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 .
This is in response to the correspondence received on 12/16/2025.
Claims 2-3, 11-12, 18-20, 23-26, 33 are cancelled.
Claims 21-22, 31-32 are non-elected species.
Claims 1, 4-7, 9-10, 13-16, 17, 27-30, 34 are examined.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species A in the reply filed on 6/3/2024 is acknowledged. Therefore, Fig 12 is elected (Figs 14-18 are non-elected species).
Applicant stated claims 1, 2, 4-10, 13-17 and 26-30 cover Species A on reply filed on 6/3/2024.
Claim Objections
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities:
The limitation “the ammonia” in line 16-17 is believed to be in error for – the gaseous ammonia --.
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 1, 8, 17, 27-30, and their dependent claims, 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.
Claim 1: it is unclear if “at least one tube” in line 20 is related to “said tube” in line 21 and “the tube” in lines 22, 25, 29 of claim 1 or not.”
Claim 8: in the limitation “a conversion device receiving ammonia from the storage tank” in line 5, it is unclear if “ammonia” is the same ammonia of “a storage tank containing ammonia” in line 2.
Claim 8: in “the hydrogen gas” of claim 10, it is unclear if the hydrogen gas relates to hydrogen gas in line 4 or hydrogen gas in line 7.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the ammonia in a liquid form". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Clam 8: In “heat derived from the air compressed by the second compressor” (line 14) it is unclear if it relates to “heat from the engine” (line 5-6) or if the limitations are not related.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the liquid ammonia" in line 15. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8: in “the ammonia is dissociated into hydrogen gas and nitrogen” (line 17) it is unclear if “hydrogen gas and nitrogen” are related to “hydrogen gas and nitrogen gas” recited earlier in the claim in line 7.
Claim 8: in “a separation unit separates the hydrogen gas from the nitrogen gas” (line 18) it is unclear if it relates to “hydrogen gas and nitrogen” of line 17 or it relates to “hydrogen gas and nitrogen gas” recited earlier in the claim in line 7.
Claim 8: it is unclear if “the ammonia” in “cracking the ammonia” in lines 23, 24, 25 relates to “the ammonia in liquid form” or “the liquid ammonia” or “gaseous ammonia”, recited earlier in the claim.
Claim 8: it is unclear if “nitrogen gas” in line 26 is related to “the nitrogen gas” in line 18 or “nitrogen” in line 17, or “nitrogen gas” of line 7.
Claim 8: it is unclear if “gaseous ammonia” in line 31 is related to “gaseous ammonia” in line ” in line 15, or “said ammonia” in line 6, or other limitations referring to ammonia throughout the claim.
Claim 8: it is unclear how “the ammonia” in line 31 is related to “gaseous ammonia” in line 31 and liquid ammonia in line 30.
Claim 8: it is unclear if “hydrogen gas and nitrogen gas” in line3 2 are related to the previous mentions of hydrogen gas and nitrogen and nitrogen gas previously mentioned throughout the claim.
Claim 8: it is unclear how “the ammonia” in line 34 is related to “gaseous ammonia” in line 31 and liquid ammonia in line 30.
Claim 8: it is unclear how “Claim 8: it is unclear how “the ammonia” in line 34 is related to “gaseous ammonia” in line 31 and liquid ammonia in line 30.
Claim 8: in “a second gaseous product that contains hydrogen, nitrogen and ammonia gas”, it is unclear if “hydrogen”, “nitrogen” and “ammonia gas” are related to other limitations reciting hydrogen, nitrogen and ammonia earlier in the claim, or different hydrogen, nitrogen and ammonia.
Claim 8: in the second gaseous product is mixed with air being drawn into the engine and supplied to the combustor”, it is unclear if “air” is related to “air” in line 9.
Claim 17: it is unclear if “one or more tubes” is related to “said tubes” and “the tubes” recited later in the claim or not.”
Claim 27: in “wherein the conversion device further includes a plurality of additional tubes”, it is unclear if the plurality of additional tubes are part of the same group of “at least one tube” and “the tube” of claim 1 or not.
