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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant has elected Group I but has amended Group II to overcome the restriction of 7/22/25. Therefore, the restriction requirement of 7/22/25 is moot.
Claim Interpretation
The feature of Claim 1 describes that a second portion of the reactants are not exposed to a high temperature and that they do not react. This feature is described in the specification in paragraph 160 of the published specification. This section explains that the heated wall comes into contact with some reactants, but that some of the reactants are not in direct contact with the wall and are therefore unreacted and cooler. To meet this feature therefore, it will be treated that if the reactor wall is heated and some reactants do not teach the heated wall, then some of those reactants will be not exposed to the high temperature and will not react.
Claim 2 states that the wall of the reactor vessel cannot maintain structural integrity at a pressure of the reacting mixture and the high temperature.
This is not fully defined. However, the specification states that cooling this outer wall prevents deformation (see para. 67).
Therefore, although the claims and the specification do not describe what the wall is made out of, this claim feature will be interpreted as being met when this reactor wall is cooled to prevent deformation.
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.
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(s) 1, 3, 7, 8, 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mukai (EP 2085354).
Mukai describes a reactor for hydrogen generator using a known hydrogen source (para. 1). The reactor produces hydrogen and CO (para. 3). Th system uses a device shown in Figures 8-11 where starting compounds are fed from 31 and 32 into the space of 6, where they are then catalyzed in 7 using a reformer catalyst (para. 20) to generate a hydrogen-rich stream (para. 23) and fed to the outlet of the reactor (see para. 16).
This reformer catalyst-containing section is operated at a temperature of about 600-700 degrees C (para. 23) and then the stream flows to section 40, where the temperature drops to about 280 degrees C (para. 24). This can be considered a temperature gradient, where a high temperature is generated within the reaction vessel and this temperature is higher than the lower temperature of a wall of the reactor vessel, causing formation of a temperature gradient in the reaction vessel. This also meets the features of exposing a first portion of the reactants to a high temperature and reacting them in the high temperature to produce one or more products in the mixture (Mukai teaches producing H2 and CO, see above).
Mukai teaches that the temperature gradient is desirable when combined with a CO reformer because CO shift reactions are better suited with a temperature gradient (para. 6).
As to the second portion of the reactants not exposed to a high temperature, Mukai teaches that 4 in the reactor generates combustion gas to heat the reactants (para. 22). There is also a preheater at 6. However, from the figures, it is clear that heat from combustor 4 to reactants in 6 are passed through the wall between 4 and 6 (see Figures 8-11). As mentioned above, the specification of this application describes this feature by explaining that some reactants come into contact with the heated wall, while some of the reactants do not come into contact with the heated wall but are mixed with the heated reactants (see published specification, para. 160).
Therefore, even though the reactants in the current application may then be heated by mixing and combining with the heated reactant, this feature can be considered to bevmet by one heated wall and one colder side based on the specification’s description.
As to the process of Mukai, the reference explains that the reactants are heated in 6 from the heat produced in 4. Mukai does not specifically state that only some of the reactants come into direct contact with the heated wall. However, since the passageway feeds a mixture of various reactants (see para. 23, mixed gas and steam from water) and the passageway is filled so that some reactants reach the other sidewall of chamber 6, which is cooled in some sections (see Fig. 8), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that some of the reactants do not come into direct contact with the heated, high temperature wall of 4. Furthermore, since some of the reactants do not come into contact with the combustion chamber wall of 4, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the parts not in direct contact with the heated wall would not react.
As to Claims 8 and 11, Mukai teaches use of a combustor 4 to heat the reactor (para. 16), which generates a combustion gas to heat the reactor (para. 16, 5). Since heat is generated, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the combustion is exothermic.
Claim(s) 2, 15, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mukai or Mukai and Ikeda as applied to claims 1 or 16 above, and further in view of Oku (JP 2019156656).
