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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s response filed 3 June 2026 did not include the status of previously pending claim 30. A telephone discussion occurred on 4 August 2026 with Ryan Jenlink to clarify Applicant’s intent for claim 30 to reduce prosecution delays associated with mailing of a notice of non-compliant amendment. It was confirmed that Applicant’s intent was to cancel claim 30 and the claim will be treated by the Office as such. The Office requests that any subsequent listing of the claims includes claim 30 with the proper status indicator (cancelled).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s cancellation of claim 30 removes the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection grounds set forth in the prior action.
Applicant’s amendment of claim 32 overcomes the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection set forth in the prior action.
Applicant’s amendment of claim 26 adding additional claim limitations clearly overcomes the anticipation rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 set forth in the prior action.
Applicant’s amendment to independent claims 39 and 42, and new claim 49, provide new combinations of limitations that were not considered by the Office in the prior Office action. For each of these claims, after a further evaluation of the prior art already of record and additional searching, new grounds of rejection fully addressing the new claim limitations are presented below. Because no claim is currently rejected using the same combination of references as set forth in the prior Office action, Applicant’s arguments, filed 3 June 2026, are considered moot.
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 26, 28, 45, 46, and 47 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
PNG
media_image1.png
372
574
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Safarian et al (“Evaluation of energy recovery and potential of hydrogen production in Iranian natural gas transmission network”) in view of Lehar et al (US 2011/0100009 A1).
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.
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.
Lehar et al teach (see abstract, figs. 1 and 2, paragraphs [0003]-[0004] and [0022]-[0024]) an organic Rankine cycle (ORC) arrangement wherein the organic working fluid was arranged in a heat exchanger to directly receive heat from an external heat source (10, 206) such as hot flue gases, without an intermediate thermal fluid.
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 the organic working fluid of the organic Rankine cycle as taught by Lehar et al to make successful use of the waste heat present in the gas turbine exhaust gas.
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.
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 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 Lehar et al (US 2011/0100009 A1) as applied to claim 26 above, and further in view of Vince (US 2016/0230311 A1).
Safarian et al do not teach the details of the electrolysis portion of the system.
Vince teaches (see abstract, paragraphs [0029 ) that water being used for electrolysis to produce hydrogen and oxygen may be purified by filtration and reverse osmosis to remove impurities from the water before using it for alkaline electrolysis (requiring addition of a hydroxide, such as sodium hydroxide or potassium hydroxide). .
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 Vince of alkaline electrolysis using a filtered and reverse osmosis purified 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”) in view of Lehar et al (US 2011/0100009 A1) 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 and 50 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 Bornicki et al (US 6,571,548 B1) and 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 (1) the waste heat to power system indirectly recovering heat from the exhaust gas, (2) the electrolyzer being powered solely from the waste heat to power system, and (3) (a) a hydrogen compression and delivery system for delivering the hydrogen produced by the electrolysis to the pipeline at a selected pressure, (b) wherein the hydrogen compression and delivery system was powered by electricity provided by operation of the prime mover (compressor of the compressor station).
Regarding (1), Bornicki 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 an intermediate 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) followed by heat exchange of the intermediate working fluid with the organic working fluid. Thus, the ORC system of Bornicki et al indirectly recovered heat from the exhaust gas to produce electricity.
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 indirect recovery of the heat from the gas turbine exhaust gas into an intermediate working fluid of the organic Rankine cycle as taught by Bornicki et al to make successful use of the waste heat in the system of Safarian et al.
Regarding (2), Safarian et al shows powering the electrolyzer using the waste heat to power system (ORC/electric motor) as well as an expander at the end of the pipeline (located after “Final Transport”). For locations remote from the pipeline end, the electricity produced by the expander would not have been as readily available to feed to the electrolyzer. In such instance, then the electrolyzer would have been supplied with electricity solely from the waster heat to power system and not feeding any electricity produced from other sources would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to avoid using external electricity. No unexpected result comes from providing the electricity to the electrolyzer solely from the waste heat to power system.
Regarding (3)(a), 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 (3)(b), the prime mover (Gas Turbine) of Safarian et al provided electricity to the pipeline compressor (Compressor). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have also used the produced electricity to power the hydrogen compressor taught by Joos et al. Using the electricity generated by the prime mover of Safarian et al to power the hydrogen compressor of Joos et al did not produce an unexpected result and using generated electricity within the electricity generating system reduced the reliance on outside electricity sources.
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).
Regarding claim 50, Joos et al teach (see paragraph [0098]-[0099]) that the hydrogen may be separated from the pipeline gas and sold separately.
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 Bornicki et al (US 6,571,548 B1) and 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 (1) the waste heat to power system indirectly recovering heat from the exhaust gas, (2) the electrolyzer being powered solely from the waste heat to power system, and (3) a hydrogen compression, storage and distribution system for the hydrogen produced by the electrolysis.
Regarding (1), Bornicki 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 an intermediate 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) followed by heat exchange of the intermediate working fluid with the organic working fluid. Thus, the ORC system of Bornicki et al indirectly recovered heat from the exhaust gas to produce electricity.
