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 .
Detailed Action
This office action is in response to applicant’s communication filed on 10/29/25.
Claims 20-38 are pending in this application.
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group II, claims 37-38 in the reply filed on 10/29/25 acknowledged. Thus claims 20-36 are withdrawn from further consideration being drawn to the nonelected invention.
As a result, claims 37-38 are being examined in this Office Action.
Objections
Claims 37-38 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 37 recites awkward phrasing and grammer, such as “ammonia is produced in an ammonia section by generation of a makeup syngas from reforming of a hydrocarbon and reaction of said makeup syngas to produce ammonia at least part of the synthesized ammonia“. The examiner recommends instead “reforming hydrocarbon to generate makeup syngas, in an ammonia section, reacting the said makeup syngas to produce ammonia, wherein at least part of the synthesized ammonia“.
Claim 37 recites “wherein a low pressure steam at a pressure of pressure not greater”. The examiner recommends “wherein a low pressure steam at a pressure not greater“.
Claim 38 recites “urea is produced with a self-stripping or with an ammonia-stripping process and recovery is performed at two pressure levels”. The examiner recommends “producing urea with a self-stripping or with an ammonia-stripping process, and wherein recovery is performed at two pressure levels”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC 112.2
The following is a quotation of the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112:
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.
Claims 37 and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 37 is indefinite because of the claim language “high synthesis pressure” and ”low pressure”.
Claim 38 is indefinite because of the claim language “medium pressure” and “low pressure”.
The specification does not define the metes and bounds of “high”, “medium” and “low” for the pressures, such that one would know what is included and what is excluded in these pressure amounts.
Claim 38 is rejected because it recites “performed at a single pressure level, namely at a low pressure”. It is unclear how the recitation of exemplary or preferred embodiments, as recited by “namely at a low pressure”, limits the scope of the genus claimed. The examiner is unsure if the recitation of preferred embodiments excludes some embodiments from the genus of “a single pressure level”.
These limitations are also indefinite because they are narrower limitations of a broader limitation recited earlier in the claim. A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) is considered indefinite, since the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). Note the explanation given by the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences in Ex parte Wu, 10 USPQ2d 2031, 2033 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1989), as to where broad language is followed by "such as" and then narrow language. The Board stated that this can render a claim indefinite by raising a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. Note also, for example, the decisions of Ex parte Steigewald, 131 USPQ 74 (Bd. App. 1961); Ex parte Hall, 83 USPQ 38 (Bd. App. 1948); and Ex parte Hasche, 86 USPQ 481 (Bd. App. 1949).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC 103
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 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 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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 37 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Singh (US 20100016635, pub date Jan. 21, 2010).
Determination of the Scope and Content of the Prior Art
(MPEP §2141.01)
Singh teaches an integrated ammonia-urea process, in which heat is exchanged, in the form of steam, from the syngas reaction of hydrocarbon, hydrogen and carbon monoxide that produces ammonia, to a urea solution of urea and ammonium carbamate. The heat in the form of steam can decompose and dehydrate the ammonium carbamate to form the urea. Singh also teaches the formation of syngas by reforming hydrocarbons. (claims, figures, abstract; paragraphs 59-65)
Singh teaches some of the purified syngas containing ammonia and carbon dioxide are used in the integrated urea synthesis, in which ammonium carbamate is decomposed and dehydrated. (see figures 1-3; paragraphs 9-10, 15, 42-44)
Singh teaches the use of condensate strippers or separators that can remove contaminants. In the production of urea, ammonia is also stripped from the carbon dioxide stripped syngas. (paragraph 44, 78)
Singh teaches that steam is produced in both the synthesis of ammonia and the synthesis of urea. The heat from the steam, can indirectly transfer heat to the decomposers to decompose ammonium carbamate to urea, from the syngas/ammonia section. This can happen before or after directly heating the urea solution with the heat from the syngas reaction. (paragraph 24, 35, 60, 63-64, claim 17)
Singh teaches the broad use of steam as a heat transfer medium within the integrated ammonia-urea process, in order to decompose ammonium carbamate, for heat transfer of the syngas line and to heat the urea solution. Steam is used to condense the ammonium carbamate in the urea synthesis. (paragraph 24, 35)
Singh teaches a range of pressures in the synthesis, purification and recovery. The urea is synthesized at high pressure to form ammonium carbamate, which is dehydrated with heat to form urea and water. High pressure carbamate condensers and separators are used to synthesize the urea. The urea purification also includes medium pressure and low pressure ammonium carbamate decomposers, and medium pressure and low pressure ammonium carbamate condensers. Singh teaches that steam can be used as a heat exchanger to heat a solution, while syngas can be cooled in a heat exchanger or at suitable temperatures introduced to the carbon dioxide absorber (stripper). (paragraph 4, 49-50, 52-53, 78)
Singh teaches a” large amount of energy in the form of heat (e.g. steam) and pressure (e.g. compressors) are required to operate the urea section, and other economically negative impacts are present”. (paragraph 6)
The pressure of the steam that is transferred can vary. Singh teaches pressure ranges of 10 kg.cm2 to about 15 kg/cm2 (or about 10 bar to 15 bar) and ranges of 15 kg/cm2 to 25 kg/cm2 (or about 15 bar to 25 bar). Singh also teaches a low pressure steam line that comes from the ammonium carbamate recovery from 250 kPa to 600 kPa (or about 2.5 bar to 6.5 bar). Furthermore, steam is produced from the purification of urea. (paragraph 24, 35, 52-53; claim 3 and 17)
With regard to applicant’s limitation for “recovery of unconverted matter”, it would be reasonable to expect this to read on the unconverted ammonium carbonate in the urea solution that did not completely decompose and condense in the urea synthesis, absent evidence to the contrary.
