat of reaction; see paragraphs [0003], [0021]); and a fuel delivery system 20 including a degassing unit (i.e., a fuel deoxygenator 22, configured as deoxygenator 22’; see FIG. 2, paragraphs [0027]-[0028]); wherein the degassing unit 22’ comprises a degassing membrane separator (i.e., a housing 40 containing tubes 42 including a membrane 48; see FIG. 4; paragraphs [0028], [0030]-[0032]); wherein the degassing unit 22’ removes an inorganic gas (i.e., dissolved oxygen) in the endothermic fuel on an upstream side of the reaction unit 24; and wherein the degassed endothermic fuel is supplied to the reaction unit 24.
Spadaccini ‘919 (see paragraphs [0004]-[0005]; with emphasis) further discloses,
“… thermo-oxidative reactions caused by dissolved oxygen within the fuel can cause formation of coke that foul the catalyst and prevent the preferred catalytic reactions.
At temperatures between approximately 250° F. to 800° F. dissolved oxygen within the fuel reacts to form coke precursors that initiate and propagate reactions that lead to coke deposit formation. At temperatures above approximately 800° F. the mechanism for formation of coke deposits is controlled by thermal cracking (pyrolysis) reactions where chemical bonds are broken forming coke. Reducing the amount of oxygen dissolved within the fuel decreases the rate of coke deposition at relatively lower temperatures…”.
Spadaccini ‘919 (see paragraph [0010]; with emphasis) further discloses,
“The fuel-deoxygenating device includes a permeable membrane supported by a porous substrate. An oxygen partial pressure differential created across the permeable membrane drives diffusion of oxygen from the fuel and across the permeable membrane. The dissolved oxygen is then exhausted away from the fuel. Removal of dissolved oxygen from the fuel substantially reduces the formation of insoluble materials or coke that is known to form at temperatures above about 250 °F.”
Spadaccini ‘672 is further relied upon to define the terms “endothermic decomposition” and “endothermic fuels” as used in the context of the Spadaccini ‘919 disclosure.
Spadaccini ‘672 discloses an apparatus comprising a reaction unit (i.e., a heat exchanger-reactor; see FIG. 1-6) containing a catalyst 6 that subjects an endothermic fuel to an endothermic decomposition reaction. Spadaccini ‘672 defines the term “endothermic decomposition” as a reaction in which “an endothermic fuel is catalytically decomposed into reaction products having lower molecular weights than the original endothermic fuel after absorbing a heat of reaction”, wherein, “Common endothermic decomposition reactions include the dehydrogenation of naphthenes to hydrogen and aromatics” (see column 3, lines 42-59). Spadaccini ‘672 further defines the term “endothermic fuel” as a fuel capable of undergoing an endothermic decomposition reaction, wherein “Fuels capable of undergoing dehydrogenation… include C6 to C20 naphthenes, such as methylcyclohexane and cyclohexane” (see column 3, lines 59-62). (i.e., organic hydrides).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a degassing unit comprising a degassing membrane separator on an upstream side of the dehydrogenation reaction unit 5 in the hydrogen supply system of Kokubu et al., wherein the liquid transfer pump 2 directly supplies the organic hydride from the organic hydride supply source 1 to the degassing unit and the degassing unit supplies the degassed organic hydride to the heat exchange unit 3, because the degassing unit would enable the removal of dissolved oxygen from the organic hydride that was stored in the container of the organic hydride supply source 1 prior to the heating of the organic hydride in the heat exchange unit 3, and, accordingly, the formation of coke by thermo-oxidative reactions that are known to occur at temperatures above about 250 °F (121 °C) would be substantially reduced, and the rate at which the catalyst was fouled by coke deposits would be decreased, as taught by the combined teachings of Spadaccini ‘649, ‘919, and ‘672.
Regarding claim 4, Kokubu et al. discloses that the hydrogen purification unit 23 can employ a pressure swing adsorption (PSA) as a hydrogen separation method (i.e., the hydrogen purifier 23 can be composed of a PSA unit; see FIG. 1; paragraph [0039]).
Regarding claim 5, Kokubu et al. discloses that the hydrogen supply system is configured to supply hydrogen to at least one of a fuel cell vehicle and a hydrogen engine vehicle (i.e., a hydrogen supply device 26 supplies hydrogen to a hydrogen consuming engine 27, such as a hydrogen vehicle or a fuel cell vehicle; FIG. 1; paragraphs [0039]-[0040]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER A LEUNG whose telephone number is (571)272-1449. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:30 AM - 4:30 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, 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.
/JENNIFER A LEUNG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1774