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 .
Drawings
The drawings were received on February 6, 2026. These drawings are approved.
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 3 and 7 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.
Claims 3 and 7 are indefinite because they recite a “second valve” and a “third valve,” however no first valve has ever been recited. This is confusing because a reader would assume a second or third valve means there is a first valve.
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, 2, 4, 6, 9, 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 process pressure of claim 2 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.
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).
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 13 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 February 6, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding the indefiniteness rejection of claims 3 and 7, applicant argues that one skilled in the art would not be confused by the recitation of second and third valves without reciting a first valve. The examiner disagrees and has maintained this rejection because it is unclear whether or not the presence of a “second” or “third” valve implies the that there is a first valve.
Regarding the anticipation rejection over Berges et al. ‘723, applicant argues that it 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 claim 9, the right side of figure 4 shows a channel with dimensions that are different than those of the other channels along the bed length. Regarding claim 4, 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. It is noted that applicant does not address any deficiencies in the rejection of claims 10 and 12 over Berges et al. ‘723.
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. 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 because they operate at higher pressures. 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 closed to 5 bars and also would have been optimized. The instant specification does not disclose any criticality or unexpected results relating to the pressure.
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.
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 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