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's election with traverse of Group I, Claims 1-16 in the reply filed on 1/7/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that Group I and II are obvious variants of a single inventive concept and no search burden exists. This is unpersuasive. Applicant argues that the different effects of Group I and Group II are superficial [Remarks, Page 2, Paragraph 4]. However the Applicant fails to argue that the groups have the same effect, which is the burden established by MPEP 806.05(j). Furthermore the act of using an apparatus for its intended use and the act of altering an apparatus for a new use are not superficially different but relate to completely different operations that would require different levels of training and knowledge from a person of ordinary skill in the art. See also MPEP 2114 II, citing Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (stating that “apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.”) (emphasis in original).
Applicant further argues that no search burden exists and points to a failure of the previous Office Action to establish which classification each group corresponds to. In response the classification were given above, when the groups were first established. The Election/Restriction requirement reads “Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
Claims 1-16, drawn to a method for producing hydrogen, classified in C01B 3/047.
Claims 17-23, drawn to a method of retrofitting a reactor, classified in C01B 2203/042.” [Office Action dated 11/4/2025, Page 2, Paragraph 1].
Applicant further argues against search burden that a search on art for Group I would necessarily retrieve prior art relevant to Group II [Remarks, Page 3, Paragraph 3]. This is moot, as this is not the only standard by which propriety of restriction is established; the relevant standard(s) was/were laid out in the 11/7/25 restriction requirement, which is still deemed proper and is thus made FINAL.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 2 requires “an ammonia concentration below 100 ppm, preferably below 20 ppm.”. It is noted that the unit ppm can refer to parts by mol or parts by mass. However since Claim 2 also requires an initial concentration in parts per mol (“an ammonia concentration in the range of 0.2 to 2.5 mol%”) it is understood that the following concentration is similarly in parts by mol.
Claim Objections
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim recites “a water gas shift reactor disposed between the furnace the plurality of waste recovery sections”, but should recite “a water gas shift reactor disposed between the furnace and the plurality of waste recovery sections”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 2 and 9 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 2 requires “the washed crude stream has an ammonia concentration below 100 ppm, preferably below 20 ppm.”. The phrase “preferably below 20 ppm” is indefinite because it is unclear if Claim 2 requires an ammonia concentration below 20 ppm or 100 ppm.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the water gas shift reactor". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as “a water gas shift reactor” does not appear in either Claim 1 or 6 upon which Claim 9 depends.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20230383420 A1 Nielson et al. in view of US 20240294376 A1 Shaw et al. as evidenced by Tanner Industries Inc.; Shaw et al. qualifies as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). Claim 1 requires “A method for producing hydrogen in a retrofitted steam methane reformer (SMR) via ammonia cracking, the SMR comprising a furnace, a pressure swing adsorption (PSA) unit, and a plurality of waste heat recovery sections”. Nielsen et al. discloses “In a second aspect, the present invention refers to a method for producing hydrogen, comprising electrolysis (2) of water in feed ammonia, evaporation (3), pre-heating (5) and cracking (6) of ammonia, between 300-700° C.” [0013]. Regarding performing ammonia cracking in a retrofitted SMR Nielson et al. discloses “Ammonia cracker means any suitable reactor where ammonia cracking (6) can take place, comprising fired reactors, preferably SMR.”. Furthermore it is understood that a fired reactor is a furnace and that while not explicitly disclosed, replacing the SMR catalyst with an ammonia cracking catalyst is understood as implicitly disclosed by Nielson’s teachings of an appropriate ammonia cracking catalyst (see [0022]). Nielson et al. further discloses PSA “hydrogen purification can be achieved by PSA or other suitable technology.” [0025], and waste heat recovery “waste heat is recovered (11) into ammonia evaporator (3).” [0014]. Neilson et al. further discloses waste heat recovered as steam “waste heat recovered as steam will have only little value as hydrogen is a product of interest.” [0050], although this appears to be a non-preferred embodiment. Non-preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away (see MPEP 2123.II) and because the steam recovered from a second waste heat recovery section has value it would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have included it within the method of Neilson et al.
