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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed March 31st, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On Page 4, lines 13-26 of Remarks, Applicant characterizes Winkler with respect to its embodiment forming methanol as the storage product “[e.g. methanol]”, referencing the Office Action of December 4th, 2025 citing paragraphs [0066]-[0067] of Winkler. While paragraphs [0066]-[0067] of Winkler do not themselves explicitly teach ammonia production, they are used by Winkler to illustrate the method merely using methanol as an example, and Winkler’s teachings toward ammonia production are referenced in detail in the rejection of independent claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/35 U.S.C. 103 (see Office Action, December 4th, 2025, Page 4, line 1 - Page 6, line 2). To illustrate this, Winkler states in paragraph [0059], “Preferably, the synthesis apparatus is designed in such a way that methanol or ammonia can be produced as a storage product.” The principles shown in paragraphs [0066]-[0067], then, would be equally applicable to an apparatus designed for ammonia as a storage product. It would either be tacitly understood or obvious that this would entail reacting nitrogen with hydrogen instead of carbon dioxide with hydrogen, in accordance with the logic presented on Page 5, line 8 - Page 6, line 2 of the Office Action dated December 4th, 2025 and with Winkler’s explicit teaching that nitrogen is used as a reactant in ammonia synthesis (Winkler, Paragraph 11).
In the same vein, Applicant argues on Page 5, lines 1-8 of Remarks that Winkler does not teach conversion of “an ammonia synthesis gas”, but this gas was either implicit within or obvious from Winkler for reasons discussed on Page 5, line 8 - Page 6, line 2 of the Office Action dated December 4th, 2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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.
Claims 1 and 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Winkler (WO 2011/120706 A1) (the machine translation of record is referenced below) or, alternatively, rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Winkler.
Regarding claim 1, Winkler teaches a method for recovering waste heat created in the production of ammonia (Winkler, [0013]-[0015], [0052]-[0070]), comprising the steps of
providing an ammonia synthesis gas including the steps of electrolysis of water or steam for the preparation of hydrogen (Winkler, [0059], “Electrolyzer in which hydrogen can be produced at an operating temperature of more than 70°C and a pressure preferably between 15 and 150 bar.”);
converting the ammonia synthesis gas to ammonia (Winkler, [0059], “Preferably, the synthesis apparatus is designed in such a way that methanol or ammonia can be produced as a storage product.”; [0031], “Preferably, the hydrogen to be stored is therefore converted to methanol or ammonia.”);
recovering at least a part of waste heat from the electrolysis in step (a) (Winkler, [0013], “The problem is solved according to the invention by using waste heat generated during the electrolysis and/or synthesis of the storage product to heat and/or evaporate the working medium of a steam turbine.”, emphasis added);
upgrading the waste heat from step (c) by heat created in the conversion of the ammonia synthesis gas in step (b) (Winkler, [0013], “The problem is solved according to the invention by using waste heat generated during the electrolysis and/or synthesis of the storage product to heat and/or evaporate the working medium of a steam turbine.”, emphasis added; [0015], “Waste heat generated by the storage product, which is currently lost, is converted into more valuable heat.”), wherein the upgrading of the waste heat in step (d) is performed by heating a circulating cooling water from the electrolysis by heat exchange with heat recovered or created from the electrolysis by heat exchange with heat recovered or created from the ammonia synthesis and/or turbine waste heat from a turbine condenser utilizing steam generated in step (b) (Winkler, [0066]-[0067]); and
distributing the upgraded waste heat from step (d) to a downstream heat utilizing step (Winkler, [0013], “The problem is solved according to the invention by using waste heat generated during the electrolysis and/or synthesis of the storage product to heat and/or evaporate the working medium of a steam turbine.”, emphasis added).
Winkler does not explicitly teach that the providing an ammonia synthesis gas includes a step of adding a stream of nitrogen into the hydrogen. However, it is implicit that a stream of nitrogen is added in the embodiment of Winkler where ammonia is produced as a storage product (Winkler, [0059]). Winkler makes reference to this fact when discussing the prior art which synthesizes ammonia using hydrogen from water (Winkler, [0011], “To synthesize nitrogen into ammonia.”), and it would have been understood that a stream of nitrogen would be necessary to produce ammonia using hydrogen as a reactant. See MPEP 2144.01, stating, “’[I]n considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom.’ In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826, 159 USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968)”. See also MPEP 2112, stating, “The express, implicit, and inherent disclosures of a prior art reference may be relied upon in the rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 103”.
In the alternative where Winkler does not implicitly teach a stream of nitrogen in the ammonia synthesis step, it would have been obvious to provide a stream of nitrogen in this step based on Winkler’s acknowledgement of its conventional use in the production of ammonia using hydrogen (Winkler, [0011]).
Regarding claim 3, Winkler teaches or, alternatively, renders obvious the method of claim 1, as discussed above, wherein the downstream utilizing step comprises production of power in a gas turbine (Winkler, [0054], “Preferably, the steam turbine is connected to a generator in such a way that the mechanical energy generated in the steam turbine can be converted into electrical energy. The steam turbine is designed to operate with either water or isopentane or an ammonia-water mixture or another suitable substance as a fuel”, emphasis added to demonstrate that Winkler teaches the use of ammonia in a gas turbine).
Regarding claim 4, Winkler teaches or, alternatively, renders obvious the method of claim 3, as discussed above, wherein the production of power includes utilization of a part of the ammonia from step (b) as turbine fuel in the gas turbine (Winkler, [0054], see discussion of claim 3 above).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Winkler (WO 2011/120706 A1) (see the attached machine translation) or, alternatively, rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Winkler, as applied to claim 4 above, and further evidenced by Dincer (U.S. 2011/0011354 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Winkler teaches or, alternatively, renders obvious the method of claim 4, as discussed above, but does not explicitly teach that the ammonia is at least partially cracked to hydrogen and nitrogen. However, Dincer teaches that, in an ammonia-fueled turbine, ammonia is cracked to hydrogen and nitrogen (Dincer, Fig. 9, [0082]). It is therefore implicit that the ammonia-fueled turbine of Winkler cracks ammonia into hydrogen and nitrogen.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Winkler (WO 2011/120706 A1) (see the attached machine translation), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gordon (U.S. 2013/0272926 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Winkler teaches or, alternatively, renders obvious the method of claim 1, as discussed above, but does not explicitly teach that the stream of nitrogen is obtained by air separation, pressure swing absorption, or cryogenic air separation. However, Gordon teaches that pressure swing adsorption is a suitable method for extracting nitrogen from air in the production of ammonia (Gordon, [0004], see Claim Interpretation section above).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have obtained the stream of nitrogen by pressure swing absorption. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (see MPEP 2143.A.). The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 - 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143.B.). In the instant case, pressure swing absorption would yield the predictable result of providing the nitrogen required to synthesize ammonia from hydrogen and nitrogen (Gordon, [0004]).
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Winkler (WO 2011/120706 A1) (see the attached machine translation), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Fulde (U.S. 2016/0226088).
Regarding claims 6 and 7, Winkler teaches or, alternatively, renders obvious the method of claim 1, as discussed above, but does not teach that the downstream heat utilizing step includes district heating (claim 6) or a combination of power production and district heating (claim 7). However, Fulde teaches that waste heat from exothermic fuel-generating processes can be advantageously used for both power production and district heating (Fulde, [0023], [0084]-[0085]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the method of Winkler to have the downstream heat utilizing step include power production and district heating, as Fulde teaches that these are effective means for improving the efficiency of plants which incorporate fuel production (Fulde, [0033], “The efficiency of the plants can be increased by utilization of the heat in the form of power-heat coupling.”, where the means of power-heat coupling are described in Paragraphs [0023] and [0084]-[0085]).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZACHARY J. BAUM whose telephone number is (571)270-0895. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30-5:00.
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, Anthony Zimmer can be reached at 571-270-3590. 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.
/ZACHARY JOHN BAUM/Examiner, Art Unit 1736
/ANTHONY J ZIMMER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1736
Prosecution Insights