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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of hydrocarbon reforming for the hydrogen production process and gas turbine for power generation, in the reply filed on 03/10/26 is acknowledged. As such, claims 1-2, 4, 6-14 and 20-23 read on the elected invention. As such, non-elected claims 3, 5, and 15-19 are withdrawn.
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 1-2, 4, 6-14 and 20-23 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.
Independent claim 1 is indefinite in regards to the metes and bounds of what is meant by “a data center”. The term “a data center” is a very broad term that encompasses such things as control modules for various commercial and industrial operations. As such, “a data center” is NOT to be viewed as limited to only “buildings that centralize computer and/or information technology systems”, as set forth in paragraph [0003] of Applicant’s specification. If Applicant wants to clarify that Applicant intends to limit the term “a data center” to “buildings that centralize computer and/or information technology systems”, as set forth in paragraph [0003] of Applicant’s specification, Applicant will need to amend the claim to clarify this fact.
Dependent claims 2, 4, 6-14 and 20-23 are rejected here because they are directly dependent on a rejected base claim.
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.
EXAMINATION NOTE:
The Present Application is a C.I.P. Application 18/117,606 now U.S. Patent Number 11,952,276. The new matter in the Present Application is “A method of operating a data center”. As such, the effective filing date of the Present Application is 05/30/23, which is the actual filing date of the Present Application.
Claims 1-2, 4, 6-14 and 20-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Babicki WO 2021/189137 A1 in view of either DIEZINGER, S., KROL, T., TIEMEYER, T., 'On-site power generation to leverage maximum uptime', SIEMENS, (2019), 16 pages or HILL, S., 'Will Hydrogen Power the Data Center of the Future?', DataCenter Knowledge, June 29, 2022, 6 pages.
Babicki discloses a process of hydrogen production, with sequestration of carbon dioxide, using a biomass hydroconverter (i.e. a biomass power plant) to provide the energy needed (uses steam reformer heating) to run the entire process. The process can and preferably results in where the carbon intensity of the process is less than zero to -20 g CO2e/MJ or even more negative, see paragraphs [0050 and [0056]-[0057].
Babicki independent claim 1 reads as followed:
“A method, comprising:
1) supplying biomass to a biomass hydroconverter to form a biomass hydroconverter product and a solid residue;
ii) using the biomass hydroconverter product as a heat source fuel for a steam reformer;
iii) introducing a hydrocarbon fuel stream to the steam reformer to generate a gas mixture that contains at least hydrogen and carbon dioxide;
iv) separating the gas mixture in a gas separator to form a hydrogen-enriched gas stream and at least one hydrogen-depleted stream;
v) providing at least a first portion of the hydrogen enriched gas stream as a carbon-reduced hydrogen product; and vi) sequestering carbon by storing the solid residue from the biomass hydroconverter process and/or storing or processing at least a first portion of the hydrogen-depleted stream.”.
Babicki’s “FIG. 1 shows a simplified schematic of a system or apparatus 1 according to the disclosed technology. System 1 includes a biomass hydroconverter 20, a steam reformer 60, a hydrogen separator 80, a storable carbon area 40, a product hydrogen facility 100, and CO2 sequestration facility 120.”
As can be seen from Babicki’s process, the at least one hydrogen-depleted stream undergoes a carbon sequestration process (e.g. by reacting with an amine solution) that involves both purification (to at least 95% carbon dioxide) and pressurizing of the carbon dioxide gas, see paragraphs [0006], [0020], [0046] and [0048].
Likewise, Babicki’s process requires a hydrogen gas purification step (usually to greater than 99% by volume) using a hydrogen separator, and then further purified in a hydrogen facility 100, see paragraphs [0004], [0046] and FIG.1.
Babicki’s hydrocarbon feedstock for the process can be selected from natural gas (i.e. methane), biogas (e.g. syngas) etc., see paragraphs [0016] and [0037]-[0038].
The biomass for the hydroconverter (i.e. biomass power plant) is selected from plant, animal and waste products, see paragraphs [0031] and [0041].
Babicki disclosure is clear that in the most preferred embodiment, the total amount of heat required by the process is provided by the hydroconverter (i.e. biomass power plant), see paragraph [0045], but in the alternative, hydrogen containing gas, produced by the process itself, can be sent to the biomass hydroconverter using a conduit 95, in order to help generate the heat for the process, see paragraph [0049].
Furthermore, it should be noted that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to use Babick’s hydroconverter (i.e. biomass power plant) as the energy source used to power the carbon capture unit, because said is deemed to be at once envisaged from the Babick’s disclosure for a number of reasons: 1) Babicki disclosure is clear that in the most preferred embodiment, the total amount of heat required by the process is provided by the hydroconverter (i.e. biomass power plant), see paragraph [0045], and 2) the entire purpose of Babick’s invention is to reduce, but most preferably to result in the production of a hydrogen gas product that is at least a net zero in carbon dioxide production, see paragraphs [0050 and [0056]-[0057] wherein it is disclosed that the carbon intensity of the process is less than zero to -20 g CO2e/MJ or even more negative. It would thus make very little sense to use other sources of energy to power the carbon capture unit because said other sources would themselves generate unwanted carbon dioxide gas that in all like-hood resulted from a non-carbon neutral process.
