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 Objections
Claim 46 and 52 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 46, the word “expansion” should be placed before every instance of “turbines” for consistency. Appropriate correction is required.
In claim 52 the word “the” is needed at the beginning of line 8.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 42-52 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-21 of U.S. Patent No. 12571584 in view of Zhong (CN107014151A), hereinafter referred to as Zhong and Iwamoto (JH09303954), hereinafter referred to as Iwamoto.
Claim 1 of the allowed claims teaches the limitation of the present claim 42 except for wherein the hydrogen circuit to be cooled further comprises a hydrogen flow expansion system and at least one hydrogen compressor upstream of the hydrogen flow expansion system, the hydrogen flow expansion system comprising at least one expansion turbine, wherein said at least one expansion turbine and said at least one compressor are coupled to the same rotary shaft to transfer work of expanding the hydrogen flow under pressure to the compressor to compress the hydrogen flow upstream of the turbine and, wherein the at least one cooling device comprises a first cooling device and a second cooling device exchanging heat with the hydrogen circuit to be cooled, the first cooling device exchanging heat with a first group of heat exchanger(s) of the set of heat exchanger(s), the second cooling device exchanging heat with a second group of heat exchangers, wherein said second group of heat exchangers is separate from said first group of heat exchanger(s), the first group of heat exchanger(s) being located upstream of the second group of heat exchangers in the hydrogen circuit to be cooled, and in that the first cooling device comprises the hydrogen flow expansion system for ensuring pre-cooling of the hydrogen circuit before the additional cooling carried out by the second cooling device.
Zhong (Figure 2) teaches a hydrogen liquefying device wherein the hydrogen circuit to be cooled further comprises a hydrogen flow expansion system and at least one hydrogen compressor upstream of the hydrogen flow expansion system (turboexpander 33 has a compressor and a turbine), the hydrogen flow expansion system comprising at least one expansion turbine (expansion part of the turboexpander), wherein said at least one expansion turbine and said at least one compressor are coupled to the same rotary shaft to transfer work of expanding the hydrogen flow under pressure to the compressor to compress the hydrogen flow upstream of the turbine (the turbine and compressor are connected by a shaft as seen in the figure).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have based on the teaching of Zhong to have in the allowed claims provided a compressor connected by a shaft to a turbine as part of the cooling system for the hydrogen circuit since it has been shown that combining prior art elements to yield predictable results is obvious whereby providing a compressor linked to a shaft by an expansion turbine would provide what is common knowledge in the art of increasing the pressure prior to some cooling to provide more efficient heat exchange and then using expansion to provide cooling to the stream through lowering of the pressure.
Iwamoto teaches a similar system to the allowed claims with at least one cooling device (Figure 1) wherein the at least one cooling device comprises a first cooling device (the circuit from the compressor to 18) and a second cooling device (loop 50) exchanging heat with the hydrogen circuit to be cooled, the first cooling device exchanging heat with a first group of heat exchanger(s) of the set of heat exchanger(s) (the fluid fed to 18 is cooled by heat exchangers 15b-15d), the second cooling device exchanging heat with a second group of heat exchangers (50 is used for cooling in 19 as well as 15b-15d which includes 15e and 19 as the second group), wherein said second group of heat exchangers is separate form said first group of heat exchangers (the heat exchangers are all separate, and as such, the groups of heat exchangers as claimed can be considered separate) the first group of heat exchanger(s) being located upstream of the second group of heat exchangers in the hydrogen circuit to be cooled (15b-15d are upstream of 15e and 19), and in that the first cooling device comprises the hydrogen flow expansion system for ensuring pre-cooling of the hydrogen circuit (hydrogen is cooled upstream of 15e and 19) before the additional cooling carried out by the second cooling device (15e and 19 are downstream of 15b-15d).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have in the co-pending claims had wherein the at least one cooling device comprises a first cooling device and a second cooling device exchanging heat with the hydrogen circuit to be cooled, the first cooling device exchanging heat with a first group of heat exchanger(s) of the set of heat exchanger(s), the second cooling device exchanging heat with a second group of heat exchangers, wherein said second group of heat exchangers is separate from said first group of heat exchanger(s), the first group of heat exchanger(s) being located upstream of the second group of heat exchangers in the hydrogen circuit to be cooled, and in that the first cooling device comprises the hydrogen flow expansion system for ensuring pre-cooling of the hydrogen circuit before the additional cooling carried out by the second cooling device based on the teaching of Iwamoto since it has been shown that combining prior art elements to yield predictable results is obvious whereby having multiple cooling devise formed with multiple stages of heat exchangers would allow for what would be common knowledge in the art of providing an efficient heat transfer system that is able to provide desirable configurations at the different cooling levels of the system.
