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 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.
Claims 1 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramseyer, C. (US Pat. No. 2,389,636, hereinafter Ramseyer) in view of Goebel, F. (US Pat. No. 3,650,697, hereinafter Goebel).
In regards to Claim 1, Ramseyer discloses a hydrogen production apparatus, comprising:
a first heating furnace including:
a first accommodating tank (#49) in which a moving bed of a catalyst (#14 metal particles) is formed (see figure and page 2, left column, lines 69-70 and page 2, right column, lines 56-64); and
a heating tube (#52, #54), which is provided in the first accommodating tank (#49), and through which a heat medium passes (see figure and page 2, right column, line 65 to page 3, left column, line 4);
a second heating furnace including:
a burner (#30 burner) that burns fuel (#26, #27 methane) to generate an exhaust gas (see figure and page 2, right column, lines 14-30); and
a second accommodating tank (#10) in which a fluidized bed of the catalyst (#14) discharged from the first heating furnace is formed with the exhaust gas (see figure and page 2, left column, line 57 to right column, line 2 and page 2, right column, lines 32-38); and
a furnace for pyrolysis including a third accommodating tank (#18) in which a fluidized bed of the catalyst (#14) discharged from the second heating furnace is formed with a raw material gas containing hydrocarbon (#26, #24 methane) (see figure and page 2, right column, lines 3-18).
Examiner notes that although Ramseyer does not explicitly disclose wherein the heating tube is provided in the first accommodating tank, relocating the heating tube to be provided in the first accommodating tank is a mere engineering design choice in order to obtain a desired end-result, such as for improved direct heating efficiency within the tank, and is considered prima facie obvious, absent evidence to the criticality or new or unexpected results. See MPEP 2144.04.
Ramseyer is silent in regards to wherein the metal catalyst particles contain any one or more of iron, nickel, copper, and aluminum.
However, Goebel teaches an apparatus and system for the production of hydrogen from a hydrocarbon by the reaction of the hydrocarbon with steam in the presence of a catalyst. The catalyst consists essentially of a mixture of activated Raney nickel, iron, activated Raney cobalt, zirconium and aluminum (see abstract). A reactor tube containing a catalyst for the decomposition of hydrocarbon gas to hydrogen gas comprises alumina and a catalyst composition of granular or particle form consisting of a uniform mixture of Raney nickel, iron, activated cobalt, zirconium and aluminum, and a supply of gas comprising methane is mixed with steam and carried to the reactor tube for the decomposition of the methane to hydrogen gas (see figure and column 1, line 69 to column 2, line 32).
It would have been obvious by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify the hydrogen production apparatus as disclosed by Ramseyer by substituting a known metal catalyst particle for another known metal catalyst particle, such as the metal catalyst particle containing any one or more of iron, nickel, copper, and aluminum, as claimed by the applicant, with a reasonable expectation of success, as Goebel teaches an apparatus and system for the production of hydrogen from a hydrocarbon by the reaction of the hydrocarbon with steam in the presence of a catalyst, wherein a reactor tube contains a catalyst for the decomposition of hydrocarbon gas to hydrogen gas comprises alumina and a catalyst composition of granular or particle form consisting of a uniform mixture of Raney nickel, iron, activated cobalt, zirconium and aluminum, and a supply of gas comprising methane is mixed with steam and carried to the reactor tube for the decomposition of the methane to hydrogen gas (see figure and column 1, line 69 to column 2, line 32).
In regards to Claim 3, Ramseyer discloses wherein the burner (#30) of the second heating furnace uses the raw material gas (#26, #27 methane) as the fuel (see figure and page 2, right column 14-30).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2 and 4-6 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JELITZA M PEREZ whose telephone number is (571)272-8139. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00am-6:00pm.
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.
/JELITZA M PEREZ/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1774
Prosecution Insights