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 Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-10 in the reply filed on November 11, 2025 is acknowledged
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.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 113896168B in view of Kordesch et al (US 6,936,363). CN 113896168B discloses a method for preparing hydrogen by cracking ammonia wherein the heat sources required for the ammonia cracking reaction is provided by het exchange of a second-stage high-temperature ammonia cracking reaction gas. (See Paragraph [0037] of the English translation.) CN 113896168B teaches in Paragraphs [0014] and [0015] that both the first and second cracking reactors are filled with catalyst, and in Paragraph [0016] that the ammonia cracking reaction in the first stage is carried out with a fuel and oxygen, and the cracking for the second stage is provided by electric heating. CN 113896168B further teaches in Paragraph [0020] that the reducing gas (cracked gas) is cooled to normal temperature by a cooler and then enters a PSA hydrogen extraction system to prepare product hydrogen, and that the fuel for the first stage of ammonia cracking can be tail gas after the PSA extracts the hydrogen. The difference between the process disclosed by CN 113896168B, and that recited in applicant’s claims, is that CN 113896168B does not disclose that the first stage reaction is carried out in tubes. Kordesch et al disclose an ammonia cracker for hydrogen production wherein the cracking takes place in burner tubes (see FIG. 2 and the description thereof),, and teaches at col. 3, lines 9-14 that product gas from the ammonia cracker is used as fuel for fuel cell (6) and that off-gas from the hydrogen electrode (6b) is fed to the heating unit (5) of the ammonia cracker, which may a lean gas combustor or a catalytic burner. It would be obvious from Kordesch et al to carry out the first stage ammonia cracking step of CN 113896168B in tubes. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so, since the processes of CN 113896168B and Kordesch et al are analogous in that both are directed to ammonia cracking, and both employ offgas from a subsequent reaction as fuel in the ammonia cracker.
Regarding claims 2 and 3, CN 113896168B teaches in Paragraph [0007] that a heat source required by the second section of high temperature ammonia cracking reaction can be provided by electric externa heating or other fuel combustion external heating and oxygen combustion self-heating. It would be obvious from such disclosure of CN 113896168B to heat the partially cracked ammonia gas by heat exchange by heat exchange with the cracked gas, since CN 113896168B also discloses in Paragraph [0007] that the second stage high-temperature ammonia cracking gas enters the heat exchange gasification system.
Regarding claim 4, CN 113896168B discloses in Paragraph [0037] that a partial ammonia cracking reaction occurs in the first stage. It would be obvious from such disclosure to provide to provide a partially cracked ammonia gas having a mole fraction of ammonia in a range from about 10 mol % to about 90 mol %, since one would expect that any degree of partial cracking would be suitable.
Regarding claim 5, it would be obvious to provide a cracked gas having a mole fraction of ammonia in a range from 0.1 mol. % to about 5 mol. 5% in the process of CN 113896168B, since the purpose of the process of CN 113896168B is to form hydrogen from the cracked ammonia which would suggest that a high degree of cracking would be desirable to form more hydrogen.
Regarding claims 6 and 7, CN 113896168B teaches in Paragraph [0037] that partial cracking of the ammonia takes place in the first stage and the residual ammonia cracking is carried out with electric heating. It would be obvious to provide from about 20 % to about 80 % of the energy required for the process in the fired reactor, depending on the relative costs of combustion heating versus electric heating.
Regarding claim 9, it is clear from FIG.2 of Kordesch et al that a plurality of reaction tubes are employed for the cracking, and CN 113896168Bdiscloses in Paragraph [0051] that the ammonia cracking for the second stage occurs in a catalyst tube array.
Regarding claim 10, Kordesch et al disclose in FIG.1 and the description thereof that part of the lean gas is sent to ammonia cracker 3 before being sent to ammonia cracker 4 via line 3b.
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 5 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. It is indefinite as to whether the “cracked gas” refers to the partially cracked gas or the cracked gas leaving the electrically heated reactor.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-10 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-11 of copending Application No. 18/205854 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because it would be obvious to reverse the order of the cracking steps in the process recited in the claims of SN 18/205854, since one would appreciate that any type of partial cracking and further cracking would be suitable
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Goetsch et al (US 2002/0028171) is made of record for disclosing the production of hydrogen by the autothermic decomposition of ammonia.
Woebcke et al (US 3958951) is made of record for disclosing a reformer furnace including process tubes filled with catalyst.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WAYNE A LANGEL whose telephone number is (571) 272-1353. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday from 8:15 am to 4:15 pm.
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.
/WAYNE A LANGEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1736