Claim 2 describes the wall of the reactor not maintaining the structural integrity at a pressure and high temperature of the reaction. The claims and the specification do not fully define what the walls are made out of to not be able to support the reaction. However, the specification does state that this is obviated by cooling the outer wall of the reactor in order to prevent this deformation (see published specification, para. 83 of the published specification).
Therefore, although the claims and the specification do not describe the composition of the wall or the features of the wall that make it unable to maintain the structural integrity during pressure and temperature operations of the reaction, this claim feature will be interpreted as being met when this reactor wall is cooled.
Oku describes a method and device for generating hydrogen (title). Oku explains that by providing a cooling jacket that circulates coolant outside of the reaction vessel, the internal temperature of the reaction vessel can be adjusted and thermal energy may be recovered (page 6, para. 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add a cooling jacket to the outside of the reactor chamber, as taught by Oku for use with the process and apparatus of Mukai or Mukai and Ikeda because adding this features enables the user to adjust the internal temperature of the reaction vessel and to recover thermal energy inside the reactor.
Claim(s) 4, 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mukai as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ikeda (US Pub.: 2013/0213228).
Mukai teaches use of a hydrocarbon reactant, but not that it is methane.
Ikeda describes a reactor used to generate hydrogen (see para. 5). Heat in the reactor is used to heat methane to generate CO and H2 (para. 5, 51). This can be considered “exposing a first portion of the reactants to a high temperature” of Claim 1. The reactants are fed into the apparatus at 20a (Fig. 1). The CO, H2 and CO2 product can be considered “to produce one or more products in a mixture” of Claim 1.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ methane as a known hydrocarbon reactant, as taught by Ikeda for use with the hydrogen production process of Mukai because methane is known to be an effective source of hydrogen for use in the manufacture of hydrogen products.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mukai as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Matsuzaki (JP 2018/043913).
Mukai teaches making hydrogen by reactant a hydrogen source with a catalyst (see above and Mukai, abstract), but does not describe that one of the by-products is solid carbon.
Matsuzaki describes a hydrogen product device (title) that uses a steam reforming to produce a hydrogen product (page 2, lines 19-24). The reference explains that when using a catalyst for the reaction, solid carbon will precipitate on the catalyst (page 3, lines 20-24).
Therefore, since Mukai teaches use of a catalyst to produce a hydrogen product and Matsuzaki explains that use of a catalyst will precipitate solid carbon when generating hydrogen, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that use of a catalyst to make the same product would also produce a solid carbon by-product in Mukai.
Claim(s) 1 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Medov (EA 035730).
Medov describes a device and a process for using that device (abstract) that involves a feeding liquid into the inlets of a housing inside the reactor (claim 1), which is heated at an elevated temperature of about 1500 degrees C (see page 9, lines 14-15). This can be considered to meet the high temperature of Claims 1 and 5. The device has a temperature gradient, where the reactor contains a heated zone and a cold zone (page 8, lines 31-32). The temperature gradient exists from the center of the vortex to the outer contours (page 8, lines 31-32). In the center of the reactor (see Figure), there are two electromagnets (see Figure, 9 and page 7, lines 36-37). A pressure gradient is made by reducing pressure at the center of the vortex and by increasing the pressure on the outside of the vortex (page 8, lines 27-32).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the center wall has a lower temperature in the reaction.
The cold zone is considered the lower temperature region of Claim 1. The wastewater at the high pressure and higher temperature regions of the reactor meet the feature of “exposing a first portion of the reactants to the high temperature” of Claim 1. The portion of the wastewater at the colder zones of the vortex can be considered the second portion of Claim 1. Since this portion is in the colder zone, it can be considered to meet the feature of claim 1 where they “are not exposed to the high temperature” of Claim 1.
As to the second portion not reacting, the specification of this application describes this feature where the heated wall comes into contact with some reactants but that some of the reactants are not in direct contact with the wall and are therefore unreacted and cooler (see published specification, para. 160). Therefore, even though the reactants in the current application may then be heated by mixing and combining with the heated reactant, this feature can be considered to met by one heated wall and one colder side based on the specification’s description.
Finally, although Medov does not specifically teach that the second portion does not react, since this second portion is kept in the colder zone, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that this portion in contact with the colder zone does not react.
Claim(s) 13, 14, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mukai or Mukai and Ikeda as applied to claims 1 or 16 above, and further in view of Wolf (WO 99/21940).
The references do not teach inclusion of a heat shield.
Wolf describes in the background, a known method and apparatus for use in generating a product that contains hydrogen gas (page 1, line 18-20). As an improvement to their process, Wolf describes a process that improves minimal heat loss (page 3, para. 4). In their process, a furl is burned in a combustion chamber (page 3, para. 4) and that the wall of the combustion chamber is maintained at such a temperature that gasification gas flows around it (para. 3, para. 5). Air is added to this stream (page 5, para. 1). The inside wall of the reactor is then coated with a heat protective lining (page 8, 32-heat protective lining).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a heat shield on the inner walls of the reactor, as taught by Wolf for use with the reactors of Mukai or Mukai and Ikeda because this facilitates the heating process in a high temperature reactor.
As to Claim 14, Wolf shows that the reactants pass in the reactor upward from the inlet (Fig. 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the reactants that touch or are near the wall containing the heat shield are exposed to the high temperature and the reactants that are not near the wall are not exposed to the heat shield.
Claim(s) 8, 9, 10, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mukai or Mukai and Ikeda as applied to claims 1 or 16 above, and further in view of Agar (DE 102013112205) and in view of Daud (MY 158081).
The references describe heating, but does not describe use of a heating element (Claim 8) or that the heating element is one of the compounds of Claim 9 and 17 or that the high temperature passes an electric current through the heating element (Claim 10).
Agar describes an apparatus and process to produce hydrogen by thermal decomposition of a hydrogen source, such as methane (title). The reference explains that the decomposition of the hydrogen source at elevated temperatures (page 5, second to last para) can take place using a heat source, such as combustion or an electric heat source (page 5, last para to page 6, para. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ electrical heating instead of combustion heating to generate hydrogen, as taught by Agar for use with Mukai or Mukai and Ikeda because it is known as an alternative heat source to generate hydrogen from a hydrogen source.
Daub describes a method and system to generate hydrogen gas (abstract). Their process employs a heating coil made up of nickel and chromium used to heat a hydrocarbon source to generate the hydrogen compound (page 5, last para to page 6, first para).
Since Agar explains that it is known to use an electrical heating source in lieu of a combustion heat source, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ a known electrical heating source, such as a nickel and chromium heating coil, as taught by Daub for use with the hydrogen generator of Mukai or Mukai and Ikeda because this is a known and effective source of heat for hydrogen generation.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mukai, Ikeda, Agar and Daud as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Miyata (JP 2003243018).
Mukai, Ikeda, Agar and Daud teach heating using a combustion reaction, but not that the combustion reaction (exothermic reaction) is used to heat a heating filament (the tube of Claim 18 comprises a heating filament of Claim 17).
Miyata describes startup procedures used during a hydrogen generation method (abstract and page 10, lines 12-18). The process heats a startup burner that then energizes an electric heater (page 10, lines 12-18).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to heat the heating filament using a combustion reaction, as taught by Miyata for use with the hydrogen generation heating step of Mukai, Ikeda, Agar and Daud because this is a known way to heat the reaction during startup processes.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 12 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: Shirasaki (EP 0615949).
Shirasaki describes a hydrogen producing apparatus and device (abstract) using steam reforming (page 3, left col, lines 5-15). The reference describes using a hydrogen permeable membrane (page 6, col. 7, lines 17-20).
The reference does not teach that an oxygen stream is fed into the tube and that a combustion reaction is performed.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHENG HAN DAVIS whose telephone number is (571)270-5823. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5:30.
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, Fung Coris can be reached at 571-270-5713. 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.
/SHENG H DAVIS/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1732 October 16, 2025