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 § 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 30 and 32 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.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 30 recites the broad recitation “a first thermal fluid”, and the claim also recites “preferably a thermal oil” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 32 recites the broad recitation “selected from the group consisting of cyclopentane, n-pentane, iso- pentane, n-butane, isobutane, refrigerants, other organic molecules and siloxanes, and the claim also recites “preferably cyclopentane” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 32 is additionally rejected for the recitation “other organic molecules”. This recitation covers an innumerable amount of possible compounds and Applicant has not provided guidance on how one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have reasonably been able to determine the metes and bounds of the claim language.
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.
PNG
media_image1.png
372
574
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claims 26-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Safarian et al (“Evaluation of energy recovery and potential of hydrogen production in Iranian natural gas transmission network”).
Regarding claim 26, Safarian et al teach (see fig. 1, reproduced herein, and sections 2.2.4 and 2.2.5) a system that produces hydrogen (lower right product) comprising an electricity generator (Gas Turbine) driven by a prime mover, wherein operation of the prime moved produced an exhaust gas, a waste heat to power system (ORC) for recovering heat from the exhaust gas to produce electricity, and an electrolyzer supplied with the electricity from the waste heat to power system to conduct electrolysis of water to produce hydrogen and oxygen. The waste heat to power system of Safarian et al is (see section 2.2.4.2) an organic Rankine cycle (ORC) power generation system.
Regarding claim 27, the waste heat to power system of Safarian et al is (see section 2.2.4.2) an organic Rankine cycle (ORC) power generation system.
Regarding claim 28, since the gas turbine of Safarian et al produced an exhaust stream while consuming a fuel, it is inherently considered to be an open cycle gas turbine.
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.
Claims 29-33, 35, and 45-47 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Safarian et al (“Evaluation of energy recovery and potential of hydrogen production in Iranian natural gas transmission network”) as applied to claim 28 above, and further in view of Bronicki et al (US 6,571,548 B1).
Regarding claim 29, Safarian et al fails to show the details of how the heat is extracted from the gas turbine exhaust into the organic Rankine cycle power generation system.
Bronicki et al teach (see abstract, fig. 1, and col. 2, line 39 to col. 3, line 63) that an organic Rankine cycle extracts heat into a working fluid, such as water, directly from the exhaust gases of a gas turbine (12) using a waste heat recovery system (20) in a heat exchanger (22).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have utilized the known technique of direct transfer of the heat from the gas turbine exhaust gas into a working fluid of the organic Rankine cycle as taught by Bronicki et al to make successful use of the waste heat.
Regarding claim 30, as noted above, Bronicki et al teach extracting the heat from the exhaust gas using a first thermal fluid (e.g. water).
Regarding claim 31, Bronicki et al teach (see fig. 1 and col. 2, lines 46-67) a first heat exchanger (22) using an intermediate fluid system (60) comprising a first heat exchange fluid and a second heat exchanger (Preheater 68) comprising a second heat exchange fluid.
Regarding claim 32, Bronicki et al teach (see col. 3, lines 43-44) that pentane was the preferred second thermal fluid.
Regarding claim 33, Bronicki et al teach (see fig. 1, col. 3, lines 53-57) providing an air-cooled condenser (102) to condense the second thermal fluid/working fluid.
Regarding claim 35, the arrangement seen in fig. 1 of Bronicki et al provided the WHRU in parallel to the exhaust stack.
Regarding claim 45, Safarian et al teach co-locating the electrolyzer with the waste heat to power system.
Regarding claim 46, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, in view of the easy transportation of electricity across an electric grid, would have been motivated to have located the electrolyzer away from the waste heat to power system and closer to the end use location of the hydrogen gas to reduce the energy necessary to transport the hydrogen gas.
Regarding claim 47, Safarian et al teach (see fig. 1) supplying the electrolyzer with electricity from both the waste heat to power system and an electric grid, such that it was partially supplied by the waste heat to power system.
Claims 34 and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Safarian et al (“Evaluation of energy recovery and potential of hydrogen production in Iranian natural gas transmission network”) in view of Bronicki et al (US 6,571,548 B1) as applied to claim 35 above, and further in view of Bronicki et al (US 2007/0199606 A1, hereafter referred to as Bronicki et al II).
Regarding claims 34 and 36, Bronicki et al show the WHRU being installed in parallel to the exhaust stack, thus failing to show the WHRU being installed within the exhaust stack
Bronicki et al II show the waste heat recovery unit (32) being located within an exhaust stack, where exhaust gas was input to the bottom of the stack with the WHRU being located within the vertically extending exhaust stack.
Therefore, alternative locations of the WHRU with respect to the exhaust stack, such as those shown by Bronicki et al II, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art since the effect of extracting heat from the exhaust gas was shown in the prior art as being achievable using any of the disclosed locations.
Claims 37 and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Safarian et al (“Evaluation of energy recovery and potential of hydrogen production in Iranian natural gas transmission network”) in view of Bronicki et al (US 6,571,548 B1) as applied to claim 29 above, and further in view of Libby et al (US 2007/0000789 A1).
Safarian et al do not teach the details of the electrolysis portion of the system.
