DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This communication is in response to the amendment and reply filed 8/25/2026.
Claims 1-29 have been canceled. Claims 30-31 (new) are pending.
Response to Arguments
All objections are withdrawn in view of the amendments.
Applicants’ amendments to the claims necessitate new grounds of rejection.
Applicant's arguments filed 8/25/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the method of claim 30 is distinguished and has technical advantages over the prior art, Allinson. Applicant discussed the use of condensed form of the 1st charge of exothermic fluid; however, this is not claimed. The claimed higher molecular count of the reactor effluent is expected where the same endothermic reaction occurs, such as dehydrogenation.
Applicant argues the art cyclical molecular expansion is more beneficial than a system without. In response, the claims are not rejected under 103 given the 112 rejection discussed below. However, US 3,225,538, is cited below as additional art of record. US 3,225,538, directed to thermochemical cycle including cyclohexane-benzene/hydrogen, teaches producing work through expansion while minimizing work of cyclohexane compression. Additionally, Bland teaches wherein “the net work obtainable from the cyclohexane- benzene and hydrogen cycle is substantially greater than that obtainable from the compression and expansion cycle of a gas of the same number of moles wherein no change in composition is involved. The increase in amount of work obtainable through the use of the cyclohexane-benzene and hydrogen cycle results primarily from the change in chemical composition involved in that cycle.”
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.
Claims 30-31 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 30 recites passing an exothermic fluid in condensed form to an endothermic reactor and converting in the endothermic reactor an endothermic fluid with greater molecular count. However, in the specification exothermic fluid is explicitly defined as benzene and hydrogen and endothermic fluid defined as cyclohexane. It is unclear how a benzene and hydrogen stream may react in an endothermic reaction to produce cyclohexane having higher molecular count.
Claim 30 recites in step A removing, at a first location, a fluid “in a more condensed form”. “Removing” is unclear and “more condensed” is relative and unclear.
Claim 30 recites “just below” in step C, which is not defined and unclear.
Claim 30 recites in step G generating work by expansion of “said molecularly-expanded endothermic fluid.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Further, the expanded fluid is not subject to expansion, but the endothermic fluid from the endothermic reactor is subject to molecular expansion to produce a molecularly-expanded endothermic fluid.
Claim 30 recites the limitation second charge "said exothermic fluid" in step H, and again in steps I and J. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The only relevant stream discussed in the claim is a first charge of exothermic fluid, but there is no exothermic fluid itself introduced in the claim.
Claim 30 recites combining said endothermic fluid to generate said exothermic fluid but is unclear what they are combined with.
Claim 30 recites storing or shipping the endothermic fluid for a step time in step K and then teaches storing or shipping the generated exothermic fluid for the set time, but the exothermic fluid is generated from the endothermic fluid at the set time.
Claim 31 depends from claim 30 and is rejected for the same.
Claim 31 recites the limitation "said exothermic fluid". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 31 depends from claim 30 and recites limitations encompassing a number of the limitations of claim 30. It is unclear what claim 31 is trying to convey.
Additional Prior Art
US 3,225,538, is cited below as additional art of record. US 3,225,538, directed to thermochemical cycle including cyclohexane-benzene/hydrogen. The art teaches operating a cycle where a compressed-heated fluid is subject to dehydrogenation producing more molecules than in the reactant. The effluent is expanded and produces work, condensed, and separated into e.g. benzene and hydrogen. The benzene is subject to hydrogenation (exothermic) reaction, compressed, and sent to the dehydrogenation reactor. “The net work obtainable from the cyclohexane- benzene and hydrogen cycle is substantially greater than that obtainable from the compression and expansion cycle of a gas of the same number of moles wherein no change in composition is involved. The increase in amount of work obtainable through the use of the cyclohexane-benzene and hydrogen cycle results primarily from the change in chemical composition involved in that cycle.”
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.
/BRANDI M DOYLE/Examiner, Art Unit 1771
/PREM C SINGH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1771