Babicki has been described above and differs from Applicant’s claimed invention in that there is no explicit disclosure to the further use of the hydrogen/syngas generated by the disclosed reforming process in a method for operating/powering a data center.
The secondary reference to: DIEZINGER, S., KROL, T., TIEMEYER, T., 'On-site power generation to leverage maximum uptime', SIEMENS, (2019), 16 pages, clearly teaches that it is well known in the art to use gas turbines powdered by carbon-free fuels, such as e-hydrogen, to power data centers, see entire document.
The secondary reference to: HILL, S., 'Will Hydrogen Power the Data Center of the Future?', DataCenter Knowledge, June 29, 2022, 6 pages, clearly teaches that it is well known in the art to use gas turbines powdered by carbon-free fuels, such as e-hydrogen, to power data centers, see especially page 2, lines 11-22 and the bridging paragraph between page 4 and page 5.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to use the disclosure of either secondary reference as extremely strong motivation to actually use the e-hydrogen produced by Babicki’s reforming method as the e-hydrogen fuel source for the gas turbines used to generate power for data centers. It is well established that it is not inventive to merely use the directly disclosure of prior-art references.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4, 6-14 and 20-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Hsu U.S. Patent Application Publication No.: 2006/0207178 A1 in view of either DIEZINGER, S., KROL, T., TIEMEYER, T., 'On-site power generation to leverage maximum uptime', SIEMENS, (2019), 16 pages or HILL, S., 'Will Hydrogen Power the Data Center of the Future?', DataCenter Knowledge, June 29, 2022, 6 pages.
Hsu discloses applying mixed use of conventional hydrocarbon fuel with renewable energy sources for hydrogen production presents an optimal balance between economics and environmental benefits for any long-range implementations. A hydrogen production system incorporates the use of electricity from renewable sources in hydrogen reforming plants for various functions to achieve better environmental performance. The hydrogen production system includes the compression of hydrogen for high-pressure storage and an electrical heating supply for an endothermic reforming process of producing hydrogen from an input fuel. The compressed hydrogen, produced using renewable energy sources, also provides a means of stored mechanical energy, Another hydrogen production system utilizes a conventional chemical reforming process to provide leveled hydrogen generation together with electrolysis from the fluctuating renewable energy sources, which also provides low cost hydrogen generation, good environmental performance and commercial dependability, see abstract and FIG. 1-3.
Hsu’s process is thus directed towards the production of hydrogen gas from a hydrocarbon feedstock (e.g. natural gas) using a “renewable energy convertor” (e.g. a biomass power plant). The process results in the production of a hydrogen gas product, wherein the process is capable of at least partial or total sequestration of carbon dioxide (CO2), see paragraph [0021] and claim 12. When Hsu’s process employs the total sequestration of carbon dioxide, applicant’s claim 1 limitation of “producing hydrogen product having a carbon intensity of less than about 1.0 kg CO2e/kg H2” is fully meet.
The renewable energy source can be selected from biomass materials, solar, wind, geothermal etc., see paragraph [0015].
The “renewable energy convertor” converts a renewable energy source to another form of energy such as electricity or steam, see paragraphs [0016] and [0025]-[0026].
The “reformer” used can be a steam reformer, autothermal reformer, partial oxidation reformer etc., see paragraphs [0023]-[0026].
The hydrocarbon fuel which undergoes reforming in the process can vary, but natural gas (methane) is commonly used, see paragraph [0023].
The hydrogen gas produced is further pressurized or even liquefied, and the energy needed for running the compressor to achieve said end, is disclosed to be supplied from the “renewable energy convertor” using a renewable energy source, see paragraphs [0007] and [0019].
It should be noted that Hsu does not seem to be an explicit disclose that at least some of energy used for carbon capture unit is provided by the “renewable energy convertor” (i.e. biomass power plant).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to use Hsu’s “renewable energy convertor” (i.e. biomass power plant) for at least some of energy needed for the carbon capture unit. Said is deemed to be at once envisaged from Hsu’s disclosure for a number of reasons: 1) Hsu’s disclosure is clear that in the most preferred embodiment, the total energy used in the process is provided by the “renewable energy convertor” (i.e. biomass power plant)., and 2) the entire purpose of Hsu’s invention is to reduce, but most preferably to result in the production of a hydrogen gas product that is at least a net zero in carbon dioxide production, see paragraph [0021] and claim 12. It would thus make very little sense to use other sources of energy to cause said pressurization/liquification because said other sources would themselves generate unwanted carbon dioxide gas that in all like-hood resulted from a non-carbon neutral process.
