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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-2, 7, 10, 13, 16, 19, 22, 28-30, 34, and 40-45, in the reply filed on 6/8/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 147 and 148 have been added. No other claims are pending in the present application.
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 40 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. Claim 40 recites the term “increases” which is a relative term and is therefore indefinite. It is not apparent how one skilled in the art may definitively identify an increase in one or more of heat or mass transfer between the gas stream and water, compared to which particular standard.
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.
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, 16, 22, 34, and 147 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Nakamura et al. 2012 (US20120100062A1) in view of Thompson 1970 (GB 1186939 A), provided on the IDS filed 6/24/2025 and 4/6/2026, respectively.
Regarding claim 1, Nakamura teaches a process for renewable ammonia synthesis (Fig. 15) wherein the process comprises:
powering an electrolysis process comprising providing electricity generated by a renewable source (solar energy, abstract);
generating hydrogen via the electrolysis (0062);
compressing the hydrogen (0067);
generating a gas stream A comprising nitrogen and oxygen wherein a majority of gas stream A comprises nitrogen (air, Fig. 8, generating a gas stream by combustion of oxygen, 0086, which contains oxygen byproducts, 0100);
mixing the hydrogen with gas stream A over a hydrogenation catalyst to hydrogenate at least some of the oxygenated species present in the mixed gas stream to form a new gas stream B (gas purification apparatus 360 of Fig. 8, O2 removal step, 0101-0102, to form line 304, Fig. 8);
compressing gas stream B (0113-0114);
removing water from the gas stream B to generate a dried gas stream (gas purification apparatus 360 of Fig. 8, H2O removal using a drier filled with zeolite, 0101);
running the dried gas stream over an ammonia synthesis catalyst which is capable of reacting the hydrogen and nitrogen to form ammonia in one reactor vessel or more reactor vessels in parallel or in series (0116);
cooling the reacted gas below its dew point to produce a liquid anhydrous ammonia stream (line 406, 0118) and a stream C of gas comprising hydrogen, nitrogen, and other minor impurities (line 405, Fig. 10-11, unreacted gas, 0118, which may contain unremoved hydrogen peroxide, 0101, as a minor impurity); and
separating the liquid anhydrous ammonia from the gas stream C to form a liquid ammonia stream E (lines 405 and 406, Fig. 10-11).
Nakamura does not teach the following limitations:
mixing gas stream B with gas stream D below and removing water from the mixed gas stream to generate a mixed and dried gas stream;
running the mixed and dried gas stream over an ammonia synthesis catalyst;
a stream C of reacted gas comprising ammonia;
contacting the gas stream C with water whereby to produce an aqueous solution of ammonia and a gas stream D of unreacted gas comprising water vapor, hydrogen, nitrogen and other minor impurities;
separating the aqueous solution comprising a mixture of ammonia and water from the gas stream D;
separating a portion of the gas stream D to create a purge gas stream F;
and recycling the gas stream D to mix it with stream B prior to removing the water.
However, Thompson teaches these limitations in an analogous method for the production of ammonia (title) which is pertinent to the field of Nakamura since Thompson teaches methods of improvement for the production of ammonia from catalytic conversion of an N2/H2 synthesis gas mixture (C1/L25-30). Thompson teaches:
mixing a gas stream B with a gas stream D below and removing water from the mixed gas stream to generate a mixed and dried gas stream (line from compressor 12 (gas stream B) and from absorber 18 (gas stream D) are sent to drying plant 13, P3/L54-57, Fig. 1, before it is sent to ammonia converter 16, Fig. 1);
a stream C of reacted gas comprising ammonia (stream from converter 16, C3/L45-50);
contacting the gas stream C with water whereby to produce an aqueous solution of ammonia (ammonia is absorbed in water in absorber 18, P3/L49-50) and a gas stream D of unreacted gas comprising water vapor, hydrogen, nitrogen and other minor impurities (unconverted gases, saturated with water P2/L90);
separating the aqueous solution comprising a mixture of ammonia and water from the gas stream D (absorber 18, Fig. 1);
separating a portion of the gas stream D to create a purge gas stream F (purge gas, P3/L53);
and recycling the gas stream D to mix it with stream B prior to removing the water ("remaining gases pass back to the drying plant 13," C3/L55).
