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 with traverse of Species III (Fig. 3) directed to Claims 1-3, 5, 7, and 10-12 in the reply filed on December 26, 2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that Allam in view of Ito teach a different liquid hydrogen production device for the invention recited in Claim 1, therefore there is unity of invention. More specifically, Applicant argues Ito fails to teach any structure that is capable of achieving the special technical feature of wherein the motive power generated by driving of the turbine is used as motive power to be consumed in the liquefaction plant.
This is not found persuasive because the recitation of "wherein the motive power generated by driving of the turbine is used as motive power to be consumed in the liquefaction plant" recited in the claim has been considered a recitation of intended use. The prior art structure of Allam/Ito combined is capable of performing as intended. It has been held that the recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitation. (MPEP 2114).
Furthermore, restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply:
(a) the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their different classification;(b) the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art due to their recognized divergent subject matter;(c) the inventions require a different field of search (for example, searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search queries);(d) the prior art applicable to one invention would not likely be applicable to another invention;(e) the inventions are likely to raise different non-prior art issues under 35 U.S.C. 101 and/or 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
Moreover, it must be noted that the examination burden is not limited exclusively to a prior art search but also includes the effort required to apply the art by making and discussing all appropriate grounds of rejection. Multiple inventions, such as those in the present application, require additional reference material and further discussion for each additional feature addressed. Concurrent examination of the multiple inventions claimed would thus involve a significant burden even if all searches were coextensive, which they are not. See MPEP 808.02.
Claims 4, 6 and 8-9 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
a pretreatment unit in claim 10. For purposes of examination: a system that includes an acid gas removal unit (AGRU) which comprises a gas separation membrane and its equivalents and a dehydration unit an adsorption column and its equivalents (Applicant Specification Publication [0047]-0049).
a first exhaust-heat recovery unit in claim 12. For purposes of examination: this term is interpreted as a heat exchanger (Applicant Specification Publication [0078]) and its equivalents.
a reforming unit in claim 12. For purpose of examination: For purposes of examination system: this term is interpreted as a reforming reactor (Applicant Specification Publication [0043]) and its equivalents.
a second exhaust-heat recovery unit in claim 12. For purpose of examination: as best understood by the Examiner as a heat source (Applicant Specification Publication [0041]) and its equivalents.
The aforementioned limitation meets the three-prong test outlined herein since:
(A) the term “unit” is a generic placeholder,
(B) the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, and
(C) the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structures, material or acts for performing the claimed function.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 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.
Claims 1-2, 5, 7, and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Allam (US 20180128172 A1) in view of Ito et al (JP2004210597A).
In re Claim 1, Allam discloses a liquid hydrogen production device (Fig.1 and Fig. 2) comprising:
a carbon dioxide cycle plant (Fig. 1), which includes
a turbine (103)
using a carbon dioxide fluid (110) as a driving fluid ([0116]: carbon dioxide of stream 109 drives turbine), and
is configured to drive the turbine to generate motive power with use of a carbon dioxide cycle ([0116]: generates power in 104) in which
the carbon dioxide fluid discharged from the turbine (discharged through 109)
is increased in pressure ([0117]: 129 increases pressure) and
heated (heated in heat exchanger 101) and
is then re- supplied to the turbine (resupplied through 110)
However, Allam does not explicitly teach, a liquefaction plant configured to cool gaseous hydrogen by heat exchange with a refrigerant, to obtain liquid hydrogen, wherein the motive power generated by driving of the turbine is used as motive power to be consumed in the liquefaction plant.
On the other hand, Ito teaches a liquefaction plant (See Fig. 1 and Fig. 4: 16) configured to cool gaseous hydrogen by heat exchange with a refrigerant, to obtain liquid hydrogen (See Fig. 1 and Fig. 4: 33), wherein the motive power generated by driving of the turbine is used as motive power to be consumed in the liquefaction plant1.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have taken the teachings of Allam and to have modified them by having a liquefaction plant configured to cool gaseous hydrogen by heat exchange with a refrigerant, to obtain liquid hydrogen, in order to conserve power and reduce environmental emission by using generated electricity (See Ito [0007] and [0011-0012]), without yielding unpredictable results.