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 indirect recovery of the heat from the gas turbine exhaust gas into an intermediate working fluid of the organic Rankine cycle as taught by Bornicki et al to make successful use of the waste heat in the system of Safarian et al.
Regarding (2), Safarian et al shows powering the electrolyzer using the waste heat to power system (ORC/electric motor) as well as an expander at the end of the pipeline (located after “Final Transport”). For locations remote from the pipeline end, the electricity produced by the expander would not have been as readily available to feed to the electrolyzer. In such instance, then the electrolyzer would have been supplied with electricity solely from the waste heat to power system and not feeding any electricity produced from other sources would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to avoid using external electricity. No unexpected result comes from providing the electricity to the electrolyzer solely from the waste heat to power system.
Regarding (3), 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.
Claims 49, 31-34, and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Safarian et al (“Exergy Recovery in Gas Pressure Compression Stations (GPCSs)”, referred to as Safarian I for this rejection) in view of Safarian et al (“Evaluation of energy recovery and potential of hydrogen production in Iranian natural gas transmission network”, referred to as Safarian II for this rejection), Leslie et al (“Recovered Energy Generation Using an Organic Rankine Cycle System”), and Lehar et al (US 2011/0100009 A1).
PNG
media_image2.png
46
38
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 49, Safarian I teaches (see figs. 1 and 2) a system including an electricity generator (not numbered but indicated by the symbol attached to the turbine (GT)) and a waste heat to power system (“heat-recovery steam generator (HRSG)”, see left hand column on page 12, also taught is using the generated steam as the working fluid for a gas or steam turbine, i.e. electricity generator) to produce electricity.
Safarian I fail to teach (1) an electrolyzer supplied with the electricity generated by the waste heat to power system to generate hydrogen and oxygen, (2) the waste heat to power system being an organic Rankine cycle (ORC) power generation system, a supercritical CO2 power generation or a Kalina power generation system, and (3) a waste heat recovery unit (WHRU) allowing heat exchange between exhaust gas and a first thermal fluid being a thermal oil.
Regarding (1) and (2), Safarian II teaches (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 electricity generator (Gas Turbine) driven by a prime mover (Gas Turbine), 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.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have adapted the system of Safarian I with the organic Rankine cycle waste heat to power system as taught by Safarian II using an organic working fluid in place of the steam of Safarian I for the purpose of continuously recycling the working fluid without the need for fresh water for steam generation and to have added an electrolyzer for hydrogen generation as taught by Safarian II to permit hydrogen formation using the electricity generated by the waste heat to power system for the purpose of producing a clean energy source (hydrogen) from the waste heat.
Regarding (3), Leslie et al teach (see abstract, figs. 2 and 3) an organic Rankine cycle waste heat to power system, wherein a waste heat recovery unit (waste heat oil heater (WHOH) in fig. 2) is provided through which a thermal oil flows to indirectly recover the waste heat into the thermal oil before transferring the waste heat into the organic compound (e.g. pentane) to perform the Rankine cycle for electricity generation.
Lehar et al teach (see paragraphs [0004]-[0005]) that the purpose of using an intermediate thermal oil loop was to avoid decomposition of the organic compound utilized in the Rankine cycle or to avoid leaks of the organic compound causing explosions in the hot exhaust gas stream.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have added the waste heat recovery unit of Leslie et al including the intermediate thermal oil loop to the system of Safarian I for the purpose of avoiding organic compound decomposition and/or explosive leaks of the organic compound inside the exhaust gas as taught by Lehar et al.
Regarding claim 31, Leslie et al teach (see fig. 3) a heat exchanger (Pre-heater and/or Vaporizer) for exchanging heat between the first thermal fluid (thermal oil) and a second thermal fluid (the organic compound of the ORC).
Regarding claim 32, Leslie et al teach (see figs. 2 and 3) that pentane was the second thermal fluid.
Regarding claim 33, Leslie et al teach (see fig. 3) providing an air-cooled condenser (Condenser) to condense the second thermal fluid.
Regarding claim 34, the WHRU (called WHOH by Leslie et al) was located within the exhaust stack of a prime mover (Gas Turbine).
Regarding claim 36, the WHRU (WHOH) of Leslie et al was posited at the bottom of a vertically extending exhaust stack.
Claim 35 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Safarian et al (“Exergy Recovery in Gas Pressure Compression Stations (GPCSs)”, referred to as Safarian I for this rejection) in view of Safarian et al (“Evaluation of energy recovery and potential of hydrogen production in Iranian natural gas transmission network”, referred to as Safarian II for this rejection), Leslie et al (“Recovered Energy Generation Using an Organic Rankine Cycle System”), and Lehar et al (US 2011/0100009 A1) as applied to claim 49 above, and further in view of Bornicki et al (US 6,571,548 B1).
Regarding claim 35, Leslie et al show the WHRU being installed within the exhaust stack.
Leslie et al fail to teach the WHRU being installed in parallel to the exhaust stack.
Bornicki et al show a waste heat recovery unit (38) being located in an area that was installed parallel to the main exhaust stack from the prime mover.
Therefore, alternative locations of the WHRU with respect to the exhaust stack, such as those shown by Bornicki et al, 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.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) 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 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
Prosecution Insights