It would be obvious to one skilled in the art to combine the teachings of Nakamura and Thompson by treating the line 405 taught by Nakamura (Fig. 10) with the water contacting step and subsequent processing steps taught by Thompson (Fig. 1). One would be motivated to do so because Nakamura teaches that the unreacted gases created by the synthesis of ammonia in reactor 440, are recycled back to the ammonia synthesis step by line 405 (Fig. 10) and Nakamura teaches the liquefaction of gaseous ammonia, therefore the product from reactor 440 contains gaseous ammonia that is cooled. Thompson then teaches that separating ammonia from unconverted gas by means of cooling can have considerable costs associated (P1/L20-25) and teaches that the water scrubbing or an analogous absorption allows for the complete elimination of a refrigeration plant (P2/L130). Therefore one would be motivated to combine the teachings of Nakamura and Thompson to optimize the cost of the associated cooling step of the products, and would reasonably expect predictable performance since Thompson teaches that the combination, instead of replacement, of cooling steps by refrigeration and absorption is possible (P3/L1-5). Therefore one skilled in the art would obtain the streams C and D as claimed.
One would be motivated to combine the purge stream taught by Thompson (P3/L53) with the teachings of Nakamura because Thompson teaches that the purge stream avoids the buildup of inert materials inside the loop (P3/L54-55). Therefore one skilled in the art would obtain the stream F as claimed.
One would be motivated to combine the stream D with stream B before removing water, as taught by Thompson (absorber 18 to desiccant 13, P3/L40), because Nakamura teaches that the unreacted gas is unreacted synthesis gas (0118) and therefore contains unreacted nitrogen and hydrogen that can be recycled. Nakamura teaches that the fresh synthesis gas must have oxygen removed to avoid degrading the catalyst (0100) and therefore motivates one skilled in the art to treat the synthesis gas from line 405 with a water-removing step, since water contains oxygen. Therefore one skilled in the art would arrive at the claimed invention prior to the effective filing date with reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 16, Nakamura and Thompson teach the invention as applied to claim 1. Nakamura further teaches that the compression of gas stream B is performed with a centrifugal compressor (0114).
Regarding claim 22, Nakamura and Thompson teach the invention as applied to claim 1. Nakamura further teaches drying of gas streams performed by passing the streams over a bed of water sorbent material (drier filled with zeolite, 0101). It would be obvious to one skilled in the art to combine the teachings of Nakamura and Thompson, motivated as discussed for claim 1 above, and thus arrive at the claimed invention where the drying step is performed with a zeolite sorbent material as Nakamura teaches.
Regarding claim 34, Nakamura and Thompson teach the invention as applied to claim 1. Thompson further teaches that the reacted gas leaving the ammonia synthesis catalyst is cooled and the recovered heat is used to heat another cold stream in the process (heat interchanger 15, P3/L40-50).
Regarding claim 147, Nakamura teaches a system for renewable ammonia synthesis (Figs. 1-11) comprising:
a renewable source configured to provide power to an electrolyzer (reaction apparatus 130, 0065, Fig. 5), wherein the electrolyzer is configured to generate hydrogen via electrolysis (0069);
a compressor configured to compress the hydrogen (0067);
means for generating a gas stream A comprising nitrogen and oxygen wherein a majority of gas stream A comprises nitrogen (air introduction means, Fig. 8);
means for mixing the hydrogen with gas stream A over a hydrogenation catalyst to hydrogenate at least some oxygenated species present in the mixed gas stream to form a new gas stream B (gas purification apparatus 360 of Fig. 8);
a compressor configured to compress the gas stream B (compressor 420, 0113);
means for running the mixed and dried gas stream over an ammonia synthesis catalyst which is capable of reacting the hydrogen and nitrogen to form ammonia in one reactor vessel or more reactor vessels in parallel or in series (Fig. 10, see 401, 402, 440);
means for cooling the reacted gas below its dew point whereby to produce a liquid anhydrous ammonia stream and a stream C of reacted gas comprising hydrogen, nitrogen, ammonia and other minor impurities (heat exchanger 430, Fig. 10);
means for separating the liquid anhydrous ammonia from the gas stream C to form a liquid ammonia stream E (liquefaction equipment 450, 0118);
Nakamura does not teach the following limitations:
means for mixing gas stream B with gas stream D below and removing water from the mixed gas stream to make a mixed and dried gas stream;
means for contacting the gas stream C with water whereby to produce an aqueous solution of ammonia and a gas stream D of unreacted gas comprising water vapor, hydrogen, nitrogen and other minor impurities;
means for separating the aqueous solution comprising a mixture of ammonia and water from the gas stream D;
means for separating a portion of the gas stream D to create a purge gas stream F;
and means for recycling the gas stream D to mix it with stream B prior to removing the water.