Claim 27: it is unclear how “plurality of additional tubes” relates to “said tubes” and “the tubes” recited later in the claim.
Claim 28: it is unclear if “the tubes” recited later in claim 28 relates to “plurality of additional tubes”, “the tubes” and “said tubes” from claim 27
Claim 29: it is unclear if “the tubes” and “said tubes” are related, and how they relate to “plurality of additional tubes”, “the tubes” and “said tubes” from claim 27.
Claims 30, 31, 32: it is unclear if “the tubes” is relate to “plurality of additional tubes” of claim 27, “the tubes” and “said tubes” from claims 27 and 29.
Given the large number of 112(b) issues listed above, additional issues may be present throughout the claims. Applicant’s assistance in further reviewing the claims is respectfully requested.
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.
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.
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, 4-5, 7, 14, 16-17, 27-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Medina 20240060645 in view of Callas 20090133400 and Johnson 3313103 and further in view of McMahan 20110247341.
Regarding claim 1, Medina teaches:
1. (currently amended) A power system for a vehicle (marine, aerospace and train, [0001]), said power system comprising:
a storage tank containing ammonia (liquid ammonia fuel, which is the second fuel, is pumped from the fuel tank [0123]);
an engine supported on the vehicle ([0001]), said engine being configured to operate using hydrogen gas as fuel ([0025, 0047]);
a conversion device (73, cracker [0047]) receiving ammonia from the storage tank and heat from the engine ([0047, 0123]), said conversion device using the heat from the engine to dissociate said ammonia so as to produce hydrogen gas and nitrogen gas (By positioning the cracker inside the combustion chamber, the necessary heat for the decomposition may be generated within the cracker […] ammonia, which may be decomposed inside the cracker into nitrogen and hydrogen [0047])
wherein the engine is a turbine engine (3) having a first turbine (10) driving a first compressor (7), said first compressor compressing air that is provided to a combustor chamber (9) of the turbine engine wherein combustion of the hydrogen gas proceeds (see 9 in Fig. 7);
the storage tank storing the ammonia (ammonia supply from a fuel tank [0121]) in a liquid form (a desired storage state for the second fuel (e.g. liquid) [0054]);
wherein said gaseous ammonia is supplied to said conversion device in which the ammonia is dissociated into the hydrogen gas and the nitrogen (“the first cracker fluid may be ammonia, which may be decomposed inside the cracker into nitrogen and hydrogen” [0047]);
the conversion device including at least one tube that extends along (“a first channel within the cracker to thereby chemically decompose the first cracker fluid into two or more chemical species. By positioning the cracker inside the combustion chamber” [0047]), said tube having an interior surface defining an interior passage connecting between a first end of the tube and a second end of the tube (a channel [0047]), the interior surface having a catalyst configured to aid in cracking of ammonia to yield hydrogen (ammonia crackers have a catalyst that would have a surface exposed to the ammonia);
the tube (first channel [0047]) receiving gaseous ammonia at the first end thereof (first cracker fluid may be ammonia [0047]), cracking the ammonia in the interior passage with heat from the combustion in the combustor chamber (“a cracker is located within the combustion chamber arranged to provide thermal contact between combusting fluid in the combustion chamber and a first cracker fluid undergoing a first process passing through a first channel within the cracker to thereby chemically decompose the first cracker fluid into two or more chemical species. By positioning the cracker inside the combustion chamber, the necessary heat for the decomposition may be generated within the cracker.” [0047) so as to produce a gas product mix containing the hydrogen gas (the first cracker fluid may be ammonia, which may be decomposed inside the cracker into nitrogen and hydrogen [0047]), and outputting the gas product mix at the second end thereof (“The products of the decomposition may be useful and in particular may be useful in producing one or more of the constituents of the first and/or second injection fluids, e.g. the first fuel and/or other fluids used in the system. […] hydrogen may be the first fuel and the nitrogen may be delivered to the combustion chamber in the secondary combustion zone” [0047], “”The first fuel of the first injection fluid may be delivered from the cracker via an outlet of the first channel” [0048] )
wherein the second end of the tube supplies the gas product mix to a separation unit that separates the hydrogen gas from the gas product mix output by the conversion device (“The first fuel of the first injection fluid may be delivered from the cracker via an outlet of the first channel and may be separated from the one or more other chemical species in an intermediate stage (e.g. a molecular sieve). A molecular sieve may be suitable for separating hydrogen and nitrogen gases decomposed in the cracker from ammonia” [0048]), and said hydrogen gas is supplied to the combustor chamber wherein combustion of said hydrogen gas takes place (“The hydrogen may be the first fuel and the nitrogen may be delivered to the combustion chamber” [0047]), producing energy that drives said engine so as to move the vehicle (“The disclosures may be particularly applicable to combustors used in gas turbine engines or boilers for use in the field of power generation, though they also are relevant to other fields (e.g. marine, aerospace and train applications)” [0001]).