Claim 1 further requires “wherein the furnace has a plurality of reactor tubes and a plurality of burners”. Nielson et al. does not specifically limit the number of tubes or burners instead stating any suitable reactor can be used “Ammonia cracker means any suitable reactor where ammonia cracking (6) can take place, comprising fired reactors, preferably SMR.” [0040]. Shaw et al. is similarly directed to a method of ammonia cracking “According to a first aspect of the present invention, there is provided a method for producing hydrogen from ammonia” [0014]. Shaw et al. discloses tubes and burners “Combusting a fuel in a furnace to heat a first set of catalyst-containing reactor tubes and to form a flue
gas” [0017] and “this reduces the amount of "fuel" to be used in the burners of the furnace” [0089].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have used the ammonia cracker as described in Shaw et al. to crack ammonia as required by Nielson et al. for at least the reason that Shaw et al. discloses the furnace containing a plurality of tubes and plurality of burners as effective.
Claim 1 further requires “the method comprising the steps of: (a) withdrawing ammonia from an ammonia storage vessel;”. Nielson et al. is silent towards the source of ammonia, however sourcing from a tank would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Evidence may be found in at least Tanner Industries which offers to ship industrial scale amounts of ammonia and recommends suitable tanks for storage. Furthermore it is understood that unless the ammonia cracker was built in close proximity to a source of ammonia which could be delivered by pipeline a tank would be the only option for one of ordinary skill in the art to have used to perform the method of Nielson et al.
Claim 1 further requires “(b) preheating the ammonia to form a warm ammonia stream”. Nielson et al. discloses “pre-heating (5) and cracking (6) of ammonia, between 300-700° C.” [0013].
Claim 1 further requires “introducing the warm ammonia stream into the reactor tubes of the furnace under conditions effective for catalytically cracking the ammonia, thereby forming a crude stream comprising hydrogen, nitrogen, and unreacted ammonia”. Nielson et al. discloses “In the ammonia cracker, the following reaction takes place: 2NH3=N2+3H2. This reaction is rarely or never carried out to completion, meaning that after the ammonia cracker there is still a significant amount of unconverted ammonia.” [0024]-[0025].
Claim 1 further requires “(d) treating the crude stream with a water wash in order to reduce the amount of the unreacted ammonia in the crude stream thereby resulting in an aqueous ammonia stream and a washed crude stream”. Nielson et al. discloses “This unconverted ammonia is cooled and it can be recovered in a scrubber by absorption of ammonia in water, or condensed by cooling (7) and the liquid ammonia is recycled back to the electrolyzer (if it contains water) or the evaporator (if it is water free). If we choose to use water in the cooling stage for removing traces of ammonia, we are ensuring that the product gases, H2 and N2, are ammonia free.” [0025].
Claim 1 further requires “and (e) introducing the washed crude stream into the PSA unit to produce a hydrogen product stream and a PSA off-gas.”. Neilson et al. discloses “Furthermore, hydrogen purification can be achieved by PSA or other suitable technology.” [0025]. A hydrogen product gas and PSA off-gas are understood to be inherent products of hydrogen purification by PSA.
Claim 2 requires “the crude stream has an ammonia concentration in the range of 0.2 to 2.5 mol%, wherein the washed crude stream has an ammonia concentration below 100 ppm, preferably below 20 ppm.”. Nielson et al. discloses unconverted ammonia but is silent towards the mol%. Regarding the washed stream Neilson et al. discloses “If we choose to use water in the cooling stage for removing traces of ammonia, we are ensuring that the product gases, H2 and N2, are ammonia free.” [0025], which is understood to be less than 100 ppm and less than 20 ppm of ammonia. Shaw et al. discloses an ammonia slip of 1.4 mol % in Table 1 [0129]. Therefore it is understood that using the ammonia cracker of Shaw et al. to crack ammonia according to the method of Nielson et al. would have yielded an ammonia concentration in the crude stream of about 1.4 mol % and an ammonia concentration in the washed stream of less than 20 ppm.
Claim 4 requires “step (d) is performed in a water wash column.”. Neilson et al. discloses using a scrubber for the water wash “This unconverted ammonia is cooled and it can be recovered in a scrubber by absorption of ammonia in water” [0025]. Because typical scrubber design in the art is a column a scrubber that performs a water wash is considered a water washing column.