The present claims are rejected as follows in view of the allowed claims as the limitation of the present identified claim is rejected in view of the allowed claim.
Present claim Allowed
43 13
44 14
45 14
46 16
47 10
48 17
49 18
51 1
52 20
Claim 50 differs from claim 19 of the co-pending claims in that the cooling system at the outlet of the compressors is not an air or water cooler.
The Examiner takes official notice that at the outlet of the compressors it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have provided an air cooler or water cooler acting as aftercoolers to remove the heat of compression which would reduce the downstream cooling load by removing providing cooling with air or water prior to other cooling which would lower overall energy consumption for the system.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
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.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
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 of carrying out his invention.
Claims 42-52 are 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.
Claim 42 recites “external liquid nitrogen, an oxygen flow expansion system… and combinations thereof” which is not supported in the specification. The use of “external” with respect to liquid nitrogen result in that limitation being considered new matter as only the use of liquid nitrogen is provided for an external can be read broader than is supported in the specification. Further, the two possible configurations are distinct in the specification and there is no direct support for them being used at the same time resulting in this language also being considered new matter.
Claim 42 recites “wherein the hydrogen flow expansion system is further configured to reduce a temperature of the hydrogen circuit via said expansion, thereby reducing an amount of refrigeration duty provided by the auxiliary cooling device and/or second cooling device” which is considered new matter. While the use of the expansion system reduces the amount of refrigeration required, it does not do this in a way that reduces the amount of refrigeration duty provided by the auxiliary cooling device and/or the second cooling device, it only reduces the amount that is needed.
Claim 46 recites “different portions of the pre-cooling heat exchanger or the second heat exchanger following each turbine” which lacks support in the specification and is thus considered new matter. There are not as claimed different portions of the heat exchangers that the turbine outlets are connected to, but only different heat exchangers at each outlet and thus the limitation is not supported.
Claims 43-45, 47-52 are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected claim.
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.
Claims 42-52 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 42 recites “external liquid nitrogen” but it is unclear what is required for the limitation of “external” to be present. For the purpose of examination, as long as the liquid nitrogen refrigerate stays physically separate and does not mix with the hydrogen in the heat exchanger the limitation is met.
Claim 42 recites “wherein the hydrogen flow expansion system is further configured to reduce a temperature of the hydrogen circuit via said expansion, thereby reducing an amount of refrigeration duty provided by the auxiliary cooling device and/or second cooling device”. It is unclear how an expansion system could reduce the amount of refrigeration provide by anything, as the expansion system only provides expansion and cooling, but doesn’t have any feedback that would result in changing the actual duty from the refrigeration cycle. For the purpose of examination, this limitation is considered intended use, where the expansion system allows for a reduction in the refrigeration duty.
Regarding Claim 42, the recitation of “drives” in lines 20 renders indefinite the metes and bounds sought for protection of the claim. In the instant case, the claim recites both an apparatus and process in the same claim. Per MPEP 2173.05(p): “[a] single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.” For the purpose of examination, this limitation is understood to be that the expansion turbine is configured to drive the compression.
Claim 45 recites both “several compressors” and “the plurality of hydrogen compressors” which is considered indefinite as it is both unclear how many compressors are required and if they are the same compressors. For the purpose of examination, this limitation is understood that the at least one hydrogen compressor comprises a plurality of hydrogen compressors.