Medina is silent about:
wherein the turbine engine has a second compressor compressing the air before compression by the first compressor, and
wherein heat derived from the air compressed by the second compressor is applied to change the liquid ammonia to gaseous ammonia;
However, Callas teaches:
the turbine engine has a second compressor (12a) compressing the air before compression by the first compressor (12b)
wherein heat derived from the air compressed by the second compressor is applied to change the liquid ammonia to gaseous ammonia (via 38, “may change states from a liquid state to gaseous state within heat exchanger 38 “ [0017]);
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Medina with Callas' structure discussed above in order to “further pressurize the air to a second pressure level” as taught by Callas [0012], so” Each fuel nozzle may inject or otherwise deliver one or both of liquid and gaseous fuel into the flow of compressed air from HPS 12b for ignition within combustion chamber 26. As the fuel/air mixture combusts, heated molecules may expand and move at high speed into turbine section 16 by way of a passage 28”, producing more power as taught by Callas [0013], because higher pressures lead to more power production and efficiency in a gas turbine.
Medina in view of Callas teaches the combustion of hydrogen gas as discussed above, but Medina in view of Callas does not explicitly teach:
the combustor chamber of the turbine engine having a liner wall surrounding an interior space in which the combustion [of the hydrogen gas] takes place;
However, Johnson teaches a gas turbine (title) and gaseous partially cracked ammonia then being fed to the pilot combustion chamber 32 (col 31-3):
the combustor chamber (combustion chamber 28, Fig. 1) of the turbine engine (Fig. 1) having a liner wall surrounding an interior space in which the combustion of the hydrogen gas (“the ammonia is cracked prior to introduction into the main combustor 28” Col 3 ll. 26-37) takes place (liner 31, Figs 1, 4);
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Medina in view of Callas with Johnson’s structure discussed above in order to provide an arrangement where “there is sufficient heat in this region of the main combustion chamber 28 in which the J-tubes 30 are disposed to crack a portion of the evaporated ammonia within the J-tubes 30 into the dissociation products ammonia” as taught by Johnson Col 3 ll. 12-18, providing a “relatively hot region adjacent the pilot combustor 32 so that the ammonia burns upon egress from the J-shaped tubes” Col 3 ll. 5-18, taking advantage of the heat and increasing system efficiency.
Medina in view of Callas Johnson teaches the conversion device including tubes as discussed above, but is silent about:
[at least one tube that extends along] a surface of the liner wall or inside the liner wall,
However, McMahan teaches a combustor with a liner with upstream and downstream end portion and comprising channels (abstract), and:
[at least one tube (channels 56, Figs. 3-5) that extends along] a surface of the liner wall or inside the liner wall (inside 34).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Medina in view of Callas and Johnson with McMahan's structure discussed above in order to provide a structure through which “heat may be transferred away” as taught by McMahan [0036], using the fuel to provide cooling for the combustor liner.