Ascertainment of the Difference Between Scope the Prior Art and the Claims
(MPEP §2141.012)
Singh is deficient in the sense that it does not teach applicant’s low pressure steam of 6 bar rel, for the transfer of steam from the ammonia section to the urea section. Instead Singh teaches pressure ranges of 10 kg.cm2 to about 15 kg/cm2 (or about 10 bar to 15 bar) and ranges of 15 kg/cm2 to 25 kg/cm2 (or about 15 bar to 25 bar).
Finding of Prima Facie Obviousness Rationale and Motivation
(MPEP §2142-2143)
However, it would be prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, to use steam at a lower pressure in Singh’s heat transfer of steam from the ammonia section to the urea section, since Singh teaches a range of pressures for the steam in the integrated ammonia-urea process. Thus it would be obvious to optimize the steam pressure to the lower pressure of 6 bar rel, since Singh teaches a wide range of steam pressures and because Singh teaches the economically negative impact of the large amount of energy used for the steam heat. Since lowering the pressure of the steam would lower the energy needed, one would be motivated by economic concerns to lower the pressure of the steam.
Additionally merely modifying process conditions such as the pressure is not a patentable modification, absent a showing of criticality. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 105 U.S.P.Q. 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955). Generally, differences in process conditions will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art. Such formulations are results-effective variables which can be optimized. In in re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272,276, 205 USPQ 215, 219 (CCPA 1980), it was held that "discovery of an optimum value of a result effective variable in a known process is ordinarily within the skill of the art." Further, in In re Alter, 220 F. 2d454, 456, 105 USPQ 233,235 (CCPA 1955) the courts maintained that: "Where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation."
Thus since pressure is a result-effective variable, it is the position of the examiner that one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the invention, would through routine and normal experimentation determine the appropriate steam pressure used in the integrated ammonia-urea plant.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC 103
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 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 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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.
Claims 37-38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Singh (US 20100016635, pub date Jan. 21, 2010).
Determination of the Scope and Content of the Prior Art
(MPEP §2141.01)
Singh teaches an integrated ammonia-urea process, in which heat is exchanged, in the form of steam, from the syngas reaction of hydrocarbon, hydrogen and carbon monoxide that produces ammonia, to a urea solution of urea and ammonium carbamate. The heat in the form of steam can decompose and dehydrate the ammonium carbamate to form the urea. Singh also teaches the formation of syngas by reforming hydrocarbons. (claims, figures, abstract; paragraphs 59-65)
Singh teaches some of the purified syngas containing ammonia and carbon dioxide are used in the integrated urea synthesis, in which ammonium carbamate is decomposed and dehydrated. (see figures 1-3; paragraphs 9-10, 15, 42-44)
Singh teaches the use of condensate strippers or separators that can remove contaminants. In the production of urea, ammonia is also stripped from the carbon dioxide stripped syngas. (paragraph 44, 78)
Singh teaches that steam is produced in both the synthesis of ammonia and the synthesis of urea. The heat from the steam, can indirectly transfer heat to the decomposers to decompose ammonium carbamate to urea, from the syngas/ammonia section. This can happen before or after directly heating the urea solution with the heat from the syngas reaction. (paragraph 24, 35, 60, 63-64, claim 17)
Singh teaches the broad use of steam as a heat transfer medium within the integrated ammonia-urea process, in order to decompose ammonium carbamate, for heat transfer of the syngas line and to heat the urea solution. Steam is used to condense the ammonium carbamate in the urea synthesis. (paragraph 24, 35)
Singh teaches a range of pressures in the synthesis, purification and recovery. The urea is synthesized at high pressure to form ammonium carbamate, which is dehydrated with heat to form urea and water. High pressure carbamate condensers and separators are used to synthesize the urea. The urea purification also includes medium pressure and low pressure ammonium carbamate decomposers, and medium pressure and low pressure ammonium carbamate condensers. Singh teaches that steam can be used as a heat exchanger to heat a solution, while syngas can be cooled in a heat exchanger or at suitable temperatures introduced to the carbon dioxide absorber (stripper). (paragraph 4, 49-50, 52-53, 78)