Claim 46 recites “the plurality of turbines are arranged in series” and “to exchange heat with different portions of the pre-cooling heat exchanger or the second heat exchanger following each turbine” which is considered indefinite. With respect to claim 46 there is only “at least one turbine” rendering “the plurality of turbines lacking antecedent basis in the claims. Further, it is unclear what is required for “different points of the pre-cooling heat exchanger of the second heat exchanger” to be met because there is only one turbine present required. For the purpose of examination, this claim is considered dependent upon claim 45 and that the turbines are required to be exchanging heat with a heat exchanger at a point downstream of the turbine.
Claim 52 recites “in particular liquefied hydrogen” but then recites the structure of claim 421 which only requires the possibility of liquefied hydrogen which renders the claim indefinite. For the purpose of examination, “in particular” is understood to be only a preferred but not required configuration.
Claim 52 recites “supplying by the electrolyzer an oxygen flow to the upstream end of the oxygen circuit” which is considered indefinite as the claims have not positively recited the presence of an oxygen circuit with respect to claim 42. For the purpose of examination, this limitation is understood only to require the electrolyzer produced oxygen at the claimed pressure.
Claim 52 recites “the shaft, the shaft also being coupled” which is considered indefinite as “the shaft” lacks antecedent basis in the claims and it is unclear how it relates to “the same shaft” already recited in claim. For the purpose of examination, these limitation are understood to be repetitively referring to the limitations already recited in claim 42 related to the coupling of the at least one expansion turbine and the at least one hydrogen compressor.
Claims 43-44, 47-51 are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected claim.
Claim Interpretation
In claim 44, it is understood that the previously recite “same rotary shaft” and coupling of at least one expansion turbine and at least one hydrogen compressor of claim 42 is included in the limitations of claim 44, such that there are just more compressors, turbines and more possible rotary shafts.
In claim 45, it is understood that the previously recite “same rotary shaft” and coupling of at least one expansion turbine and at least one hydrogen compressor of claim 42 is included in the limitations of claim 45, such that there are just more compressors, turbines and more rotary shafts.
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 following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
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:
second cooling device in claim 1 understood to be a refrigerant cycle,
mechanism for compressing in claim 47 understood to be a compressor,
member for cooling in claim 47 understood to be a heat exchanger or passage in a heat exchanger,
member for expanding in claim 47 understood to be a turbine,
member for heating in claim 47, understood to be a passage in a heat exchanger.
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.
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.
Auxiliary cooling device Is not considered to invoke 35 USC 112(f) as sufficient structure is provided.
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 (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 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 42-43, 47-50 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwamoto (JPH0903954), hereinafter referred to as Iwamoto and further in view of Ito et al. (JP2004210597), hereinafter referred to as Ito and Zielinski et al (US PG Pub 20190310013), hereinafter referred to as Zielinski.
With respect to claim 42, Iwamoto teaches a plant for producing hydrogen at cryogenic temperature (Figure 1), the plant comprising:
a hydrogen circuit to be cooled comprising an upstream end and a downstream end configured to be connected to a member for collecting cooled and/or liquefied hydrogen (the hydrogen circuit starts at raw hydrogen path 11 and ends at liquefied hydrogen storage tank 21, paragraph 9);
a pre-cooling heat exchanger (reservoir 16 cools the compressed hydrogen, paragraph 9 and is thus a heat exchanger) and a second cooling heat exchanger disposed in series (reservoir 51 is part of the hydrogen cycle and acts as a heat exchanger for cooling the hydrogen after expansion, paragraph 17), wherein the pre-cooling heat exchanger is configured to provide cooling to the hydrogen circuit upstream of a location on the hydrogen circuit where the second cooling heat exchanger provides cooling (the hydrogen flows from 16 to 15);
an auxiliary cooling device configured to provide refrigeration to the pre-cooling heat exchanger, wherein the auxiliary cooling device is selected from the group consisting of external liquid nitrogen (the heat exchanger formed of 16 is provided by external nitrogen flowing in from 16a, paragraph 16);
a second cooling device configured to provide refrigeration to the second cooling heat exchanger (neon refrigeration cycle provides cooling to heat exchangers 51 via 58, paragraphs 10 and 15);
wherein the hydrogen circuit further comprises a hydrogen flow expansion system and at least one hydrogen compressor upstream of the hydrogen flow expansion system (hydrogen is initially compressed at 14 and then later expanded in turbine 18, paragraph 9), the hydrogen flow expansion system comprising at least one expansion turbine (turbine 18, paragraph 9), wherein the hydrogen flow expansion system is further configured to reduce a temperature of the hydrogen circuit via said expansion, thereby reducing an amount of refrigeration duty provided by the auxiliary cooling device and/or the second cooling device (expansion at 18 generates cold, paragraph 17, which would reduce the amount of refrigeration required).