Regarding claim 4, Medina in view of Callas, Johnson and McMahan, teaches the invention as discussed for claim 1. Medina further teaches:
wherein the turbine engine has:
a heat exchanger cooling the air (a fuel heat exchanger arranged to bring into thermal contact at least part of an air flow travelling into a compressor [0054])
wherein said heat from the heat exchanger is applied to change the liquid ammonia to gaseous ammonia ([0054]; and “second fuels comprises a slower reacting fuel […] slower reacting fuel may for instance be ammonia” [0025]), that is supplied to the conversion device (may be completed before further warming and/or decomposition of the second fuel in the cracker [0054]) in which the ammonia is dissociated into the hydrogen gas and the nitrogen gas (first cracker fluid may be ammonia, which may be decomposed inside the cracker into nitrogen and hydrogen [0070]).
Medina in view of Callas, Johnson and McMahan, as discussed so far, is silent about the heat exchanger cooling the air compressed by the second compressor as claimed.
However, Callas teaches:
heat exchanger cooling the air compressed by the second compressor and deriving heat from said cooling (38, [0017]),
Regarding claim 5, Medina in view of Callas, Johnson and McMahan, teaches the invention as discussed for claim 4. Medina in view of Callas, Johnson and McMahan, as discussed so far, is silent about:
The turbine engine has a second turbine driving the second compressor
However, Callas teaches:
the turbine engine has a second turbine driving the second compressor (LPS 16a, Fig 1, [0014, 0019]).
Regarding claim 7, Medina in view of Callas, Johnson and McMahan teaches the invention as discussed for claim 1.
Medina further teaches:
Wherein the separation unit receives the gas product mix and separates the gas product mix into (“The first fuel of the first injection fluid may be delivered from the cracker via an outlet of the first channel and may be separated from the one or more other chemical species in an intermediate stage (e.g. a molecular sieve). A molecular sieve may be suitable for separating hydrogen and nitrogen gases decomposed in the cracker from ammonia” [0048]),
a first gaseous product that is mostly the hydrogen gas, and that is supplied to the engine to be combusted (the first cracker fluid may be ammonia, which may be decomposed inside the cracker into nitrogen and hydrogen [0047] “hydrogen may be the first fuel and the nitrogen may be delivered to the combustion chamber in the secondary combustion zone” [0047]” [0047]),
Medina in view of Callas, Johnson and McMahan teaches the gaseous product containing hydrogen, nitrogen, but although one would expect a residual partion of ammonia to be present in the gaseous product due to imperfections in the cracking process, Medina in view of Callas, Johnson and McMahan does not explicitly teach the second gaseous product containing ammonia gas:
a second gaseous product that contains hydrogen, nitrogen and ammonia gas.
However, McMahan teaches:
a second gaseous product that contains hydrogen, nitrogen and ammonia gas (“when about 28% of the ammonia is cracked prior to introduction into the main combustor 28. Thus with about 28% cracking, a conventional gas turbine configuration is capable of operation on ammonia” Col 3 ll. 35-40)
Regarding claim 14, Medina in view of Callas, Johnson and McMahan teaches the invention of claim 1. Medina further teaches:
The power system of claim 1, wherein the vehicle is a marine vessel or a train locomotive (marine, aerospace and train applications [0001])
Regarding claim 16, Medina in view of Callas, Johnson and McMahan teaches the invention of claim 1. Medina further teaches:
The power system of claim 1, wherein the heat supplied to the conversion device is produced by the combustion of the hydrogen gas (as the second cracker fluid, the ammonia undergoes the second process of having its thermal energy further increased via heat exchange with the combusting fluid in the combustion chamber 13 [0123], and hydrogen is used as fuel: “The hydrogen may be the first fuel and the nitrogen may be delivered to the combustion chamber” [0047]) .