However, Thompson teaches these limitations in an analogous system for the production of ammonia (Fig. 1) which is pertinent to the field of Nakamura since Thompson teaches methods of improvement for the production of ammonia from catalytic conversion of an N2/H2 synthesis gas mixture (C1/L25-30). Thompson teaches:
means for mixing a gas stream B with a gas stream D below and removing water from the mixed gas stream to generate a mixed and dried gas stream (line from compressor 12 (gas stream B) and from absorber 18 (gas stream D) are mixed before being sent to drying plant 13, P3/L54-57, Fig. 1);
means for contacting the gas stream C with water whereby to produce an aqueous solution of ammonia and a gas stream D of unreacted gas comprising water vapor, hydrogen, nitrogen and other minor impurities (absorber 18, P3/L49-50);
means for separating the aqueous solution comprising a mixture of ammonia and water from the gas stream D (absorber 18, Fig. 1);
means for separating a portion of the gas stream D to create a purge gas stream F (purge line, Fig. 1);
and means for recycling the gas stream D to mix it with stream B prior to removing the water ("remaining gases pass back to the drying plant 13," C3/L55).
It would be obvious to one skilled in the art to combine the teachings of Nakamura and Thompson by adding the means of contacting ammonia with water, separating the aqueous ammonia from the gas stream D, separating the gas stream D into a purge stream F, and recycling D to mix with stream B, as taught by Thompson, to the system taught by Nakamura. One would be motivated to do so because Nakamura teaches that the unreacted gases created by the synthesis of ammonia in reactor 440, are recycled back to the ammonia synthesis step by line 405 (Fig. 10) and Nakamura teaches the liquefaction of gaseous ammonia, therefore the product from reactor 440 contains gaseous ammonia that is cooled. Thompson then teaches that separating ammonia from unconverted gas by means of cooling can have considerable costs associated (P1/L20-25) and teaches that the water scrubbing or an analogous absorption allows for the complete elimination of a refrigeration plant (P2/L130). Therefore one would be motivated to combine the teachings of Nakamura and Thompson to optimize the cost of the associated cooling step of the products, and would reasonably expect predictable performance since Thompson teaches that the combination, instead of replacement, of cooling steps by refrigeration and absorption is possible (P3/L1-5). One would be motivated to combine the purge stream taught by Thompson (P3/L53) with the teachings of Nakamura because Thompson teaches that the purge stream avoids the buildup of inert materials inside the loop (P3/L54-55). Therefore one skilled in the art would obtain the stream F as claimed. One would be motivated to combine the stream D with stream B before removing water, as taught by Thompson (absorber 18 to desiccant 13, P3/L40), because Nakamura teaches that the unreacted gas is unreacted synthesis gas (0118) and therefore contains unreacted nitrogen and hydrogen that can be recycled. Nakamura teaches that the fresh synthesis gas must have oxygen removed to avoid degrading the catalyst (0100) and therefore motivates one skilled in the art to treat the synthesis gas from line 405 with a water-removing step, since water contains oxygen. Therefore one skilled in the art would arrive at the claimed invention prior to the effective filing date with reasonable expectation of success.
Claims 2 and 148 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura and Thompson as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sircar et al. 1981 (US 4249915 A).
Regarding claim 2, Nakamura and Thompson teach the invention as applied to claim 1. They do not teach that the gas stream A is generated using a pressure swing adsorption or vacuum pressure swing adsorption unit.