Libby et al teach (see abstract, paragraphs [0014] and [0018]) that water being used for electrolysis to produce hydrogen and oxygen may be first deionized (i.e. having reduced total dissolved solids and demineralized) water and that alkaline electrolysis was a conventional technique for performing the electrolysis.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have utilized the conventional conditions set forth by Libby et al of alkaline electrolysis using a deionized water in the system of Safarian et al with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143.I.A.
Claim 48 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Safarian et al (“Evaluation of energy recovery and potential of hydrogen production in Iranian natural gas transmission network”) as applied to claim 26 above, and further in view of Doland (US 2007/0079611 A1).
Safarian et al teach providing electricity to the electrolyzer from either the waste heat to power system or the electric grid. Safarian et al do not directly teach providing the electricity from an intermittent source of electricity from renewable sources.
Doland teaches (see abstract, figs. and paragraph [0043]) that an electrolyzer system for producing hydrogen may be connected to utilize intermittent electricity from multiple renewable sources.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to have utilized any available electricity source, such as an intermittent source of electricity from a renewable source, as taught by Doland for providing additional electricity for conducting the electrolysis of Safarian et al to increase hydrogen production while relying on only renewable sources.
Claims 39-41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Safarian et al (“Evaluation of energy recovery and potential of hydrogen production in Iranian natural gas transmission network”) in view of Joos et al (US 2013/0317959 A1).
Regarding claim 39, Safarian et al teach (see abstract, fig. 1, reproduced above, and sections 2.2.4 and 2.2.5) a pipeline system that produces hydrogen (lower right product) comprising an a pipeline (Transport/Final Transport) for transporting a fluid from a fluid producing location to a fluid use location, a compressor station for transporting fluid through the pipeline comprising a compressor (Compressor) driven by a prime mover (Gas Turbine), wherein operation of the prime mover provided an exhaust gas and electricity to drive the compressor, a waste heat to power system (ORC) for recovering heat from the exhaust gas to produce electricity, and an electrolyzer supplied with the electricity from the waste heat to power system to conduct electrolysis of water to produce hydrogen and oxygen. The waste heat to power system of Safarian et al is (see section 2.2.4.2) an organic Rankine cycle (ORC) power generation system.
Safarian et al fail to teach a hydrogen compression and delivery system for delivering the hydrogen produced by the electrolysis to the pipeline at a selected pressure.
Joos et al teach (see abstract, fig. 1, paragraphs [0039] and [0050]) that in an electrolyzer system for producing hydrogen gas, that the hydrogen gas produced by the electrolyzer may be injected into a natural gas pipeline system for transportation of the hydrogen gas to users which results in the capability of operating the electrolyzer to help balance an energy grid. Joos et al also teach (see fig. 2, paragraph [0053]) that a compressor (54) may compress the hydrogen before it is fed into the pipeline. The system of Joos et al constituted a hydrogen compression and delivery system as claimed.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have added a hydrogen compressor and delivery system as taught by Joos et al to the system of Safarian et al for the purpose of permitting transport of the hydrogen gas produced by the electrolyzer through the existing pipeline system and also for helping balance a local energy grid as taught by Joos et al.
Regarding claim 40, the hydrogen delivery system of Joos et al blended the hydrogen gas with the natural gas being carried by the pipeline.
Regarding claim 41, the prime mover (gas turbine) of Safarian et al utilized the gas flowing through the pipeline as the fuel (arrow connecting to left side of Gas Turbine).
Claims 42-44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Safarian et al (“Evaluation of energy recovery and potential of hydrogen production in Iranian natural gas transmission network”) in view of Glidewell (US 2009/0313896 A1).
Regarding claim 42, Safarian et al teach (see abstract, fig. 1, reproduced above, and sections 2.2.4 and 2.2.5) a system that produces hydrogen (lower right product) comprising an a prime mover (Gas Turbine), wherein operation of the prime mover provided an exhaust gas, a waste heat to power system (ORC) for recovering heat from the exhaust gas to produce electricity, and an electrolyzer supplied with the electricity from the waste heat to power system to conduct electrolysis of water to produce hydrogen and oxygen. The waste heat to power system of Safarian et al is (see section 2.2.4.2) an organic Rankine cycle (ORC) power generation system.
Safarian et al fail to teach a hydrogen compression, storage and distribution system for the hydrogen produced by the electrolysis.
Glidewell teaches (see abstract, figs. 1 and 2, paragraph [0033]) providing a system wherein hydrogen gas is produced by electrolysis and then compressed by a compressor (178), stored in a storage tank (176) and a pipeline distribution system (104) for distribution of the hydrogen gas to users of the hydrogen gas.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have connected the hydrogen gas produced by Safarian et al to a compressor, storage and distribution system as taught by Glidewell to permit the hydrogen gas to be distributed to users.
Regarding claims 43 and 44, the prime mover of Safarian et al drove a compressor that transported a fluid through a pipeline.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HARRY D WILKINS III whose telephone number is (571)272-1251. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30am -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, James Lin can be reached at 571-272-8902. 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.
/HARRY D WILKINS III/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1794