Applicant’s process can be said to differ from Hsu’s process in the following ways: 1) that there does not seem to be a direct teaching (i.e. by way of a specific example) to where the “renewable energy convertor” actually uses biomass as the renewable energy source., and 2) there is no explicit disclosure to the further use of the hydrogen/syngas generated by the disclosed reforming process in a method for operating/powering a data center.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to use Hsu’s directly disclosure that the “renewable energy convertor” can use biomass as the renewable energy source, as very strong motivation to actually use biomass as the energy source. It is not inventive to merely follow the direct disclosure of a prior-art reference.
The secondary reference to: DIEZINGER, S., KROL, T., TIEMEYER, T., 'On-site power generation to leverage maximum uptime', SIEMENS, (2019), 16 pages, clearly teaches that it is well known in the art to use gas turbines powdered by carbon-free fuels, such as e-hydrogen, to power data centers, see entire document.
The secondary reference to: HILL, S., 'Will Hydrogen Power the Data Center of the Future?', DataCenter Knowledge, June 29, 2022, 6 pages, clearly teaches that it is well known in the art to use gas turbines powdered by carbon-free fuels, such as e-hydrogen, to power data centers, see especially page 2, lines 11-22 and the bridging paragraph between page 4 and page 5.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to use the disclosure of either secondary reference as extremely strong motivation to actually use the e-hydrogen produced by Hsu’s reforming method as the e-hydrogen fuel source for the gas turbines used to generate power for data centers. It is well established that it is not inventive to merely use the directly disclosure of prior-art references.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4, 6-14 and 20-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Zubrin et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication No.: 2022/0067410 A1 in view of either DIEZINGER, S., KROL, T., TIEMEYER, T., 'On-site power generation to leverage maximum uptime', SIEMENS, (2019), 16 pages or HILL, S., 'Will Hydrogen Power the Data Center of the Future?', DataCenter Knowledge, June 29, 2022, 6 pages.
Zubrin et al. discloses a reformation power plant generates clean electricity from carbonaceous material and high pressure CO2 which can be easily sequestered or utilized for a beneficial purpose, such as fuel production. The reformation power plant design utilizes a reformation process that reforms carbonaceous fuel with super-heated steam into a high-pressure gaseous mixture that is rich in carbon dioxide and hydrogen gas. This high-pressure gas exchanges excess heat with the incoming steam from a boiler and continues onward to a condenser. Once cooled, the high-pressure gas goes through a methanol separator, after which the CO2-rich gas is sequestered underground or beneficially re-used. The remaining hydrogen-rich gas is combusted through a gas turbine. The gas turbine provides power to a generator and also regenerative heat for the boiler. Finally, the generator converts mechanical energy into electricity, which is transferred to the electric grid. Therefore, carbon-free electricity is generated from coal, biomass, or other carbon-based feedstock, see abstract, paragraphs [0041], [0043], [0060]-[0061], [0140]-[0143], Fig. 1, and Fig. 8.
Zubrin et al. has been described above and differs from Applicant’s claimed invention in that there is no explicit disclosure to the further use of the hydrogen/syngas generated by the disclosed reforming process using a biomass power plant in a method for operating/powering a data center.
The secondary reference to: DIEZINGER, S., KROL, T., TIEMEYER, T., 'On-site power generation to leverage maximum uptime', SIEMENS, (2019), 16 pages, clearly teaches that it is well known in the art to use gas turbines powdered by carbon-free fuels, such as e-hydrogen, to power data centers, see entire document.
The secondary reference to: HILL, S., 'Will Hydrogen Power the Data Center of the Future?', DataCenter Knowledge, June 29, 2022, 6 pages, clearly teaches that it is well known in the art to use gas turbines powdered by carbon-free fuels, such as e-hydrogen, to power data centers, see especially page 2, lines 11-22 and the bridging paragraph between page 4 and page 5.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to use the disclosure of either secondary reference as extremely strong motivation to actually use the e-hydrogen produced by Zubrin et al.’s reforming method as the e-hydrogen fuel source for the gas turbines used to generate power for data centers. It is well established that it is not inventive to merely use the directly disclosure of prior-art references.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-2, 4, 6-14 and 20-23 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-9,14-18, 33 and 36-38 of copending Application No. 18/472,809 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because there is just massive overlap in the claimed processes of generating hydrogen gas from a hydrocarbon feedstock using a biomass power plant for commercial (e.g. data centers) or industrial operations. Said methods result in the production of hydrogen gas product wherein both processes are limited to the same carbon intensity of less than about 1.0 kg CO2e/kg H2. In fact, copending dependent claims 14-16 can be said to be a subset of pending independent claim 1.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH DAVID ANTHONY whose telephone number is (571)272-1117. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 10:00AM-6:30PM.
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, Arrie (Lanee) Reuther can be reached at 571-270-7026. 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.
/JOSEPH D ANTHONY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1764
Prosecution Insights