However, Sircar teaches a method of removing moisture and CO2 from atmospheric air (abstract) which is pertinent to the field of Nakamura and Thompson because Sircar teaches that the method is for providing water-free air (C1/L7) and Nakamura teaches that removing water from the gas stream is important since the presence of oxygen degrades the catalyst in the subsequent ammonia synthesis step (0100). Sircar teaches the use of a PSA unit to remove water (C2/L55-60). It would be obvious to combine the teachings of Nakamura, Thompson, and Sircar by using the PSA unit to remove water from the air before combining with hydrogen; one would be motivated to do so because Nakamura teaches that removing water from the gas stream is important since the presence of oxygen degrades the catalyst in the subsequent ammonia synthesis step (0100). Therefore one skilled in the art would arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 148, Nakamura and Thompson teach the system as applied to claim 147. They do not teach that the means for generating gas stream A is a pressure swing adsorption or vacuum pressure swing adsorption unit.
However, Sircar teaches a system of removing moisture and CO2 from atmospheric air (abstract) which is pertinent to the field of Nakamura and Thompson because Sircar teaches that the system is for providing water-free air (C1/L7) and Nakamura teaches that removing water from the gas stream is important since the presence of oxygen degrades the catalyst in the subsequent ammonia synthesis step (0100). Sircar teaches the use of a PSA unit to remove water (C2/L55-60). It would be obvious to combine the teachings of Nakamura, Thompson, and Sircar by using the PSA unit to remove water from the air before combining with hydrogen; one would be motivated to do so because Nakamura teaches that removing water from the gas stream is important since the presence of oxygen degrades the catalyst in the subsequent ammonia synthesis step (0100). Therefore one skilled in the art would arrive at the claimed invention.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura and Thompson as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gosser et al. 1989 (US4832938A).
Regarding claim 7, Nakamura and Thompson teach the invention as applied to claim 1. They do not teach that the hydrogenation catalyst is heated to between 150 °C and 300 °C.
However, Gosser teaches a method of making hydrogen peroxide by combining hydrogen and oxygen (abstract) which is pertinent to the field of Nakamura and Thompson because Gosser teaches the reaction of hydrogen with oxygen in the presence of a catalyst (abstract) of palladium or platinum, as Nakamura teaches (0102). Gosser teaches that the catalyst is heated to 200 C (C2/L25), which falls within the claimed range. It would be obvious to one skilled in the art to combine the teachings of Nakamura, Thompson, and Gosser by heating the catalyst to the temperature taught by Gosser; one would be motivated to do in order to form the active catalyst, as Gosser teaches that this temperature is required in order to form the active form (C2/L27). Therefore one skilled in the art would arrive at the claimed invention.
Claims 10 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura and Thompson as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Phillipi et al. 2016, Your Gas Compression Application – Reciprocating, Centrifugal, or Screw?, 45th Turbomachinery and 32nd Pump Symposia, Turbomachinery Laboratory, Texas A&M Engineering Experiment Station, September 12-15, 2016, referred to herein as Phillipi.
Regarding claims 10 and 13, Nakamura and Thompson teach the invention as applied to claim 1. They do not teach that the compression of gas stream B is conducted with a reciprocating compressor, directed to claim 10, or a screw compressor, directed to claim 13.
However, Phillippi teaches methods of gas compression in which reciprocating compressors and screw compressors are taught as conventional equivalents to centrifugal compressors known in the art (abstract). The courts have held that the simple substitution of one known element in the art for another is prima facie obvious; see MPEP 2143(I)(B) and 2144.06(II). Furthermore Phillippi teaches that reciprocating compressors can be advantageous for a variety of operating conditions (p. 15 paragraph 1), therefore one skilled in the art would be motivated to make this selection, and Phillippi teaches that screw compressors are advantageous for their small footprint (p. 17 paragraph 4), therefore one skilled in the art would be motivated to make this selection. Therefore one skilled in the art would arrive at the claimed inventions.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura and Thompson as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Muromura 1978 (US 4075306 A).
Regarding claim 19, Nakamura and Thompson teach the invention as applied to claim 1. They do not teach contacting the gas streams with a stream of liquid ammonia to dry it.
However, Muromura teaches a method of drying an ammonia gas stream (abstract) which is pertinent to the field of Nakamura and Thompson because Muromura teaches the drying of a gaseous stream containing nitrogen (title) and is directed to the control of water presence and removal in ammonia (C1/L67-68), as Nakamura teaches the removal of water (0100). Muromura teaches the drying of a gas stream by passing it through liquid ammonia containing a metal (C1/L5-10). It would be obvious to one skilled in the art to combine the teachings of Nakamura, Thompson, and Muromura, by using a liquid ammonia stream to dry the gas stream mixture of B and D as claimed; one would be motivated to do so in order to remove any trace of moisture in all streams, since Nakamura teaches that the presence of moisture in gases being used in the ammonia synthesis process can degrade the catalyst (0100). Therefore, as Nakamura and Thompson teach the recycling of gases for ammonia synthesis, and Muromura teaches liquid ammonia as a drying agent, one skilled in the art would arrive at the claimed invention prior to the effective filing date.