Iwamoto does not teach an electrolyzer provided with an oxygen outlet and a hydrogen outlet wherein the upstream end is connected to the hydrogen outlet.
Ito (Figure 1) teaches that in order to produce hydrogen (30) for liquefaction (16) that a water electrolysis device (10) is used which produces both oxygen gas (26) and hydrogen gas (paragraph 22).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have based on the teaching of Ito in Iwamoto for the source of the hydrogen gas to have been from a water electrolysis device which produces both hydrogen and oxygen since it has been shown that combining prior art elements to yield predictable results is obvious whereby an electrolyzer is an old and well known source of providing hydrogen gas that would be common knowledge in the art as source of feed of a hydrogen liquefaction system.
Iwamoto does not teach wherein said at least one expansion turbine and said at least one hydrogen compressor are coupled to the same rotary shaft such that expansion of the at least one expansion turbine drives compression for the at least one hydrogen compressor.
Zielinski teaches that in a liquefaction system an expander can be configured as a turboexpander which is an expansion turbine for one fluid in the cycle together with a compressor from another part of the cycle (paragraphs 65-66).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have based on the teaching of Zielinski to have had the hydrogen expansion turbine connected to the hydrogen compressor to form in Iwamoto since it has been shown that combining prior art elements to yield predictable results is obvious whereby providing the compressor connected to the turbine would remove the need to provide a driver for the compressor and allow for use of the expansion turbine to generate energy both of which would be well common knowledge in the art.
With respect to claim 43, Iwamoto teaches wherein the at least one expansion turbine and the at least one hydrogen compressor coupled to the same rotary shaft is a passive mechanical system wherein the passive mechanical system comprises an absence of a motor configured to drive the rotary shaft other than the hydrogen flow (as modified there is a turboexpander which has only a shaft connecting the two and as such can be considered passive and there is no motor).
With respect to claim 47, Iwamoto as modified teaches wherein the second cooling device comprises a cycle gas refrigeration cycle refrigerator (the neon cycle), in which a refrigerator of the second cooling device comprises, arranged in series in a cycle circuit: a mechanism for compressing the second cycle gas (compressor 53, paragraph 16), a member for cooling the second cycle gas (heat exchanger 55), a mechanism for expanding the second cycle gas (62a) and a member for heating the expanded second cycle gas (the flow paths back through any of the heat exchangers 15a-15e is a member for heating where the refrigerant is heated).
With respect to claim 48, Iwamoto as modified teaches wherein the hydrogen flow expansion system is located on a portion of the hydrogen circuit exchanging heat with the pre-cooling heat exchanger (the hydrogen flow expansion system can be considered to be from the outlet of the compressor until the outlet of the turbine, which would include a portion which is exchanging heat with the pre-cooling heat exchanger).
With respect to claim 49, Iwamoto as modified teaches wherein the hydrogen flow expansion system is located on a portion of the hydrogen circuit exchanging heat with the second cooling heat exchanger (the hydrogen flow expansion system can be considered to be from the outlet of the compressor until the outlet of the turbine, which would include a portion which is exchanging heat with the pre-cooling heat exchanger).
