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 Interpretation
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.
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 is 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.
In claim 2 the presence of the term “preferably” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation following the term is a required part of the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 4-6, and 11-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Nguyen et al. (US 2023/0406699).
Regarding claim 1, the reference Nguyen et al. discloses an apparatus for producing hydrogen in a reactor (80) (i.e., a reactor having a structure corresponding to a steam methane reformer (SMR)) via ammonia cracking (see paras. [0089]-[0090]; Fig. 1), the apparatus comprising:
an ammonia storage vessel (12) (see para. [0062]);
a furnace (30) having a plurality of reactor tubes (80) and a plurality of burners (see paras. [0075]; [0088]-[0089]; Fig. 1), wherein the reactor tubes and the burners are in fluid communication with the ammonia storage vessel (12), such that the reactor tubes and the burners are configured to receive a flow of ammonia gas (24) sourced from the ammonia storage vessel (12), and catalytically crack the ammonia within the reactor tubes to produce a crude process gas (20) and a flue gas (see para. [0103]; Fig. 1);
a plurality of waste heat recovery sections (14, 18, 26) (see paras. [0064]; [0065]; [0069]; Fig. 1);
a boiler feed water preparation system (60-64) (see paras. [0070]-[0072]; Fig. 1);
means (42) for treating the crude process gas in order to reduce the amount of the unreacted ammonia in the crude process gas, thereby resulting in an aqueous ammonia stream (78) and a washed crude stream (72) (see para. [0098]; Fig. 1); and
a pressure swing adsorption (PSA) unit (50) disposed downstream the means (42) for treating the crude process gas (see para. [0100]; Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 2, as no structural distinction is seen between the instantly claim apparatus and the apparatus of Nguyen et al., the apparatus of Nguyen et al. is considered capable of performing the function recited in claim 2 (see para. [0100]).
Regarding claim 4, the reference Nguyen et al. discloses the apparatus, wherein the means (42) for treating the crude process gas comprises a water wash column (42) (see para. [0098]; Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 5, the reference Nguyen et al. discloses the apparatus, wherein the water wash column (42) is disposed between one of the waste heat recovery sections (14, 18, 26) and the PSA (50) (see paras. [0064]; [0065]; [0069]; Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 6, reference Nguyen et al. discloses the that the apparatus further comprises a condensate separator (42) disposed upstream of the PSA (50), the condensate separator (42) being configured to remove condensate formed in the crude process gas (20) following cooling of the crude process gas (20) in the plurality of waste heat recovery sections (14, 18, 26), wherein the condensate separator (42) is configured to also include the means for treating the crude process gas (see para. [0098]; Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 11, the reference Nguyen et al. discloses the apparatus, wherein the means (42) for treating the crude process gas (20) is in fluid communication with a flue gas outlet of the furnace (30), such that the apparatus is configured to mix at least a portion of the aqueous ammonia (78) with the flue gas (see paras. [0073]; [0099]; Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 12, the reference Nguyen et al. discloses that the apparatus further comprises a scrubbing unit (68) configured to treat the flue gas by removing NOx contained within the flue gas (see para. [0073]; Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 13, the reference Nguyen et al. discloses that the apparatus further comprises a conversion unit configured to convert NOx in the flue gas to nitrogen and water, either using a selective catalytic or non-catalytic reduction process (see para. [0073]; Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 14, the reference Nguyen et al. discloses that the apparatus further comprises a stripping column (46) that is configured to treat the aqueous ammonia stream (78) to produce recovered ammonia (48) and a cleaned wash water stream (44) (see para. [0099]; Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 15, the reference Nguyen et al. discloses the apparatus, wherein the stripping column (46) is in fluid communication with the plurality of burners, such that the apparatus is configured to recycle the recovered ammonia stream (48, 76) to be used as fuel in the plurality of burners (see para. [0103]; Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 16, the reference Nguyen et al. discloses that the apparatus further comprises a recycle line (48) that is in fluid communication with a condensate collection point (42) and the stripping column (46), thereby allowing for additional recovery of ammonia (see paras. [0098]-[0099]; Fig. 1).
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.
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 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nguyen et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Koveal et al. (US 5,929,126).
Regarding claim 3, the reference Nguyen et al. is silent with respect to having a demister arrange either within or downstream the means treating the crude process gas. However, as evidence by the reference Koveal et al. (see col. 7, lines 1-14), it is typical in the art to employ a demister for coalescing mist produced in a gas scrubber to prevent entrainment of the mist along with a scrubbed gas exiting the gas scrubber. Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Nguyen et al. to include a demister as taught by Koveal et al. either within or downstream the means (42) treating the crude process gas so as to prevent entrainment of any mist along with the crude process gas, since doing so would amount to nothing more than a use of a known device for its intended use in a known environment to accomplish an entirely expected result.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nguyen et al. as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Eakman et al. (US 4,118,204).
Regarding claim 7, the reference Nguyen et al. does not specifically specify wherein the means (42) for treating the crude process gas comprises one or more water injection spray nozzles disposed above a section of bubble cap trays. However, as evidenced by the reference Eakman et al. (see col. 8, lines 41-55), it is customary in the art to equip a process equipment employed for carrying out a gas scrubbing operation with spray nozzles disposed above a section of bubble cap trays so as to promote intimate contact between the gas to be scrubbed and a scrubbing liquid. Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the means (42) for treating the crude process gas (i.e., the ammonia scrubber of Nguyen et al.) to include one or more water injection spray nozzles disposed above a section of bubble cap trays to promote intimate contact between the gas to be scrubbed and the scrubbing liquid, as doing so would amount to nothing more than a use of a known device for its intended use in a known environment to accomplish an entirely expected result.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-10 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 claims are allowable because the prior art of record does not disclose or fairly suggest the feature: 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 include the means for treating the crude process gas, as recited in claim 8.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The reference Nielson et al. (US 2007/0178034) discloses an apparatus for producing hydrogen in a steam methane reformer (20) from a mixture of an ammonia feed stream (8) and a hydrocarbon containing feed stream (23) (see paras. [0008]-[0010]; para. [0044]; Figure). The reference Nielson et al. teaches that the apparatus may include a water gas shift reactor (28) downstream of the steam methane reformer (20) to enrich the hydrogen containing gas stream (25) leaving the steam reformer (20) with hydrogen; a plurality of heat exchangers (31, 32, 33) for cooling the enriched hydrogen gas steam; a process condensate separator (35) for recovering a hydrogen rich stream (36); and a pressure swing adsorption (PSA) unit for purifying the hydrogen rich stream (see para. [0044]; Figure).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Lessanework T Seifu whose telephone number is (571)270-3153. The examiner can normally be reached M-T 9:00 am - 6:30 pm; F 9:00 am - 1:00 pm.
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, Claire Wang can be reached at 571-270-1051. 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.
/LESSANEWORK SEIFU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1774