Claims 28-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura and Thompson as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Rizzi et al. 2015 (US20150352510A1).
Regarding claim 28, Nakamura and Thompson teach the invention as applied to claim 1. They do not explicitly teach that the catalyst bed is axial, axial-radial, or radial. However, Rizzi teaches an adiabatic multi-bed catalytic converter (title) which is pertinent to the field of Nakamura and Thompson because Rizzi teaches that the reactor is applicable to an ammonia synthesis process (0002). Rizzi teaches that the converter has an axial or axial-radial flow (0038). It would be obvious to combine the teachings of Nakamura, Thompson, and Rizzi, by using the converter taught by Rizzi as the reactor for the production of ammonia taught by Nakamura and Thompson, wherein the reactor has the catalyst beds oriented as taught by Rizzi; one would be motivated to do so because Rizzi teaches that the converter simplifies the mechanical construction, reduces costs, and increases the convenience of a typical converter (0008). Therefore one skilled in the art would arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 29, Nakamura and Thompson teach the invention as applied to claim 1. They do not explicitly teach that the ammonia synthesis catalyst is contained in one or more adiabatic catalyst beds. However, Rizzi teaches an adiabatic multi-bed catalytic converter (title) which is pertinent to the field of Nakamura and Thompson because Rizzi teaches that the reactor is applicable to an ammonia synthesis process (0002). Rizzi teaches that the converter is adiabatic (title). It would be obvious to one skilled in the art to combine the teachings of Nakamura, Thompson, and Rizzi by using the adiabatic catalyst bed converter taught by Rizzi; one would be motivated to do so because Rizzi teaches that the converter simplifies the mechanical construction, reduces costs, and increases the convenience of a typical converter (0008). Therefore one skilled in the art would arrive at the claimed invention.
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura and Thompson as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lee 1999 (US5869011A).
Regarding claim 30, Nakamura and Thompson teach the invention as applied to claim 1. Nakamura teaches that the ammonia synthesis catalyst is contained in one or more catalyst beds (reactor 440, 0116). They do not explicitly teach that the reacting gas is cooled with heat exchange elements inserted in at least one of the catalyst beds.
However, Lee teaches a fixed-bed catalytic reactor (title) which is pertinent to the field of Nakamura and Thompson because Lee teaches the synthesis of ammonia with the reactor (Example 3A, C10). Lee teaches that the reacting gas is cooled (C11/L1-5) with heat exchange elements inserted in at least one of the catalyst beds (tubes, C2/L10-15, C6/L49-50). It would be obvious to one skilled in the art to combine the teachings of Nakamura, Thompson, and Lee; one would be motivated to do so in order to advantageously avoid the conventional intercooled beds which reduces expense and uses fewer vessels (C5/L20-25).
Claim 40 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura and Thompson as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Jafari et al. Raschig Rings Versus PVC as a Packed Tower Media in Scrubbing Ammonia from Air, Iranica Journal of Energy & Environment 5 (3): 270-276, 2014 ISSN 2079-2115, referred to herein as Jafari.
Regarding claim 40, Nakamura and Thompson teach the invention as applied to claim 1. They do not teach that the gas stream C is contacted with water over a packed bed containing material that increases the one or more of heat and mass transfer between the gas stream and water.
However, Jafari teaches a method of scrubbing gas to absorb ammonia (title) which is pertinent to the field of Nakamura and Thompson because Jafari teaches the absorption of ammonia as aqueous ammonia using water (abstract), from a gas stream (air) which is mostly nitrogen, analogously to the gas stream C and D of the claimed invention and taught by Nakamura and Thompson. Jafari teaches the use of a packing material of Raschig rings (abstract) as the material over which the gas stream is contacted with water (p. 273, col. 2 pp. 2). It would be obvious to one skilled in the art to combine the teachings of Nakamura, Thompson, and Jafari, where it is known in the art that the purpose of packing materials such as PVC rings and Raschig rings are to improve mass transfer properties in scrubbing processes; one would be motivated to do so because Jafari teaches that the Raschig rings see superior ammonia removal efficiency compared to the similar packing material of PVC rings (p. 273 col. 1 line 1). Therefore one skilled in the art would arrive at the claimed invention.