Claim 16 requires “A method for producing hydrogen in a steam methane reformer (SMR) via ammonia cracking, the SMR comprising a furnace, a pressure swing adsorption (PSA) unit, a plurality of waste heat recovery sections, and means for water washing, wherein the furnace has a plurality of SMR tubes and a plurality of burners”. These limitations, other than means for water washing, are presented in Claim 1 and therefore support for them can be found in Claim 1 (above). Nielson et al. further discloses an ammonia scrubber “This unconverted ammonia is cooled and it can be recovered in a scrubber by absorption of ammonia in water” [0025] as means for water washing.
Claim 16 further requires “the method comprising the steps of: a) cracking an ammonia stream in the SMR tubes to produce a crude stream comprising nitrogen, hydrogen, and unreacted ammonia; b) removing the unreacted ammonia from the crude stream using the means for water washing to produce a washed crude stream and an aqueous ammonia stream, wherein the washed crude stream comprises less than 100 ppm ammonia; and c) introducing the washed crude stream into the PSA unit to produce a hydrogen product stream and a PSA off-gas”. It is noted that steps a) and c) of Claim 16 correspond directly to steps c) and e) (respectively) in Claim 1 and therefore support for these steps can be found in Claim 1 (above). Regarding step b) Neilson et al. discloses “This unconverted ammonia is cooled and it can be recovered in a scrubber by absorption of ammonia in water, or condensed by cooling (7) and the liquid ammonia is recycled back to the electrolyzer (if it contains water) or the evaporator (if it is water free). If we choose to use water in the cooling stage for removing traces of ammonia, we are ensuring that the product gases, H₂ and N2, are ammonia free.” [0025], which is understood to mean the washed stream is less than 100 ppm ammonia.
Claim 16 further requires “step b) is conducted in a means for water washing that is selected from the group consisting of a dedicated water wash column, a condensate separator that has been reconfigured with one or more water injection spray nozzles disposed above a section of bubble cap trays, and a water gas shift reactor that is reconfigured to include one or more water injection spray nozzles disposed above one or more packing layers.”. As scrubbers are traditionally columns it is understood that the ammonia scrubber of Neilson et al. is a dedicated water washing column.
Claim(s) 1, 4-6, and 10-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20230406699 A1 Nguyen et al. as evidenced by Tanner Industries Inc. Claim 1 requires “A method for producing hydrogen in a retrofitted steam methane reformer (SMR) via ammonia cracking, the SMR comprising a furnace, … , wherein the furnace has a plurality of reactor tubes and a plurality of burners”. Nguyen et al. discloses a plurality of burners “the process may include feeding a gas turbine exhaust to the ammonia dissociation furnace to supply combustion air to one or more burners of the ammonia dissociation furnace.” [0017] and tubes “feeding an effluent reactor stream of the adiabatic reactor to one or more radiant tubes located in a radiant reactor section of an ammonia dissociation furnace” [0020].
Claim 1 further requires “the SMR comprising … a pressure swing adsorption (PSA) unit”. Nguyen et al. discloses “In examples, one or more of the above discussed systems may include a pressure swing adsorption unit” [0035].
Claim 1 further requires “the SMR comprising … a plurality of waste heat recovery sections”. Nguyen et al. discloses “preheating a liquid ammonia feed in a first preheater to produce a preheated liquid ammonia stream while recovering heat from a dissociated hydrogen/nitrogen stream” [0009], which is considered a first waste heat recovery system, and “In examples, the process may include recovering heat from a convection section of the ammonia dissociation furnace to heat a boiler feed water stream.” [0013] which is considered a second waste heat recovery system.
