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 Objections
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 11 recites 12-ethyl carbazone. This seems to be a spelling error. As per the specification [0024] the liquid hydrogen fuel is 1,2-ethyl carbazole. Appropriate correction is required.
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 3, 10-11 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.
The term “pure water” in claim 3 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “pure” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Regarding claims 10-11, the phrase "or similar" renders the claim(s) indefinite because the claim(s) include(s) elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by "or similar"), thereby rendering the scope of the claim(s) unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
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.
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, 3-5 and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP2015113240A of Ikeda et al in view of US 2021/0260989 of Johnston et al.
As to claim 1, Ikeda teaches of a method for producing, storing, and transporting a hydrogen gas as a liquid hydrogen fuel, comprising:
using renewable energy as an energy source to produce a power source (Ikeda, [0011], [0020] and Fig. 1);
providing the power source to a water electrolysis process to produce a hydrogen gas and an oxygen gas (Ikeda, [0021] – [0022] and Fig. 1);
providing the hydrogen gas and an organic aromatic solvent to a hydrogenation plant to produce the liquid hydrogen fuel (Ikeda, [0024], [0027], [0031] – [0032] and Fig. 1); and
transporting the liquid hydrogen fuel via a transportation system from the hydrogenation plant to a point of consumption (Ikeda, [0034], [0039] and Fig. 1).
PNG
media_image1.png
330
558
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As seen in Fig. 1, water is supplied from a fresh water producing unit (13) to a water electrolysis unit (12) that receives renewable energy to produce power in the power generating apparatus (11). The hydrogen gas is supplied to a hydrogenation unit that receives toluene (an organic aromatic solvent) which is hydrogenated to produce a liquid hydrogen fuel (methylcyclohexane MCH). The methylcyclohexane is then transported for use of the liquid hydrogen fuel to a city, for example.
Ikeda does not teach the use of sand for absorbing, storing and transferring energy from an energy source to produce power for use by a water electrolysis apparatus.
Johnston teaches of water electrolysis from renewable energy sources (Johnston, [0014], [0015], [0022], [0027] – [0028]).
Johnston teaches that electrical energy storage system (220) for providing power to a water electrolysis device can include a multitude of different sources including solar energy, wind energy, hydro-power system and thermal energy storage system including beds of sand (Johnston, [0027] – [0028]) as equivalent power sources to provide energy for the water electrolysis unit.
As Ikeda teaches the use of renewable energy sources such as solar, wind and hydro power sources, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would find it obvious to substitute a known equivalent, as per Johnston, in the use of sand in a thermal energy storage system for generating energy from an energy source to produce power for water electrolysis as a predictable result.
As to claim 3, Ikeda in view of Johnston teach to the method of claim 1.
Ikeda teaches the water electrolysis includes generating a current, inserting an anode and cathode into water and electrolyzing the water to generate hydrogen and oxygen gases (Ikeda, [0022]).
Johnston also teaches water electrolysis includes generating a current, inserting an anode and cathode into water and electrolyzing the water to generate hydrogen and oxygen gases (Johnston, [0015]).
As to claim 4, Ikeda in view of Johnston teaches to the method of claim 1.
Ikeda teaches providing the hydrogen gas and the organic aromatic solvent to the hydrogenation plant to produce the liquid hydrogen fuel further comprises:
utilizing toluene in the gas phase thus providing an organic aromatic vapor; hydrogenating the organic aromatic vapor producing a hydrogenated organic vapor compound; and condensing the hydrogenated organic vapor compound (Ikeda, [0027] – [0029]).
As stated within Ikeda, toluene (in the gas phase) has hydrogen added and sent to a hydrogenation device (14). One hydrogenated, the hydrogenated organic vapor compound is separated as a liquid (thus condensed) in a gas/liquid separator.
As to claim 5, Ikeda in view of Johnston teaches to the method of claim 1.
Ikeda additionally teaches the liquid hydrogen fuel is transported by an oil tanker or pipeline (Ikeda, [0034]).
As to claims 10-11, Ikeda in view of Johnston teaches to the method of claim 1.