Singh teaches a” large amount of energy in the form of heat (e.g. steam) and pressure (e.g. compressors) are required to operate the urea section, and other economically negative impacts are present”. (paragraph 6)
The pressure of the steam that is transferred can vary. Singh teaches pressure ranges of 10 kg.cm2 to about 15 kg/cm2 (or about 10 bar to 15 bar) and ranges of 15 kg/cm2 to 25 kg/cm2 (or about 15 bar to 25 bar). Singh also teaches a low pressure steam line that comes from the ammonium carbamate recovery from 250 kPa to 600 kPa (or about 2.5 bar to 6.5 bar). Furthermore, steam is produced from the purification of urea. (paragraph 24, 35, 52-53; claim 3 and 17)
With regard to applicant’s limitation for “recovery of unconverted matter”, it would be reasonable to expect this to read on the unconverted ammonium carbonate in the urea solution that did not completely decompose and condense in the urea synthesis, absent evidence to the contrary.
Ascertainment of the Difference Between Scope the Prior Art and the Claims
(MPEP §2141.012)
Singh is deficient in the sense that it does not teach applicant’s low pressure steam of 6 bar rel, for the transfer of steam from the ammonia section to the urea section. Instead Singh teaches pressure ranges of 10 kg.cm2 to about 15 kg/cm2 (or about 10 bar to 15 bar) and ranges of 15 kg/cm2 to 25 kg/cm2 (or about 15 bar to 25 bar).
Singh also does not teach that the steam transferred from the ammonia section to the urea section is used together with steam produced in the carbamate condenser of the synthesis section, to provide steam for low- pressure steam users of the urea section. Instead Singh teaches the use of steam transferred from the ammonia section to the urea section, which provides steam for the synthesis of urea.
Finding of Prima Facie Obviousness Rationale and Motivation
(MPEP §2142-2143)
However, it would be prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, to also use the steam produced from the carbamate condenser, in order to increase the amount of steam available for heat transfer and because Singh already teaches a low pressure steam line comes from the ammonium carbamate recovery. Thus it would be obvious to optimize the amount of steam transferred to the urea section, by utilizing other sources of steam, such as the steam from the carbamate condenser from Singh’s ammonium carbamate recovery. One would be motivated to not waste the steam heat released from the carbamate condenser. Since Singh teaches the economically negative impacts of the large amount of energy used in the steam heat, it would be obvious to utilize the extra steam from the carbamate condenser in order sto lower costs.
Furthermore, it would be prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, to use steam at a lower pressure in Singh’s heat transfer of steam from the ammonia section to the urea section, since Singh teaches a range of pressures for the steam in the integrated ammonia-urea process. Thus it would be obvious to optimize the steam pressure to the lower pressure of 6 bar rel, since Singh teaches a wide range of steam pressures and because Singh teaches the economically negative impact of the large amount of energy used for the steam heat. Since lowering the pressure of the steam would lower the energy needed, one would be motivated by economic concerns to lower the pressure of the steam.
Additionally merely modifying process conditions such as the pressure is not a patentable modification, absent a showing of criticality. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 105 U.S.P.Q. 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955). Generally, differences in process conditions will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art. Such formulations are results-effective variables which can be optimized. In in re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272,276, 205 USPQ 215, 219 (CCPA 1980), it was held that "discovery of an optimum value of a result effective variable in a known process is ordinarily within the skill of the art." Further, in In re Alter, 220 F. 2d454, 456, 105 USPQ 233,235 (CCPA 1955) the courts maintained that: "Where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation."
Thus since pressure is a result-effective variable, it is the position of the examiner that one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the invention, would through routine and normal experimentation determine the appropriate steam pressure used in the integrated ammonia-urea plant.
Conclusion
No claim is allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jennifer Cho Sawyer whose telephone number is (571) 270 1690. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9 AM - 6 PM PST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Renee Claytor can be reached on (571) 272-8394. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-274-1690.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
Jennifer Cho Sawyer
Patent Examiner
Art Unit: 1691
/RENEE CLAYTOR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1691