Regarding the phrase “a retrofitted steam methane reformer” recited in Claim 1, nomenclature differences, without more, do not give rise to non-obviousness. See Ex parte Stanley, 121 USPQ 621, 625 (BPAI 1958) (holding that mere nomenclature differences do not patentably distinguish a claim from the prior art), and Sellers v. Cofrode 35 F. 131 (C.C.E.D. Pa. 1888) (per curiam) (stating that a difference in naming “does not tend to distinguish”). See also In re Skoner, 517 F.2d 947, 950 (CCPA 1975) (reaching conclusion so as to prevent “the allowance of claims drawn to unpatentable subject matter merely through the employment of descriptive language not chosen by the prior art”). In other words, the structure of the reactor as claimed is identical to the structure of the reactor known to the art (see above), and a mere difference in naming one reactor a “retrofitted SMR” and another reactor a “ammonia cracker” cannot give rise to patentability.
Claim 1 further requires “the method comprising the steps of: (a) withdrawing ammonia from an ammonia storage vessel”. Nguyen et al. is silent towards the source of ammonia, however sourcing from a tank would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Evidence may be found in at least Tanner Industries which offers to ship industrial scale amounts of ammonia and recommends suitable tanks for storage. Furthermore it is understood that unless the ammonia cracker was built in close proximity to a source of ammonia which could be delivered by pipeline a tank would be the only option for one of ordinary skill in the art to have used to perform the method of Nguyen et al.
Claim 1 further requires “(b) preheating the ammonia to form a warm ammonia stream”. Nguyen et al. discloses “preheating a liquid ammonia feed in a first preheater to produce a preheated liquid ammonia stream while recovering heat from a dissociated hydrogen/nitrogen stream” [0009].
Claim 1 further requires “(c) introducing the warm ammonia stream into the reactor tubes of the furnace under conditions effective for catalytically cracking the ammonia, thereby forming a crude stream comprising hydrogen, nitrogen, and unreacted ammonia”. Nguyen et al. discloses “dissociating at least a portion of the vaporized ammonia stream to produce the dissociated hydrogen/nitrogen stream by feeding the vaporized ammonia stream to a first reactor to produce a reactor effluent” [0009]. Regarding unreacted ammonia Nguyen et al. further discloses “In examples, the process may include feeding the dissociated hydrogen/nitrogen stream to an ammonia scrubber configured to remove unreacted ammonia from the dissociated hydrogen/nitrogen stream with wash water to produce a hydrogen-nitrogen gas mixture and an aqueous ammonia solution” [0022].
Claim 1 further requires “(d) treating the crude stream with a water wash in order to reduce the amount of the unreacted ammonia in the crude stream, thereby resulting in an aqueous ammonia stream and a washed crude stream”. Nguyen et al. discloses “In examples, the process may include feeding the dissociated hydrogen/nitrogen stream to an ammonia scrubber configured to remove unreacted ammonia from the dissociated hydrogen/nitrogen stream with wash water to produce a hydrogen-nitrogen gas mixture and an aqueous ammonia solution” [0022].
Claim 1 further requires “(e) introducing the washed crude stream into the PSA unit to produce a hydrogen product stream and a PSA off-gas.”. Nguyen et al. discloses “In examples, one or more of the above discussed systems may include a pressure swing adsorption unit configured to receive the hydrogen-nitrogen gas mixture from the ammonia scrubber, the pressure swing adsorption unit configured to purify the hydrogen-nitrogen gas mixture to give a hydrogen product stream having a hydrogen concentration ranging from 75 mol % to 99.99999 mol %.” [0035].
Claim 4 requires “step (d) is performed in a water wash column”. Nguyen et al. discloses a water washing scrubber “In examples, the process may include feeding the dissociated hydrogen/nitrogen stream to an ammonia scrubber configured to remove unreacted ammonia from the dissociated hydrogen/nitrogen stream with wash water” [0022]. It is understood that scrubbers typically are in the form of a column and therefore the only difference in what is claimed and what is disclosed is nomenclature, which cannot establish patentability (see above).
Claim 5 requires “the water wash column is disposed between one of the waste heat recovery sections and the PSA unit”. Nguyen et al. discloses “the dissociated hydrogen/nitrogen stream 20 may be fed to an ammonia scrubber 42 after preheater 14 and/or vaporizer 18 have recovered heat from the dissociated hydrogen/nitrogen stream 20.” [0098] and “In examples, the hydrogen-nitrogen gas mixture 72 leaving ammonia scrubber 42 may contain hydrogen, nitrogen, water and less 200 ppm ammonia … hydrogen-nitrogen gas mixture 72 may be sent to one or more pressure swing adsorption systems” [0100].