Ikeda additionally teaches the organic aromatic solvent is toluene, benzene, naphthalene and that the liquid hydrogen fuel is cyclohexane, methylcyclohexane, tetralin or decalin (Ikeda, [0031] – [0032]).
As to claim 12, Ikeda in view of Johnston teaches to the method of claim 11.
Ikeda teaches the method further comprises dehydrogenating methylcyclohexane to recover the organic aromatic solvent (toluene) and the hydrogen gas and using the hydrogen gas in the point of consumption (Ikeda, [0034] – [0035] and [0039]).
Claims 2 and 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikeda in view of Johnston as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Radwan et al “Evaluating properties of Arabian desert sands for use in solar thermal technologies” Solar Energy Materials and Solar Cells, 231, 2021, 111335.
As to claim 2, Ikeda in view of Johnston teaches to the method of claim 1.
Ikeda does not teach the use of sand for absorbing, storing and transferring energy from an energy source.
Johnston teaches of water electrolysis from renewable energy sources (Johnston, [0014], [0015], [0022], [0027] – [0028]).
Johnston teaches that thermal energy storage system utilizing sand are used to generate power for water electrolysis such that the energy is stored and transferred to produce power (Johnston, [0027] – [0028).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Ikeda as per Johnston so as to use sand in a thermal energy storage system for generating energy from an energy source to produce power for water electrolysis as a predictable result.
Neither Ikeda nor Johnston teach the type of sand or that solar energy is the energy source that is absorbed by the sand.
Radwan teaches of sand as a thermal energy storage medium (Radwan, Abstract).
Radwan teaches that solar energy is absorbed and stored for later use by Arabian sands comprising quartzose having the highest specific heat capacity as the best candidate of all Arabian sands to be used as sensible thermal energy storage medium and solar absorber material (Radwan, Abstract).
As Johnston teaches thermal energy storage system using sand for the storage and transfer of energy to power for water electrolysis, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify Johnston as per Radwan so as to utilize quartzose sand from the Arabian desert as a source of sand with a high specific heat capacity for absorbing and storing solar energy as the best candidate for a sensible thermal energy storage medium and solar absorber material.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikeda in view of Johnston as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2023/0167559 of Kapat et al.
As to claim 9, Ikeda in view of Johnston teaches to the method of claim 1.
Ikeda and Johnston do not teach the use of the oxygen gas.
Kapat teaches of energy storage system and water electrolysis (Kapat, Abstract).
Kapat teaches that the oxygen generated by water electrolysis can be stored and when an electrical demand is required combust the oxygen in an oxy-combustion reaction to generate the desired electrical energy (Kapat, [0052] – [0054]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ikeda in view of Johnston as per Kapat so as to utilize the oxygen within a combustion reaction in order to generate electrical energy when required.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikeda in view of Johnston as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Abdin et al “Large-scale stationary hydrogen storage via liquid organic hydrogen carriers” iScience, 24, 102966, Sept. 24, 2021.
As to claim 13, Ikeda in view of Johnston teaches to the method of claim 12.
Ikeda in view of Johnston does not teach the specific points of consumption of the hydrogen gas.
Abdin teaches of a perspective in relation to hydrogen and hydrogen carrier materials as it relates to a hydrogen economy (Abdin, Abstract).
Abdin additionally teaches that in the use of liquid organic hydrogen carriers, once the hydrogenated carrier is transported to the point of use, buffer tanks and storage units for the hydrogen are required to store and distribute the hydrogen as desired (Abdin, p. 2, 2nd to last paragraph, p. 6-7 Liquid organic and circular carriers, Fig. 3C, p. 10 last paragraph).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ikeda in view of Johnston as per Abdin so as to utilize a buffer and storage tank for the hydrogen as the point of use so as to be able to distribute the hydrogen as desired where desired.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN W COHEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7961. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9 am to 5 pm EST.
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, Duane Smith can be reached at 571-272-1166. 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.
BRIAN W. COHEN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1759
/BRIAN W COHEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights