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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on June 25, 2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 6, 10 and 12 are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Berges et al. (2015/0007723 A1).
Berges et al. ‘723 teach an adsorption bed vessel comprising a body (1), a divided adsorber bed inside the body, and a plurality of channels (black arrows between beds in figure 4) in the bed and adjacent to the bed along a length of the bed for conducting separated product away from the bed to an outlet channel (14). The channels will inherently exchange heat between the bed and separated product. The adsorbers can be used for VPSA processes, which inherently have a means to compress the feed and a vacuum device for desorption, and can be used for hydrogen purification. The adsorbent can include a zeolite molecular sieve, which can be used to remove impurities from hydrogen, and also will remove target gases from air, which also contains hydrogen that will remain in the product (see figures, paragraphs 2-4, 45-47). Figure 4 also shows a right end channel that has a different dimension than channels along the rest of the body length, which will inherently regulate a product flow rate. The claimed process pressure does not structurally limit the device in a way that distinguishes over the prior arrangement, which is inherently capable of receiving a feed pressure of less than 4 bars. Specific pressures are not disclosed, however a person skilled in the art will understand that a conventional compressor is capable of outputting a pressure that is lower than its design maximum by using reducing measures.
Claim(s) 10 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nakao et al. (2009/0117030 A1).
Nakao et al. ‘030 teach a process for purifying hydrogen in a PSA system (3), comprising compressing (2) a contaminated hydrogen feed gas mixture (B) and removing other gases from the mixture using adsorber columns (4a-4c) to form a purified hydrogen product stream. The PSA system includes the compressor (2), a vacuum pump (7) for desorption, a pressure equalization line (106) with valves, and feed and product valves for controlling flow in the system (see figures, paragraphs 97, 173). The process can include a carbon monoxide removing step (4) that uses PSA conditions, and a PSA step (3) that removes gases other than carbon monoxide. The compressor can be upstream of either of the steps (paragraph 122).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over any one of Berges et al. ‘723 or Nakao et al. ‘030.
Any one of Berges et al. ‘723 or Nakao et al. ‘030 discloses all of the limitations of the claim except that the feed gas pressure is less than 4 bars. Absent a proper showing of criticality or unexpected results, the feed pressure is considered to be a parameter that would have been routinely optimized to achieve acceptable adsorption and separation conditions without wasting excessive energy on compression.
Claim(s) 3, 7 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berges et al. ‘723 in view of Nakao et al. ‘030.
Berges et al. ‘723 disclose all of the limitations of the claims except that there is a product valve, a vacuum pump valve, and a pressure equalization valve. Nakao et al. ‘030 disclose a PSA arrangement as described in paragraph 7 above. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the PSA device of Berges et al. ‘723 by using flow control valves for feed, product, equalization, and desorption in order to provide for flow switching between multiple vessels to achieve continuous production.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berges et al. ‘723 in view of Rarig et al. (7,947,118).
Berges et al. ‘723 disclose all of the limitations of the claim except that there is a chamber to receive and enclose the one or more adsorber columns. Rarig et al. ‘118 discloses a PSA device including an outer container (301) to enclose adsorber columns (101,105,103,107) (see figure 1, col. 1, lines 30-67, col. 10, lines 47-65). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the system of Berges et al. ‘723 by using an outer container in order to make the device portable.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 25, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. First it is noted that the examiner accepts applicant’s statement on the record that the recitations of a second valve and a third valve in claims 3 and 7 do not require there to be a first valve, and has withdrawn the indefiniteness rejection.
Regarding the anticipation rejection over Berges it is first noted that applicant still has not addressed any deficiencies in the rejection of claims 10 and 12 (in bold because this was ignored or overlooked in the final rejection of March 26, 2026). Applicant only argues deficiencies with respect to the apparatus claims 1, 2, 4, 6 and 9. Applicant argues that Berges does not disclose channels that are structural and in or adjacent to an adsorber bed, that they are configured to regulate temperature of the bed, or that they have varying dimensions along the length of the bed. The examiner disagrees and maintains that Berges et al. ‘723 discloses each of these. Figures 2-4 all show channels formed adjacent to and inside of the adsorbent bed. They are formed by spaces between bed segments. During use the inlet gas (white arrows) flows to inlets at the far end of each segment, through the bed, and then to outlet channels where black arrows show treated gas flowing out of the segments. Regarding varying dimensions for flow channels, the right side of figure 4 shows a channel with dimensions that are different than those of the other channels along the bed length. Differently sized channels will affect the flow rate of gas inside of them, and the expanding size of the right size product channel will cause a slowing of the flow rate. Regarding the pressure, it is maintained that one skilled in the art will understand that the device is inherently capable of handling a pressure of less than 4 bars because both PSA and VSA (vacuum) conditions are disclosed. The channels will inherently exchange heat between the bed and separated product because they are adjacent, thus affecting the temperature of the bed.
With respect to Nakao ‘030, applicant argues that it does not disclose routing separated hydrogen out of the adsorber column (3) because it is then fed into a downstream carbon monoxide removal step (4). It is maintained that the adsorber column still separates other gases from hydrogen and routs the separated hydrogen out of the column. As noted in paragraph 7 above, the process can include a carbon monoxide removing step (4) that uses PSA conditions, and a PSA step (3) that removes gases other than carbon monoxide. The compressor can be upstream of either of the steps (paragraph 122). Therefor either one of the PSA steps (3 or 4) separates a pressurized feed stream to output separated hydrogen that is routed out of the columns. The instant claims, using “comprising,” do not exclude the presence of additional steps.
Regarding claim 11, applicant argues that a pressure less than 4 bars is not obvious over the prior art. The examiner disagrees because Berges et al. ‘723 does not disclose pressures (only vacuum and pressurized conditions) and Nakao ‘030 discloses a pressure of 0.5 MPa (5 bars). It is maintained that a 4 bar pressure would be obvious with these disclosures because it is close to 5 bars and also would have been optimized. The instant specification does not disclose any criticality or unexpected results relating to the pressure. Applicant also argues that the examiner does not explain why a person of ordinary skill would have had a reason to modify either reference to arrive at the claimed pressure, however this was stated in the last sentence of paragraph 13 of the final rejection (to achieve acceptable adsorption and separation conditions without wasting excessive energy on compression).
Regarding claims 3, 5, 7 and 8, applicant argues that the combination rejections are improper because the secondary references fail to disclosed the instant claimed channels. It is acknowledged that Nakao et al. ‘030 and Rarig et al. ‘118 do not disclose the channels, however the primary reference (Berges et al) does and the secondary references are only relied on for disclosing flow valves and an enclosure. Applicant also argues that the examiner does not explain why a person of ordinary skill would have modified the Berges bed structure with Nakao’s valve arrangement while also providing the claimed temperature-regulating, varying dimension channels, however this was stated in the last sentence of paragraph 15 of the final rejection (to provide for flow switching between multiple vessels to achieve continuous production). Applicant further argues that the examiner does not identify a non-hindsight reason why a person of ordinary skill would have modified Berge’s modular bed structure using Rarig’s containerized plant packaging while also arriving at the claimed temperature-regulating and flow regulating channel configuration, however this was stated in the last sentence of paragraph 17 of the final rejection (to make the device portable).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FRANK LAWRENCE whose telephone number is (571)272-1161. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30am-7pm.
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, Jennifer Dieterle can be reached at 571-270-7872. 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.
/FRANK M LAWRENCE JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1776
fl
Prosecution Insights