Claim 6 requires “the SMR further comprises a condensate separator disposed upstream of the PSA, the condensate separator being configured to remove condensate formed in the crude stream following cooling in the plurality of waste heat recovery sections, wherein the condensate separator is retroactively configured to conduct step (d).”. The ammonia scrubber disclosed by Nguyen et al. is identified as a condensate separator because it is able to separate ammonia from the crude stream as a liquid, aqueous solution and therefore is configured to perform step (d) by separating a condensate.
Claim 10 requires “the conditions effective for catalytically cracking the ammonia include operating temperatures between 450°C and 850°C in the presence of a catalyst selected from the group consisting of ruthenium, nickel, and combinations thereof”. Regarding the catalyst Nguyen et al. discloses “In examples, dissociating the vaporized ammonia stream may include contacting the vaporized ammonia stream to one or more catalysts comprising a base metal catalyst, a precious metal based catalyst or a combination thereof. In examples, a base metal catalyst may include a Nickel-based catalyst. In examples, a precious metal based catalyst may include ruthenium.” [0010]. Regarding the temperature Nguyen et al. discloses “In examples, the first reactor may include an adiabatic reactor comprising an inlet condition temperature ranging from about 500° C. to about 750° C., and an outlet condition temperature ranging from about 300 to about 550° C.; or an isothermal unit comprising an inlet condition temperature ranging from about 300° C. to about 650° С., and an outlet condition temperature ranging from about 300 to about 600° C.” [0025], which is within the range claimed.
Claim 11 requires “ammonia is combusted in the presence of oxygen in the burners of the furnace to provide heat for step (c), thereby forming a flue gas.”. Nguyen et al. discloses “and feeding a low-carbon fuel to the ammonia dissociation furnace from a tail gas from a pressure swing adsorption, an unpurified mixture product from an ammonia scrubber, the vaporized ammonia stream, or a combination thereof.” [0009]. Regarding combustion in the presence of oxygen Nguyen et al. discloses “In examples, the heated combustion air may then be provided to the radiant section 40 of ammonia dissociation furnace 30 as an oxygen source for burning fuel.” [0074].
Claim 12 requires “mixing at least a portion of the aqueous ammonia with the flue gas.”. Nguyen et al. discloses “In examples, SCR section 68 may be configured to inject an ammonia solution atomized by air into NOx containing flue gas” [0073].
Claim 13 requires “treating the flue gas with a scrubbing unit configured to remove NOx contained within the flue gas”. Nguyen et al. discloses “In examples, SCR section 68 may be configured to inject an ammonia solution atomized by air into NOx containing flue gas generated by ammonia dissociation furnace 30 and contacting and/or exposing the mixture to a catalyst bed configured to react the ammonia with NOx to produce nitrogen gas and water vapor. In this manner, it may be possible to reduce and/or eliminate venting of NOx into the atmosphere.” [0073].
Claim 14 requires “treating the aqueous ammonia stream to produce recovered ammonia and a cleaned wash water stream using a stripping column.”. Nguyen et al. discloses “In examples, an ammonia distillation unit 46 may include a distillation column.” [0099]. An ammonia distillation column is understood to be an equivalent term to an ammonia stripping column.
Claim 15 requires “the recovered ammonia stream is recycled for use as feed for the reactor tubes and/or used for combustion fuel in the plurality of burners.”. Nguyen et al. discloses “in ammonia distillation unit 46 any unreacted ammonia 48 in aqueous ammonia solution 78 may be separated from the wash water 44 and recycled to the inlet of vaporizer 18 of stage B.” [0099], this is understood to be used as a feed for the reactor.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20230406699 A1 Nguyen et al., in view of CN 114988357 A Wang et al., as evidenced by Tanner Industries Inc. Regarding Claim 3, Nguyen et al. as evidenced by Tanner Industries Inc. teaches all of the limitations of Claim 1. Claim 3 further requires “a step of removing entrained water droplets in the washed crude stream using a demister prior to step (e)”. Nguyen et al. dose not disclose removing water prior to separation via PSA. Wang et al. is similarly directed to a method of cracking ammonia to produce hydrogen gas “The purpose of this invention is to provide a hydrogen production method and system to solve the problems existing in the prior art. By using an ammonia cracking reactor, a residual ammonia removal tower, and a pressure swing adsorption device, the ammonia produced by the acidic water stripping unit in the treatment of acidic water is decomposed into hydrogen, thereby realizing resource utilization.” [0006].