Claims 41-43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura, Thompson, and Jafari as applied to claim 40 above, and further in view of Rizzi.
Regarding claim 41, Nakamura, Thompson, and Jafari teach the invention as applied to claim 40. They do not explicitly teach that the packing material is contained in multiple beds arranged in series or in parallel.
However, Rizzi teaches an adiabatic multi-bed catalytic converter (title) which is pertinent to the field of Nakamura and Thompson because Rizzi teaches that the reactor is applicable to an ammonia synthesis process (0002). Rizzi teaches multiple beds arranged in series (Fig. 1, C4/L1-10). It would be obvious to one skilled in the art to combine the teachings of Nakamura, Thompson, and Rizzi, by using the multi-bed configuration taught by Rizzi; one would be motivated to do so because more stages achieve better efficiency and a more uniform temperature, as Rizzi teaches (C1/L55). Therefore one skilled in the art would arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 42, Nakamura, Thompson, Jafari, and Rizzi teach the invention as applied to claim 41. Thompson further teaches that the liquid stream leaving the absorption step is cooled in a heat exchanger (heat exchanger 19, P3/L60-65).
Regarding claim 43, Nakamura, Thompson, Jafari, and Rizzi teach the invention as applied to claim 42. Thompson further teaches that the cooled liquid stream is pumped and recycled to an inlet of the absorber (pump 21 and recycle lines, Fig. 1). With the combination of teachings of a packed bed as taught by Jafari, one would therefore arrive at the claimed invention where the liquid stream is pumped and recycled to an inlet of the packed bed, as claimed.
Claims 44-45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura, Thompson, Jafari, and Rizzi as applied to claim 41 above, and further in view of Jacobs 2011, Direct Contact Heat Exchangers, Thermopedia, A to Z, 2 February 2011, DOI: 10.1615/AtoZ.d.direct_contact_heat_exchangers.
Regarding claim 44, Nakamura, Thompson, Jafari, and Rizzi teach the invention as applied to claim 41. Thompson teaches that the liquid stream leaving the absorber is cooled (heat exchanger 19, P3/L60-65). They do not teach that the liquid stream is cooled by directly contacting it with a colder liquid stream. However, Jacobs teaches a method of direct contact heat exchange (p. 1) which is pertinent to the field of Nakamura, Thompson, Jafari, and Rizzi because Jacobs teaches the interactions between phases during scrubbing processes as taught by Thompson. Jacobs teaches a method wherein liquids undergo heat exchange by direct contact through apparatus including packed columns (p. 3 pp. 1). It would be obvious to combine the teachings of Nakamura, Thompson, Jafari, Rizzi, and Jacobs by substituting the heat exchange step taught by Thompson with a direct contact heat exchange step as taught by Jacobs; one would be motivated to do so because Jacobs teaches the advantages of direct contact heat exchange including reduced cost, lack of surfaces that can corrode, and potentially superior heat transfer for a given volume (p. 2 pp. 3). Therefore one skilled in the art would arrive at the claimed invention prior to the effective filing date.
Regarding claim 45, Nakamura, Thompson, Jafari, Rizzi, and Jacobs teach the invention as applied to claim 44. Thompson further teaches that a portion or all of the cooled liquid stream is pumped and recycled to an inlet of the absorber (pump 21 and recycle lines, Fig. 1). With the combination of teachings of a packed bed as taught by Jafari, one would therefore arrive at the claimed invention where the liquid stream is pumped and recycled to an inlet of the packed bed, as claimed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Zeng et al. 2008, Elimination of oxygen from hydrogen with catalysis of palladium, Journal of South China University of Technology (Natural Science), 36(11):22-26. Zeng teaches palladium catalysts to eliminate oxygen from hydrogen gas.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Eileen Moudou whose telephone number is (571)272-1768. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8 AM - 4 PM EST.
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, Sally Merkling can be reached at (571)272-6297. 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.
/Eileen Moudou/Examiner, Art Unit 1738
/MICHAEL FORREST/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1738
Prosecution Insights