With respect to claim 50, Iwamoto as modified teaches further comprising a hydrogen cooling system at the outlet of at least some of the compressors, said cooling system being a cooling exchanger in exchange with air or water.
The Examiner takes official notice that at the outlet of the compressors it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have provided an air cooler or water cooler acting as aftercoolers to remove the heat of compression which would reduce the downstream cooling load by removing providing cooling with air or water prior to other cooling which would lower overall energy consumption for the system.
Claim(s) 44-46 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwamoto/Ito/Zielinski and further in view of Thomas et al. (US PG Pub 20220128298), hereinafter referred to as Thomas.
With respect to claim 44, Iwamoto does not teach wherein the at least one hydrogen compressor comprises a plurality of hydrogen compressors arranged in series upstream of the hydrogen flow expansion system, wherein the at least one expansion turbine comprises a plurality of expansion turbines arranged in series.
Thomas teaches that in a liquefaction system, the feed stream is compressed twice (202, 210) then expanded (218) by an expander driving one of the compressors and then cooled and expanded again (312) before being stored (350) (paragraph 45, 48). The two compression and expansion are upstream of the main cooling (302).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was field to have in Iwamoto after the initial compression (14) to have provided another stage of compression and then expansion in a turbine (though called an expander as it is used for driving it is a turbine) prior to the heat exchangers (15a-16f) based on the teaching of Thomas since it has been shown that combining prior art elements to yield predictable results is obvious whereby providing the two stage whereby pressurizing the feed gas to a high pressure coupled with lowering the pressure can reduce the power required by the refrigeration compressor for the heat exchanger (paragraph 46 of Thomas). This modification would result in two compressors in in series upstream of the heat exchangers of Iwamoto followed by a turbine which would result in two compressors in series and two expansion turbines in series (the additional as modified and the one already present 18).
Iwamoto as modified does not teach in that each of the hydrogen compressors is coupled to a rotary shaft to which at least one expansion turbine is also coupled.
Zielinski teaches that in a liquefaction system a expander can be configured as a turboexpander which is an expansion turbine for one fluid in the cycle together with a compressor from another part of the cycle (paragraphs 65-66).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have based on the teaching of Zielinski to have when using two compressors and two turbines to have had them arranged as two turboexpanders with each turbine connected to a compressor in Iwamoto since it has been shown that combining prior art elements to yield predictable results is obvious whereby providing the compressors connected to the turbines would remove the need to provide a driver for the compressor and allow for use of the expansion turbine to generate energy both of which would be well common knowledge in the art.
With respect to claim 45, Iwamoto does not teach wherein the at least one hydrogen compressor comprises several compressors arranged in series upstream of the hydrogen flow expansion system, wherein the at least one expansion turbine comprises a plurality of expansion turbines arranged in series.
Thomas teaches that in a liquefaction system, the feed stream is compressed twice (202, 210) then expanded (218) by an expander driving one of the compressors and then cooled and expanded again (312) before being stored (350) (paragraph 45, 48). The two compression and expansion are upstream of the main cooling (302).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was field to have in Iwamoto after the initial compression (14) to have provided another stage of compression and then expansion in a turbine (though called an expander as it is used for driving it is a turbine) prior to the heat exchangers (15a-16f) based on the teaching of Thomas since it has been shown that combining prior art elements to yield predictable results is obvious whereby providing the two stage whereby pressurizing the feed gas to a high pressure coupled with lowering the pressure can reduce the power required by the refrigeration compressor for the heat exchanger (paragraph 46 of Thomas). This modification would result in two compressors in in series upstream of the heat exchangers of Iwamoto followed by a turbine also upstream of the heat exchangers which would result in two compressors in series and two expansion turbines in series (the additional as modified and the one already present 18).
Iwamoto as modified does not teach in that the plurality of hydrogen compressors and plurality of expansion turbines are coupled in pairs to respective rotary shafts.