Wang et al. discloses removing water prior to separation via a PSA system “S2: The mixed gas enters the residual ammonia removal tower to remove the residual ammonia, and the mixed gas after ammonia removal is dehydrated; S3: The dehydrated mixed gas is compressed and then enters the pressure swing adsorption unit, where hydrogen and nitrogen are separated.” [0009]-[0010]. The dehydrator is identified as a demister because they both have the effect of removing water/mist from a gas stream.
The motivation to have combined the method of dehydrating the gas stream prior to PSA with the ammonia cracking method of Nguyen et al. is given by Wang et al. “The mixed gas after ammonia removal is dehydrated to prevent water from affecting the subsequent treatment equipment.” [0034].
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20230406699 A1 Nguyen et al., as evidenced by Tanner Industries Inc., as further evidenced by Sulzer, as further evidenced by APZEM. Regarding Claim 7, Nguyen et al. as evidenced by Tanner Industries Inc. teaches all of the limitations of Claim 1 and 6. Claim 7 further requires “the condensate separator is configured to conduct step (d) by adding one or more water injection spray nozzles above a section of bubble cap trays.”. Nguyen et al. does not teach many details of the ammonia scrubber used, however it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have used water injection spray nozzles and bubble cap trays to assist with the mixing of gas and liquid within the ammonia scrubber for at least the reason that these solutions were known in the art at the time. See APZEM which clearly depicts a spray nozzle at the top of an ammonia scrubber and Sulzer which discloses bubble cap trays and lists amine absorbers as a main application. The motivation to have included spray nozzles and bubble cap trays would have been to increase the amount of liquid-gas mixing which would have predictability increased the amount of unreacted ammonia that was absorbed by the washing water.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20230406699 A1 Nguyen et al., as evidenced by Tanner Industries Inc., as further evidenced by APZEM. Regarding Claim 9, Nguyen et al. as evidenced by Tanner Industries Inc. teaches all of the limitations of Claim 1 and 6. Claim 9 further requires “the water gas shift reactor is configured to conduct step (d) by adding one or more water injection spray nozzles above one or more packing layer.”. 112(b) issues with lack of antecedent basis notwithstanding (see above) Claim 9 is interpreted to require the condensate separator is configured to conduct step (d) by adding one or more water injection spray nozzles above one or more packing layer. Nguyen et al. does not teach many details of the ammonia scrubber used, however it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have used water injection spray nozzles above a packing layer to assist with the mixing of gas and liquid within the ammonia scrubber for at least the reason that these solutions were known in the art at the time. See APZEM which clearly depicts a spray nozzle at the top of a packed bed comprising many layers within an ammonia scrubber. The motivation to have included spray nozzles above a packing layer would have been to increase the amount of liquid-gas mixing which would have predictability increased the amount of unreacted ammonia that was absorbed by the washing water.
Claim Objection/Potentially Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 8 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 closest prior art to Claim 8 is given by US 20230406699 A1 Nguyen et al. as evidenced by Tanner Industries Inc., by virtue of teaching Claim 1. Claim 8 requires “the SMR further comprises a water gas shift reactor disposed between the furnace [and] the plurality of waste recovery sections, wherein the water gas shift reactor is retroactively configured to conduct step (d).” Nguyen et al. is silent towards a water gas shift reactor. Furthermore there is no motivation found within Nguyen et al. to have used a water gas shift reactor in place of an ammonia scrubber to perform step (d).
As potentially allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA MAXWELL SPEER whose telephone number is (703)756-5471. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm EST. Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Anthony Zimmer can be reached at 571-270-3591. 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.
/JOSHUA MAXWELL SPEER/
Examiner
Art Unit 1736
/DANIEL BERNS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1736