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 .
This communication is in response to the preliminary amendment filed 8/23/2025.
Claims 19-29 are pending.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstracts recites legal phraseology, incorporates matter by reference, lists patent number and application numbers, and is longer than allowed. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: reference to US Patent Application #18-0954634 is not valid number (potentially intended as 18/095463). Appropriate correction is required.
Drawing sheets filed are acceptable. However, the specification is objected for presence of drawings within the text of the specification.
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 19-29 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 19 recites the phrase “for example” and parentheticals renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Claims 20-29 which depend from claim 19 are similarly rejected.
Regarding Claim 19, there is insufficient antecedent basis for each of the following limitations in the claim. Claims 20-29 which depend from claim 19 are similarly rejected.
Claim 19 recites the limitation “the resulting reactant” in part (3). Claim 19 recites the limitation “said reactant”.Claims 19 recites the limitation “said product”; since there are multiple reactions and the products go through multiple steps in the claim using “said product” throughout the claim is unclear. Claim 19 recites the limitation “the olefin/alkene” and “the H2 gas” in part (10)Claim 19 recites the limitation “said liquid or solid olefin/alkene” and “the H2 gas” in part (11).
Claim 19 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential steps, such omission amounting to a gap between the steps. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted steps are the reacting steps. In the hydrogenation reaction, the steps include heating the feed and passing the product but there is no step for contacting/reacting/hydrogenating. Similarly, for the dehydrogenation step, claim 19 recites heating the dehydrogenation reactor feed and passing an exhaust on, but fails to teach the step of contacting/reacting/dehydrogenating to produce the exhaust. Likewise, claims 20-29 which depend from claim 19 are rejected.
Claim 19 recites cooling a product “back to” a certain state. However, there is no antecedent basis for such limitation as the product in question was introduced as a vapor product and cooled to the liquid/solid state for the first time in the claim.
Claim 20 scope is unclear and therefore indefinite. It is unclear which streams are acted upon and how in the listed limitations. Examples include:
Claim 20 recites small compressor means. It is unclear what is intended by small.
Claim 20 recites the limitation “the paraffin/alkane endothermic fluid product”, “the higher pressure olefin/akene plus H2 reactant”, “the higher pressure and thus higher temperature heat of condensation”, and “the said olefin/alkene reactant component”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 20 recites “the paraffin/alkane endothermic fluid product” the endothermic fluid product is an olefin/alkene stream, not paraffin/alkane. The endothermic fluid product is passed through the second heat exchanger, not the first heat exchanger as referenced in the claim. Further, if “the paraffin/alkane endothermic fluid product” is referencing the paraffin/alkane product from the exothermic reaction that is to be used as feed for the endothermic reaction, this would not be heated in the first heat exchanger.
Claim 20 recites the endothermic reactor effluent “having been first used to help preheat the product in said first heat exchanger”, however, this stream is used in the second heat exchanger.
Claims 21-22 recites the limitation “the product”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 21-22 recite passing the product to the first heat exchanger to heat to the temperature of the endothermic reactor and then returning the endothermic reactor effluent through the same. In claim 19, the endothermic reactor feed is heated by the second heat exchanger and not the first. The product is indefinite, but “paraffin/alkane product” is mentioned in claim 19 with respect to the product from the exothermic reactor which is associated with the first heat exchanger.
Claim 24 recites the limitation “the waste heat”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 28 and 29 recite “where it is proposed that” and are unclear as to the scope of the claims.
Claim 28 recites the limitation “the cold pressurized H2” and “the liquid elements”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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) 19 and 23-29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Allinson (US 2022/0115682).
Claim 20-22 are not rejected under 35 USC 103 at this time as it is indefinite and unclear as discussed in the 112 rejection.
With respect to claim 19, Allinson teaches providing a recyclable LOHC to a reversible dehydrogenation process for generating hydrogen and a used LOHC, which may then be reacted back to LOHC (abstract). Allinson teaches wherein fresh LOHC, such as methylcyclohexane, is pressurized (114), heated (120 124) and vaporized (0099), and subject to dehydrogenation in reactor 130 (Figure 1; 0184). The dehydrogenated effluent passed through the inlet heat exchanger to cool the effluent and preheat the reactor feed, the effluent is condensed separating a gaseous hydrogen phase from the unloaded aromatic substrate phase” (0098; 0185). Hydrogen is delivered to a fuel cell (0185-0186), its end user.