In re Claim 2, Modified Allam teaches wherein the liquefaction plant (Ito 16) includes:
a hydrogen compressor (Ito 68) configured to compress gaseous hydrogen (Ito 30 corresponding to Allam 239);
a refrigeration cycle (Ito 17) including:
a refrigerant compressor (112/113) configured to compress the refrigerant ([0066-0067]) for cooling and liquefying the hydrogen2; and
(Ito Fig. 4: 185) configured to
cool the refrigerant compressed by the refrigerant compressor and adiabatically expand the refrigerant, to reduce a temperature of the refrigerant (the pressure reducing valve is necessarily capable of performing these functions); and
a heat exchanger (Ito 71) configured to perform heat exchange between the compressed hydrogen and the refrigerant that is adiabatically expanded (See Ito Fig. 4 and [0071]) to have a reduced temperature, to cool the compressed hydrogen and obtain the liquid hydrogen3
wherein the refrigerant compressor (112/113) is configured to be driven with use of the motive power generated in the carbon dioxide cycle plant4.
In re Claim 5, Modified Allam teaches further comprising a hydrogen production plant (Allam Fig. 1 and 2) configured to produce the gaseous hydrogen (Allam Fig. 2: 239).
In re Claim 7, Modified Allam teaches wherein the hydrogen production plant (Allam Fig. 1 and 2) is configured to produce gaseous hydrogen (Allam 224) by reforming hydrocarbon (Allam 245) with steam (Allam 223).
In re Claim 10, Modified Allam teaches further comprising a pretreatment unit (215) configured to perform at least removal of carbon dioxide (232) mixed into gaseous hydrogen (230)|([0125]: carbon dioxide in hydrogen stream 230 is removed).
In re Claim 11, Modified Allam teaches wherein, in a case in which the pretreatment unit (215) performs at least one of dehydration with use of an adsorbent ([0125]: water is removed from using multi-bed absorbent),
the liquid hydrogen production device further comprises
a first exhaust-heat recovery unit (209) configured to recover heat (See Allam [0121]) from the carbon dioxide fluid (See [0117] and [0121]) provided after the turbine of the carbon dioxide cycle plant is driven, and
wherein the heat (See Allam 121) recovered by the first exhaust-heat recovery unit (209) is used for a regeneration process performed by heating the adsorbent5.
In re Claim 12, Modified Allam teaches wherein, in a case in which the pretreatment unit (215) performs at least one of dehydration with use of an adsorbent ([0125]: water is removed from using multi-bed absorbent),
the liquid hydrogen production device further comprises
a hydrogen production plant (Allam Fig. 2) that is configured to produce the gaseous hydrogen (Allam 239), and includes: a reforming unit (Allam at least 202) configured to reform hydrocarbon (Allam 245) by causing a reaction with steam (Allam 223) to produce gaseous hydrogen (Allam 230); and
a second exhaust-heat recovery unit (236) configured to recover heat generated by the reaction ([0121]) between steam (Allam 223) and hydrocarbon (Allam 245) in the reforming unit (202), and
wherein the heat (249) recovered by the second exhaust-heat recovery unit (236) is used for a regeneration process performed by heating the adsorbent or the absorption liquid.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3 would be allowable if rewritten to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The prior art, when taken as a whole, neither anticipates nor render prima facie obvious the claimed invention as currently recited in at least claim 3.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IBRAHIM M ADENIJI whose telephone number is (571)272-5939. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-5:00 PM.
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, Jianying Atkisson can be reached at 571-270-7740. 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.
/IBRAHIM A. MICHAEL ADENIJI/Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/JOEL M ATTEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
1 The recitation of "wherein the motive power generated by driving of the turbine is used as motive power to be consumed in the liquefaction plant" recited in the claim has been considered a recitation of intended use. The prior art structure above is capable of performing as intended. It has been held that the recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitation. (MPEP 2114).
2 The recitation of "for cooling and liquefying the hydrogen" recited in the claim has been considered a recitation of intended use. The prior art structure above is capable of performing as intended. It has been held that the recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitation. (MPEP 2114).
3 The recitation of "to have a reduced temperature, to cool the compressed hydrogen and obtain the liquid hydrogen" recited in the claim has been considered a recitation of intended use. The prior art structure above is capable of performing as intended. It has been held that the recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitation. (MPEP 2114).
4 The recitation of "to be driven with use of the motive power generated in the carbon dioxide cycle plant" recited in the claim has been considered a recitation of intended use. The prior art structure above is capable of performing as intended. It has been held that the recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitation. (MPEP 2114).
5 The recitation of "used for a regeneration process performed by heating the adsorbent or the absorption liquid" recited in the claim has been considered a recitation of intended use. The prior art structure above is capable of performing as intended. It has been held that the recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitation. (MPEP 2114).