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 .
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-5, 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2018-096616 to Mitsubishi Hitachi Power Sys. (Mitsubishi) in view of US 2004/0096370 to Blanchard. (Machine translation provided by applicant has been used for translational purposes).
Regarding claim 1, Mitsubishi discloses an ammonia decomposition system, comprising:
a reactor (30a, fig. 2D) filled with a catalyst ([39]) for a decomposition reaction where ammonia which is a raw material is decomposed into hydrogen and nitrogen ([39]); and
a diluent gas supply line (48, fig. 2D; [44]) 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 ([39], [44], [51]),
wherein the reactor includes a catalyst containing part for containing the catalyst (fig. 2D; [39]).
However, Mitsubishi does not explicitly disclose which Blanchard discloses:
the reactor is internally divided into a first chamber (108, fig. 1; [15]), a second chamber (110, fig. 1; [15]) located downstream of the first chamber in a flow direction of the raw material, and a third chamber (middle section of 100 containing the heat exchanger 114, fig. 1; [16]) between the first chamber and the second chamber, wherein the catalyst containing part is disposed so as to communicate with each of the first chamber and the second chamber and to extend in the third chamber (fig. 1), and wherein the third chamber is configured to allow a heating medium (via heat exchanger 114 and its inlet and outlet lines, fig. 1) to flow therethrough.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have the reactor of Blanchard in the device of Mitsubishi for eliminating both the ineffective catalyst volume and the catalyst fluidization potential ([5]; Blanchard).
Once the chambers of Blanchard are added to the system of Mitsubishi, the third chamber of Mitsubishi will be 30a where the catalyst is disposed and it will be configured to allow a heating medium (flue 38 disclosed in [34] of Mitsubishi) to flow therethrough.
Regarding claim 2, Mitsubishi combined with Blanchard discloses the ammonia decomposition system according to claim 1,
wherein the diluent gas is part of an outflow gas having flowed out from the reactor ([44]; Mitsubishi).
Regarding claim 4, Mitsubishi combined with Blanchard discloses the ammonia decomposition system according to claim 3, comprising:
a raw material supply line (25, fig. 2D; Mitsubishi) for supplying the raw material to the reactor, wherein the raw material supply line is connected to a downstream end of the diluent gas supply line (fig. 2D; Mitsubishi).
Regarding claim 5, Mitsubishi combined with Blanchard discloses the ammonia decomposition system according to according to claim 3,
wherein the diluent gas supply line has a downstream end connected to the reactor (via 25, fig. 1; Mitsubishi).
Regarding claim 7, Mitsubishi combined with Blanchard discloses the ammonia decomposition system according to claim l, comprising:
a gas mixer (merging portion of 25 in fig. 2D where the diluent gas from 48 is introduced can be considered a mixer; Mitsubishi) communicating with the reactor, wherein the gas mixer is connected to a raw material supply line and the diluent gas supply line, and is configured to mix the raw material having flowed into the gas mixer via the raw material supply line and the diluent gas having flowed into the gas mixer via the diluent gas supply line (fig. 2D; Mitsubishi).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitsubishi combined with Blanchard as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of JP 2016-188721 to Toyota Ind Corp. (Toyota) (Machine translation provided by applicant has been used for translational purposes).
Regarding claim 6, Mitsubishi combined with Blanchard discloses the ammonia decomposition system according to claim 5, comprising:
a raw material supply line (25, fig. 2D; Mitsubishi) for supplying the raw material to the reactor, but does not explicitly disclose which Toyota discloses:
the reactor has an inner surface at least partially covered with a refractory material (fig. 6; ceramic; [39], [53]) such that a connection portion of the reactor with the raw material supply line is surrounded (the whole inner surface is surrounded; [abstract; [39], [53]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have the coating of Toyota inside the reactor of Mitsubishi combined with Blanchard so as to suppress thermal decomposition of ammonia ([53]; Toyota).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/6/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that since Mitsubishi is directed to an ammonia decomposition reactor and Blanchard is directed to an ammonia synthesis reactor, they cannot be combined to have the three chambers as disclosed in claim 1. However, the office respectfully disagrees. First off, Mitsubishi discloses a reactor that carries a catalyst in fig. 2D and paragraph [39]. The entrance to the catalyst within the reactor can be considered the claimed first chamber, the exit from the catalyst within the reactor can be considered the second claimed chamber, and the part of the chamber containing the catalyst can be considered the claimed third chamber. Furthermore, the flue gas 38 is supplied to provide the heat to the reactor for the endothermic reaction to the reactor as disclosed in paragraph [34]. As such, Mitsubishi alone can be used to reject all of claim 1. However, even if to say that Mitsubishi does not disclose all the chambers, Blanchard is used to show that a catalyst can be placed between two chambers in a reactor, regardless of the type of reactor. It is that this teaching that is applied to Mitsubishi for eliminating both the ineffective catalyst volume and the catalyst fluidization potential. As such, it is the office’s position that the claim limitations are met.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 8/6/2026, with respect to double patenting rejection of claim 1 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The double patenting rejection of claim 1 has been withdrawn.
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 DAPINDER SINGH whose telephone number is (571)270-1774. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday from 8:00 AM to 5:30 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, Mark Laurenzi can be reached at (571) 270-7878. 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.
/DAPINDER SINGH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746
Prosecution Insights