The aromatic phase or used LOHC is delivered to the vehicle in a first storage vessel and the recycle liquid recovered from dehydrogenation is delivered to a second storage vessel. Allinson teaches sending the recycle LOHC, in liquid or vapor phase (i.e. after vaporizing), to a reactor at positive pressure for “catalytic hydrogenation. . . over a suitable hydrogenation catalyst that is maintained at a temperature in a range of 200° to 300° C” (0090) in the presence of hydrogen gas. “The hydrogenation reaction may be conducted in an existing refinery having suitable catalyst reaction and support facilities to produce the recyclable LOHC with a purity suitable for use in the present process” (0090).
Allinson is silent regarding preheating the hydrogenation feed (aromatic/ used LOHC) in a first heat exchanger and passing the MCH effluent from the hydrogenation reactor back through the first preheating exchanger to simultaneously preheat the feed and cool the effluent.
However, the integrated heating configuration of preheating a hydroprocessing reactor feedstream using heat from the effluent is well known in the art, as shown with respect to the dehydrogenation reactor in Allinson.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Allinson to use the waste heat from the exothermic hydrogenation reaction effluent to heat the feedstream of the same by cross exchange with the effluent for the benefit of heat integration because such process configuration is known for using waste heat to supply heat to the feedstream as shown in Allinson.
With respect to claim 23, Allinson teaches sending hydrogen to a fuel cell electrochemical device (0100).
With respect to claim 24, Allinson teaches waste stream 150 from the fuel cell is used to provide power to the endothermic reactor (Figure 1; 0189; 0194).
With respect to claim 25, Allinson teaches a LOHC-based process for producing hydrogen . . . needed by downstream equipment such as for example fuel cells, hydrogen internal combustion engines, and the like (0020; 0031).
With respect to claim 26, Allinson teaches wherein the heat for the endothermic reactor may be provided by a number of sources including: “combustion of hydrogen that is generated in the process, or combustion of a supplied fuel to provide the necessary heat. Using generated hydrogen as combustion fuel has a significant impact on hydrogen availability for generating electricity. Burning a combustion fuel in the conventional method for heat generation creates greenhouse emissions” (0005). In the exemplified embodiment, waste hydrogen is combusted for heat to power the endothermic reactor. Where hydrogen were used in an internal combustion engine (0020; 0030), it would have been obvious to utilize the waste heat to provide a portion of the heat needed in the endothermic reactor using existing heat and aiding with the carbon neutral process.
With respect to claim 27, Allinson teaches where H2 produced is part of an electrolysis system (0024; 0054; 0069; 0012-0013+) and the cell may be regenerative type (0116). Therefore Allinson disclosed hydrogen may be recycled within an open or closed cycle Regenerative Fuel Cell Cycle.
With respect to claim 28, Allinson teaches that “Hydrogen may be stored as a compressed gas or as liquid hydrogen at cryogenic temperatures” (0004). Also, “ Hydrogen may be stored as the captured or contained gas in various carrier media such as metal hydrides, high surface area carbon materials, and metal-organic framework materials. Generally, the contained hydrogen in such carrier media can be released by raising the temperature and/or lowering the hydrogen pressure” (0004). Allinson teaches hydrogen gas generated by electrolysis may be stored for use in further processing steps, or for other purposes (0113). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to store the H2 separated from the endothermic effluent using means known in the art for future use.
With respect to claim 29, Allinson teaches provided needed heat to streams utilizing waste heat in the process (Figure 1; H2 heated at 190, 212, 174; other heat recovery 262, 120, 120). Thus, where H2 is stored, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to utilize waste heat to reheat the hydrogen.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Brandi Doyle whose telephone number is (571)270-1141. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:00 AM - 3:00 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, Prem Singh can be reached at (571)272-6381. 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.
/BRANDI M DOYLE/Examiner, Art Unit 1771
/PREM C SINGH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1771