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 .
This is a response to applicant’s amendment filed on July 16, 2026. Claims 1 and 3-6 have been amended. No claims have been added or cancelled. Claims 1-7 are pending in the application.
Response to Amendment
Claim interpretations under 35 USC § 112(f) have been withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendments.
Rejections under 103 USC § 103 of Claims 1-7 have been withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendment. However, upon further search and consideration, new grounds of rejection have been made.
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 (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 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, 3-4 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hosono et al. (US Pat. Pub. No. 2015/0217278, hereinafter Hosono) in view of Mizuno et al. (JP2016188721A, relied on machine translation, hereinafter Mizuno).
In regard to Claims 1 and 4, Hosono discloses an ammonia decomposition system, comprising:
a reactor (#1) filled with a catalyst for a decomposition reaction where ammonia which is a raw material is decomposed into hydrogen and nitrogen (see figure 1 and paragraphs [0054] and [0074]; Hosono discloses that hydrogen can be produced with a high ammonia conversion rate by continuously supplying ammonia gas with a volume fraction of 0.1 to 100% to a catalyst layer, which is formed by filling a reactor (#1) with a supported metal catalyst and performing contact decomposition reaction for generating hydrogen and nitrogen.); and
a diluent gas supply line for supplying a diluent gas having a lower ammonia concentration than the raw material, such that the diluent gas is mixed with the raw material before the raw material flows into the catalyst (see figure 1 and paragraph [0076]; Hosono discloses that the raw material ammonia is diluted with a balance gas which has a lower ammonia concentration than the raw material, and the diluent gas is mixed with the raw material ammonia before the raw material flows into the reactor containing the catalyst.), and
wherein the diluent gas supply line is provided with a temperature raising device for raising a temperature of the diluent gas (see figure 1 and paragraphs [0078] and [0081]; Hosono discloses that since the reaction is an endothermic reaction, it is advantageous to perform the reaction while supplying heat, and various industrial designs for supplying reaction heat are considered for increasing the yield. As shown in figure 1, the reaction system was heated to a predetermined temperature and balance gas supply (H2, He) was heated with a heat exchanger, i.e. heater, prior to entering reactor (#1) (encompasses the limitation of claim 4).).
Hosono is silent in regard to wherein the reactor has an inner surface covered with a refractory material, and the catalyst is filled on a side opposite to the inner surface across the refractory material.
However, Mizuno teaches a chemical heat storage device for converting ammonia to hydrogen and nitrogen. The chemical heat storage device comprises a metallic shell housing a chemical storage material and has a ceramic coating layer, formed on the inner surface of its metallic shell, i.e. inner surface covered with a refractory material, to prevent the metallic components contained in the metal material of the metallic shell from directly contacting the ammonia introduced into the metallic shell, thereby suppressing nitriding of the metallic shell while also suppressing decrease in heat generation performance due to the nitriding of ammonia in the chemical storage device (see paragraph [0007]). The chemical storage device comprises the metallic shell housing the chemical storage material and ceramic coating layer further comprises an insulating material made of a hard ceramic covering an inner surface of the metallic shell housing and surrounding the heat storage material. By providing such an insulating material surrounding the heat storage material, the heat generated in the heat storage material is less likely to escape to the outside of the reactor and pipe, i.e. reactor has inner surface covered with a refractory material and catalyst is filled on a side opposite to the inner surface across the refractory material (see paragraph [0029]).
Further, Mizuno teaches wherein the temperature inside the metallic shell reaches a high temperature with a heat exchanger, ammonia is heated and decomposes into nitrogen and hydrogen (see paragraph [0035]). As shown in figure 4, a metallic shell (#27) has insulating material (#25) covering the inner surface (#20a) of the metallic shell (#27), and a ceramic coating layer (#28) is formed on inner surfaces of the metallic shell (#27) and the chemical storage material (#24) is filled on a side opposite to the inner surface (#20a) across the insulating material (#25), i.e. refractory material (see figure 4 and paragraphs [0029] and [0039]-[0040]).
It would have been obvious by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify the ammonia decomposition system as disclosed by Hosono by further having the reactor to have an inner surface covered with a refractory material, and the catalyst being filled on a side opposite to the inner surface across the refractory material, as claimed by the applicant, with a reasonable expectation of success, as Mizuno teaches a chemical heat storage device for converting ammonia to hydrogen and nitrogen, wherein the chemical heat storage device has a ceramic coating layer, formed on the inner surface of its metallic shell to prevent the metallic components contained in the metal material of the metallic shell from directly contacting the ammonia introduced into the metallic shell, and an insulating layer made of a hard ceramic covering the inner surface of the metallic shell housing and surrounding the chemical storage material, whereby providing such an insulating material surrounding the heat storage material, the heat generated in the heat storage material is less likely to escape to the outside of the reactor and pipe (see paragraph [0029]).
In regard to Claim 3, Hosono discloses wherein the heater is a heating furnace (see paragraph [0078]; Hosono discloses that since the reaction is an endothermic reaction, it is advantageous to perform the reaction while supplying reaction heat, and various industrial designs for supplying reaction heat are considered for increasing the yield. For example, a method is proposed, in which ammonia decomposition reaction is performed while combustion heat is obtained by oxidizing a portion of an ammonia raw material with air, i.e. heating furnace.).
In regard to Claim 7, Hosono discloses wherein the diluent gas supply line (#2, #4) has a downstream side connected with the reactor (#1) (see figure 1).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hosono, in view of Mizuno, and further in view of Yamaguchi et al. (JP2018096616A, relied on machine translation, hereinafter Yamaguchi).
In regard to Claim 2, Hosono, in view of Mizuno, discloses the ammonia decomposition system as recited in claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein the diluent gas supply is part of an outflow gas having flowed out from the reactor.
However, Yamaguchi teaches a boiler system comprising an ammonia decomposition device and ammonia fuel supply unit installed inside a furnace. The ammonia decomposition device decomposes ammonia to generate nitrogen and hydrogen from the ammonia fuel supplied to the ammonia decomposition device. Further, the boiler system may further include an ammonia separation device for separating residual ammonia from the gas flowing from the first ammonia decomposition device to the furnace, and a recycling channel connected to the downstream side of the ammonia separator and the inlet side of the ammonia decomposition device for returning the residual ammonia separated by the ammonia separator to the inlet side of the ammonia decomposition device, thereby enabling the entire amount of ammonia to be effectively utilized as fuel (see figure 5 and paragraphs [0047] and [0051]). This is considered equivalent to wherein the diluent gas is part of an outflow gas having flowed out from the reactor, as claimed by the applicant.
Since Yamaguchi takes the residual ammonia, i.e. diluent gas supply, and recycles it back to the inlet of the ammonia decomposition device along with the ammonia fuel supply, it would have been obvious by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify the ammonia decomposition system as disclosed by Hosono, in view of Mizuno, by further substituting the diluent gas supply with another diluent gas supply, such as the diluent part being part of an outflow gas having flowed out from the reactor, as claimed by the applicant, with a reasonable expectation of success, as Yamaguchi teaches a boiler system comprising an ammonia decomposition device and ammonia fuel supply unit installed inside a furnace, wherein the ammonia decomposition device decomposes ammonia to generate nitrogen and hydrogen from the ammonia fuel supplied to the ammonia decomposition device, whereby the boiler system may further include an ammonia separation device for separating residual ammonia from the gas flowing from the first ammonia decomposition device to the furnace, and a recycling channel connected to the downstream side of the ammonia separator and the inlet side of the ammonia decomposition device for returning the residual ammonia separated by the ammonia separator to the inlet side of the ammonia decomposition device, thereby enabling the entire amount of ammonia to be effectively utilized as fuel (see figure 5 and paragraphs [0047] and [0051]).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hosono, in view of Mizuno as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Andersen et al. (WO2017/160154A1, hereinafter Andersen).
In regard to Claim 5, Hosono, in view of Mizuno, discloses the ammonia decomposition system as recited in claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein the heater is a combustor for burning the diluent gas.
However, Andersen teaches an ammonia cracking device for converting ammonia into a mixture of hydrogen and nitrogen. The ammonia cracking device comprises a reactor (#10) with a catalyst for the decomposition of an ammonia feed into hydrogen and nitrogen, a cracked ammonia gas line comprising a mixture of hydrogen and nitrogen, i.e. diluent gas supply line, having a lower ammonia concentration that the ammonia feed is passed through a heat exchanger and vaporizer and a portion is recycled back into the ammonia-cracking device (#10) to drive the endothermic cracking reaction. The remaining mixture of hydrogen and nitrogen is cooled and any unreacted ammonia remaining in the cooled hydrogen and nitrogen mixture is removed in an ammonia scrubbing unit and then the cooled hydrogen and nitrogen mixture exiting the scrubbing unit is then sent to a gas turbine, i.e. combustor, where it is combusted to generate power and air. The air generated is cycled to the ammonia cracking reactor (#10) for providing compressed air to the reactor (see figure 2 and page 15, lines 9-23). The air generated by the combustion of hydrogen and nitrogen and cycled to the reactor is considered equivalent to wherein the diluent gas supply line is provided with a temperature raising device for raising a temperature of the diluent gas, wherein the temperature raising device is a combustor for burning the diluent gas, as claimed by the applicant.
It would have been obvious by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify the ammonia decomposition system as disclosed by Hosono, in view of Mizuno, by further substituting a heater for another known heater such as a combustor for burning diluent gas, as claimed by the applicant, with a reasonable expectation of success, as Andersen teaches an ammonia cracking device comprising a reactor with a catalyst for the decomposition of an ammonia feed into hydrogen and nitrogen, a cracked ammonia gas line comprising a mixture of hydrogen and nitrogen, i.e. diluent gas supply line, having a lower ammonia concentration that the ammonia feed is passed through a heat exchanger and vaporizer and a portion is recycled back into the ammonia-cracking device to drive the endothermic cracking reaction, wherein the remaining mixture of hydrogen and nitrogen is cooled and any unreacted ammonia remaining in the cooled hydrogen and nitrogen mixture is removed in an ammonia scrubbing unit and then the cooled hydrogen and nitrogen mixture exiting the scrubbing unit is then sent to a gas turbine, i.e. combustor, where it is combusted to generate power and air, whereby the air generated is cycled to the ammonia cracking reactor for providing compressed air to the reactor for aiding in the ammonia cracking process in the ammonia cracking device (see figure 2 and page 15, lines 9-23).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hosono, in view of Mizuno, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Grannell et al. (US Pat. Pub. No. 2012/0148925, hereinafter Grannell).
In regard to Claim 6, Hosono, in view of Mizuno, discloses the ammonia decomposition system as recited in claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein the temperature raising device is an ammonia combustor for burning part of the raw material, and the ammonia decomposition system is configured such that a combustion gas from the ammonia combustor is supplied to the diluent gas supply line.
However, Grannell teaches an ammonia cracker system for the decomposition of ammonia into a hydrogen gas mixture. The ammonia cracker system comprises a reactor with an inlet for receiving an ammonia-rich gaseous mixture containing anhydrous ammonia and oxygen. In some embodiments, ammonia and an oxygen-containing gas air enter a heat exchanger and are preheated separately until they reach a combustion zone, i.e. ammonia combustor, at which point the ammonia and oxygen-containing gas mix and combust. The combusted mixture, preferably containing non-combusted hydrogen gas, i.e. combustion gas from ammonia combustor, is then counterflow heat exchanged with the incoming ammonia and oxygen-containing gas (see paragraph [0048]). The hydrogen may be a recycled portion of the product mixture exiting outlet #907 (see figure 9 and paragraph [0141]). This is considered equivalent to wherein the heater is an ammonia combustor for burning part of the raw material, and the ammonia decomposition system is configured such that a combustion gas from the ammonia combustor is supplied to the diluent gas supply line, as claimed by the applicant.
It would have been obvious by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify the ammonia decomposition system as disclosed by Hosono, in view of Mizuno, by further substituting a known heater for another known heater such as an ammonia combustor for burning part of the raw material, and the ammonia decomposition system is configured such that a combustion gas from the ammonia combustor is supplied to the diluent gas supply line, as claimed by the applicant, with a reasonable expectation of success, as Grannell teaches an ammonia cracker system for the decomposition of ammonia into a hydrogen gas mixture, wherein the ammonia cracker system comprises a reactor with an inlet for receiving an ammonia-rich gaseous mixture containing anhydrous ammonia and oxygen, whereby in some embodiments, ammonia and an oxygen-containing gas air enter a heat exchanger and are preheated separately until they reach a combustion zone, i.e. ammonia combustor, at which point the ammonia and oxygen-containing gas mix and combust, and the combusted mixture, preferably containing non-combusted hydrogen gas, i.e. combustion gas from ammonia combustor, is then counterflow heat exchanged with the incoming ammonia and oxygen-containing gas, and the hydrogen may be a recycled portion of the product mixture exiting outlet #907 (see figure 9 and paragraphs [0048] and [0141]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to Yamaguchi have been considered but are moot because Yamaguchi is now used under a different interpretation in view of change in scope of amended claims.
Applicant's arguments filed have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that: “In this regard, Mizuno discloses a "chemical heat storage device" configured to facilitate efficient heat exchange between a heat storage material and a heat-exchange section. See Mizuno, para. [0046]. In particular, Mizuno states that "it is preferable that the coating layer 28 has high thermal conductivity." See id. That is, Mizuno's coating layer efficiently conducts heat. In contrast, the claimed "refractory material," as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, refers to a heat-resistant material that provides thermal insulation. Referring to the original application for illustration purposes only, the claimed refractory material suppresses heat transfer to an outer wall of the reactor. See original application, para. [0019]. That is, the claimed refractory material, as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art and as described in the original application, does not efficiently conduct heat. As such, Mizuno's coating layer is in direct contrast to the claimed refractory material, and Mizuno necessarily cannot disclose or suggest at least the above limitation (ii).”
Examiner respectfully disagrees and points out that even if, assuming arguendo, that Mizuno states in paragraph [0046] that “it is preferable that the coating layer has high thermal conductivity, firstly, a preferred embodiment does not teach away from a much broader disclosure within the specification as a whole. Secondly, examiner further points out that figure 4 of Mizuno and paragraph [0029] of Mizuno clearly teaches an insulating material made of a hard ceramic covering an inner surface of the metallic shell housing and surrounding the heat storage material, and provides a clear teaching that “by providing such an insulating material surrounding the heat storage material, the heat generated in the heat storage material is less likely to escape to the outside of the reactor and pipe, i.e. reactor has inner surface covered with a refractory material and catalyst is filled on a side opposite to the inner surface across the refractory material”. Therefore, Mizuno still reads on the reactor having an inner surface covered with a refractory material, as claimed by the applicant. In view of this, the argument is not considered persuasive and the rejection is thereby maintained.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new grounds of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 JELITZA M PEREZ whose telephone number is (571)272-8139. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00am-6:00pm.
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, Claire Wang can be reached at (571) 270-1051. 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.
/JELITZA M PEREZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1774
Prosecution Insights