Zielinski teaches that in a liquefaction system a expander can be configured as a turboexpander which is an expansion turbine for one fluid in the cycle together with a compressor from another part of the cycle (paragraphs 65-66).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have based on the teaching of Zielinski to have when using two compressors and two turbines to have had them arranged as two turboexpanders with each turbine connected to a compressor in Iwamoto since it has been shown that combining prior art elements to yield predictable results is obvious whereby providing the compressors connected to the turbines would remove the need to provide a driver for the compressor and allow for use of the expansion turbine to generate energy both of which would be well common knowledge in the art.
With respect to claim 46, Iwamoto as modified teaches wherein the plurality of turbines are arranged in series in the hydrogen circuit, wherein the hydrogen circuit is configured to exchange heat with different portions of the pre-cooling heat exchanger or the second heat exchanger following each turbine of the plurality of turbines (the first turbine is upstream of heat exchange as modified and thus 16 would be downstream of it, and the second turbine 18 is upstream of 51, thus both turbines would have different portions of the heat exchangers downstream).
Claim(s) 52 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwamoto/Ito/Zielinski and further in view of Doty (US PG Pub 20100280135), hereinafter referred to as Doty.
With respect to claim 52, Iwamoto as modified teaches a method for producing hydrogen at cryogenic temperature, in particular liquefied hydrogen, using a plant according to Claim 21 (see claim 21 as modified), the method comprising the steps of: supplying, by the electrolyzer, a hydrogen flow to the upstream end of the hydrogen circuit (hydrogen flow is provided to the circuit by the electrolyzer)
supplying, by the electrolyzer, an oxygen flow to the upstream end of the oxygen circuit (the electrolyzer produces oxygen),
and compressing then expanding the hydrogen flow, wherein the expansion is carried out by at the at least one turbine coupled to a shaft, the shaft also being coupled to the at least one compressor ensuring the compression of the hydrogen flow before expansion in the hydrogen flow expansion system (as modified the system includes a compressor that compress the hydrogen, then an expansion turbine which expands it, with a shaft linking the compressor and the expander).
Iwamoto as modified does not teach the hydrogen flow to the upstream end of the hydrogen circuit and the oxygen flow to the upstream end of the oxygen circuit are both at a pressure between 15 and 150 bar.
Doty teaches that an electrolysis goal is to have pressure as high as 15 MPa (paragraph 240) (15 MPa is 150 bar).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have had the pressure of the hydrogen and oxygen flows from the electrolyzer of Iwamoto as modified to have been between 15 and 150 bar as applicant appears to have placed no criticality on the claimed range (see page 5 of the instant specification where the pressure are recited as “for example at a pressure of between 15 and 150 bar’, page 5) and since it has been held that “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/11/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the new claim 42 reads over Iwamoto and Zielinski but claims a specific integration which presents a “non-obvious energy-saving architecture not found in the cited art”. This is not persuasive.
Contrary to applicant’s argument, claim 42 does not require “refrigeration duty of the pre-cooling stage to be reduced by the work-recovery of the hydrogen flow expansion system itself” and at best only teaches that using expansion of the hydrogen reduces the amount of cooling that is required by the cooling devices in the system, but not specifically, any actual reduction as best understood in view of the rejections under 35 USC 112(b), which teaching is well within the scope of what is provided by Iwamoto as Iwamoto achieves some of the refrigeration of the hydrogen stream using expansion. Further, applicant’s remaining arguments about the prior art only take them into account individually and do not take into account the combination above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 51 would be allowable if the above rejections were resolved and the limitations of claim 51 were incorporated into those of claim 42. The closest prior art is that applied in the rejection above; as in the patent from which the double patenting rejection is from was considered allowable for the same reason, as although the prior art teaches the production of oxygen, it does not teach the use of oxygen in an oxygen flow expansion system produced by an electrolyzer as a refrigerant as when produced as shown in the prior art, including Ito, the produced oxygen is cooled (26 in 11) and not used as a refrigerant to produce a liquid oxygen (29) (paragraph 22).
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 BRIAN M KING whose telephone number is (571)272-2816. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 0800-1700.
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, Frantz Jules can be reached at 5712726681. 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.
/BRIAN M KING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights