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 .
Claim Status
The claims are newly amended.
Response to Arguments
The remarks argue the following on page 7 of the response:
Contrary to the Examiner's assertion, Li does not disclose or suggest electrodes to heat a hydrogen production reactor. Rather, the decomposition of hydrogen sulfide in Li is achieved using plasma. See, e.g., Li, abstract. The Examiner provides no explanation as to why a person of ordinary skill in the art desiring to heat a reactor would employ a plasma generating apparatus of Li. The Examiner has also failed to demonstrate that any heat created by the plasma generating electrodes of Li would be sufficient for use in the Examiner's proposed Akamatsu/Jo/Kawabata combination.
Further, Li relies on a different method to produce hydrogen relative to the other
references. Akamatsu and Jo both disclose the use of a catalyst to produce hydrogen. See, e.g., Akamatsu, abstract; Jo, page 2. Kawabata discloses the use of a catalyst to oxidize hydrogen. See, e.g., Kawabata, abstract. Li discloses does not even use a catalyst to decompose hydrogen. See, e.g., Li, abstract and page 5. Applicants contend that the Examiner to did not give proper weight to the impact this would have had on whether a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to attempt to implement the Examiner's proposed Akamatsu/Jo/Kawabata/Li combination, let alone how that person would have been enabled to actually implement the combination.
The remarks are respectfully not persuasive. Li was relied upon to disclose use of electrodes to heat the reactor, heated by passing an AC voltage from a voltage source to the electrodes (see OA 6, lines 3-7). The other features of Li were not relied upon in the rejection. The reference was relied upon to show that the concept of heating a reactor using electrical energy is a known one.
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) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akamatsu (JP 2022054267), EPO translation, and in view of Jo (KR 20210119823) and in view of Kawabata (EP 3915670) and in view of Nishii (JP 2011/195350).
Akamatsu describes a hydrogen production method (abstract) that feed a fuel gas (para. 9) to a cylindrical hydrogen production apparatus (para. 18). The device is shown in Figure 2 in JP version, attached to the English Translation. The device contains a catalyst that produces hydrogen and is composed of a hydrogen separation membrane disposed inside the cylindrical body that selectively allows hydrogen to permeate through (para. 18). Figure 2 (of JP version) shows the structure. The reactor is composed of a cylindrical outer tube 17 and a hydrogen separation membrane within the reactor (Fig. 2, 16). The membrane can be considered a second region and this feature is considered to meet the claimed feature describing that “a second region of the reactor tube, which is different from the first region of the reactor tube”. The first region being the outer cylinder reactor.
As to the sweep gas and the solar feature, Akamatsu does not teach this feature.
As to the sweep gas, Jo a membrane reactor used to produce hydrogen (title). The method involves flowing a fuel source, such as ammonia to a reaction zone that comprises a bed filed with a catalyst (page 3, “membrane reactor”, para. 1). The ammonia is catalyzed to convert to H2 (abstract). This H2 then permeates through a separation membrane (abstract).
After this, Jo explains that a sweep gas may be supplied to the permeation region of the membrane reactor (page 4, para. 2). The reference explains that the sweep gas assists in transporting hydrogen in the permeate region of the membrane reactor, maximizing hydrogen concentration (page 4, para. 3). Sweep gas also acts as an ammonia trap (fuel source). Finally, Jo explains that the hydrogen production amount, conversion rate and recovery rate are all increased based on the flow rate of the sweep gas (page 11, para. 5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a sweep gas, as taught by Jo for use with the process of Akamatsu because use of sweep gas is known to maximize hydrogen concentration and act as an ammonia trap (fuel trap) by adjusting the conversion rate, recovery rate of the hydrogen production amount.
Jo does not describe use of a parabolic trough solar collector to transfer solar thermal energy to a reactor tube as a heat source to heat the reactor tube.
As to use of a solar heat source, Kawabata describes a reaction device (abstract). The method includes a fuel gas supplied to the reactor (para. 11). A hydrogen permeable membrane inside the reactor allows hydrogen contained in the fuel gas to permeate through (para. 11). Catalyst is within the flow path and promotes catalysis (para. 11).
The system uses an electric power source (para. 102). However, Kawabata explains that the system can also use a renewable energy power, to include solar power (para. 102, 157).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ solar power, as taught by Kawabata for use with the hydrogen production method of Akamastu and Jo because a number of power sources can be effective for use in generating hydrogen, to include solar as an effective alternative to electric.
Akamatsu, Jo and Kawabata teaches use of solar power, but does not describe one of the power sources employed. Specifically, the references do not teach use of a parabolic trough solar collector to transfer solar thermal energy to the reacto tube to heat the reactor tube.
Niedermeyer describes a parabolic trough solar collector for use in photovoltaic cells (title). In the background, Niedermeyer explains that these devices can be used to power hydrogen production (para. 15).
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 parabolic trough solar collector for use with a photovoltaic cell, as taught by Niedermeyer for use with the hydrogen generation of Akamatsu, Jo and Kawabata because Niedermeyer teaches that it is known to employ these in hydrogen production devices.
As to the use of the rotating feature, Nishii describes an apparatus for producing hydrogen (title). The reference teaches that hydrogen is producing by use of an apparatus that employs a hydrogen separation membrane (abstract) using heat to reform the source of hydrogen catalytically (page 3, para. 1). Nishii explains that the inner intubation is rotated by external power (page 7, para. 2) by forcibly feeding a raw material gas to prevent the gas pressure from decreasing and to use a wide range of reforming catalysts in the reactor (page 7, para. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to rotate the heated tube, as taught by Nishii for the hydrogen reactor of Akamatsu, Jo and Kawabata because rotation prevents gas pressure from decreasing and facilitates the use of a wide range of reforming catalysts.
Claim(s) 14, 15, 16, 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akamatsu, Jo, Kawabata and Nishii as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Li (WO 2016074111).
Kawabata teaches that it is known to use solar energy or electric energy to power the hydrogen production device.
Li describes an apparatus used in hydrogen product by use of decomposing a hydrogen source (abstract). The reactor is a cylindrical body that contains an electrode (abstract). The electrode is used to decompose the raw compound to produce hydrogen (abstract). The electrode is used to heat the reactor (see page 4, lines 27-30) by passing an AC voltage from a voltage source to the electrodes (see page 5, lines 31-33).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ electrodes used to heat the hydrogen production reactor, as taught by Li for use with Akamatsu, Jo, Kawabata and Nishii because this is an effective means to decompose the raw source to produce hydrogen.
As to Claim 15, Jo teaches that a hydrogen source can be ammonia (title). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use ammonia as the hydrogen source, as taught by Jo for use with Akamatsu, Jo, Kawabata and Nishii because it is known to release hydrogen when heated.
As to Claim 16, Jo teaches that the sweep gas can include steam (title). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a steam sweep gas, as taught by Jo for use with the process of Akamatsu because use of sweep gas is known to maximize hydrogen concentration and act as an ammonia trap (fuel trap) by adjusting the conversion rate, recovery rate of the hydrogen production amount.
As to Claim 30, Akamatsu teaches that the heater used in the hydrogen generator reactor is operated at a temperature from room temperature to 600 degrees C (page 13, para. 5).
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akamatsu, Jo, Kawabata and Nishii as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Zhou (CN 114904475).
The references do not teach that the rotation is performed using solar energy.
Zhou describes a method and device for making hydrogen (title and abstract). The apparatus includes a solar driving rotor that uses solar energy to drive a rotor (page 3, lines 10-14, 26).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ solar power to drive a rotor for use in a hydrogen generating apparatus, as taught by Zhou for use with Akamatsu, Jo, Kawabata and Nishii because this form of power generation is known to be effective for hydrogen generation.
Claim(s) 28, 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akamatsu, Jo, Kawabata, Nishii and Li as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Chen (CN 101538010).
The references do not teach use of a heating element of Claim 28.
Chen teaches a method of making hydrogen (title). The method breaks down a hydrogen source (para. 31) using heat, such as from a heating wire (para. 31). The heating wire can be made out of a nickel-chromium alloy (para. 31).
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 heated wire, such as one made out of nickel-chromium alloy, as taught by Chen for use with the heating element of Akamatsu, Jo, Kawabata, Nishii and Li because these wires are known to be effective in heating a hydrogen source to obtain hydrogen from in a reactor.
As an alternative to the above rejection to Claim 28, Chen teaches that the heating element may be a coil (para. 31).
Claim(s) 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akamatsu, Jo, Kawabata, Nishii and Li as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Huang (CN 217584429).
The references do not teach use of a heating element disposed in an enclosure comprising one of the compounds in Claims 33, which are ceramics (para. 32).
Huang describes a method of operating an apparatus used to isolate a hydrogen-containing mixed gas (title and abstract). The system employs uniform heating, which improves the heating efficiency and the heating effect inside the reactor (see page 3, 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
Claim(s) 32, 33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akamatsu, Jo, Kawabata, Nishii and Li as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Wasas (US Pub.: 2014/0186259).
The references do not describe the reactor composition.
Wasas teaches a method of obtaining hydrogen using a reactor (title and Figure). The method employs a quartz tube (para. 25) that is then heated using heating coils (para. 26). Wasas teaches that the reactor used may be made of temperature-resistant glass, such as quartz glass (para. 25).
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 quartz glass reactor, as taught by Wasas for use with the hydrogen generating device of Akamatsu, Jo, Kawabata, Nishii and Li because these reactors are effective for making hydrogen using a heating coil in a reactor.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27 are 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: Nishi (JP 2011195350) teaches an inner tube and an outer tube arranged in a cylindrical reaction tube (page 2, last para.). The reactor then contains a hydrogen separation membrane on the outside of the catalyst support (page 5, para. 3). This reference does not teach that a hydrogen separation membrane is disposed within the interior of the first cylinder.
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
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 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
November 3, 2025