Regarding claim 17, Medina teaches:
A method of using ammonia (liquid ammonia fuel, [0123]) for providing hydrogen fuel (hydrogen [0124]) for an engine of an aircraft (marine, aerospace and train, [0001]), said method comprising:
supplying liquid ammonia to a tank on said aircraft and storing the liquid ammonia therein (liquid ammonia fuel, which is the second fuel, is pumped from the fuel tank [0123]);
converting said liquid ammonia to gaseous ammonia using heat from the engine (a fuel heat exchanger arranged to bring into thermal contact at least part of an air flow travelling into a compressor of the gas turbine engine and a flow of the second fuel […] produce a state change from a desired storage state for the second fuel (e.g. liquid) to a desired combustion state (e.g. gas) [0077]);
using heat from the engine to crack the gaseous ammonia by an endothermic cracking process in a catalytic cracking component so as to dissociate the ammonia into a gas mixture containing hydrogen gas and a gas containing nitrogen (By positioning the cracker inside the combustion chamber, the necessary heat for the decomposition may be generated within the cracker […] ammonia, which may be decomposed inside the cracker into nitrogen and hydrogen [0047]);
driving a compressor (7) that compresses air received from outside (“air” bottom left o Fig. 7, and “cold air” from 77 to 7) the aircraft (aerospace applications [0001]) so as to increase a temperature thereof (compression adds energy into the system and causes temperature to increase); and
burning the hydrogen gas in the engine of the aircraft (The hydrogen may be the first fuel and the nitrogen may be delivered to the combustion chamber in the secondary combustion zone [0047]) so as to drive the engine and provide thrust to the aircraft;
wherein the using of heat from the engine to crack the gaseous ammonia comprises supplying the gaseous ammonia (By positioning the cracker inside the combustion chamber, the necessary heat for the decomposition may be generated within the cracker […] ammonia, which may be decomposed inside the cracker into nitrogen and hydrogen [0047]) to the catalytic cracking component wherein the catalytic cracking component comprises one or more tubes (a channel [0047]) having interior surfaces with catalyst material (ammonia crackers have a catalyst that would have a surface exposed to the ammonia);
and dissociate the ammonia into the gas mixture therein (the first cracker fluid may be ammonia, which may be decomposed inside the cracker into nitrogen and hydrogen [0047]); and
the method further including
transmitting the gas mixture from the tubes to a separating apparatus (“delivered from the cracker via an outlet of the first channel and may be separated from the one or more other chemical species in an intermediate stage (e.g. a molecular sieve)” [0048]);
separating the gas mixture into a hydrogen gas fraction and a second gas mixture containing, nitrogen gas, hydrogen gas and ammonia using said separating apparatus (“The first fuel of the first injection fluid may be delivered from the cracker via an outlet of the first channel and may be separated from the one or more other chemical species in an intermediate stage (e.g. a molecular sieve). A molecular sieve may be suitable for separating hydrogen and nitrogen gases decomposed in the cracker from ammonia” [0048]); and
supplying the hydrogen gas fraction to the combustion chamber of the engine and burning said hydrogen gas fraction therein (“The hydrogen may be the first fuel and the nitrogen may be delivered to the combustion chamber” [0047]).
Medina is silent about two compressors as claimed.
However, Callas teaches:
wherein the compressor comprises a low pressure compressor (12a) and a high pressure compressor (12b) in series (Fig. 1); and
wherein the low pressure compressor compresses and heats air from outside the aircraft (“air in”, Fig. 1, (compression adds energy into the system and causes temperature to increase) and
wherein the converting the liquid ammonia to gaseous ammonia includes cooling the air compressed by the low pressure compressor with the liquid ammonia (via 38) such that the liquid ammonia becomes gaseous (via 38, “may change states from a liquid state to gaseous state within heat exchanger 38 “ [0017]);
wherein the catalytic cracking component outputs a gas mixture containing hydrogen gas, nitrogen gas, and ammonia (the first cracker fluid may be ammonia, which may be decomposed inside the cracker into nitrogen and hydrogen [0047]),
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Medina with Callas' structure discussed above in order to “further pressurize the air to a second pressure level” as taught by Callas [0012] so” Each fuel nozzle may inject or otherwise deliver one or both of liquid and gaseous fuel into the flow of compressed air from HPS 12b for ignition within combustion chamber 26. As the fuel/air mixture combusts, heated molecules may expand and move at high speed into turbine section 16 by way of a passage 28”, producing more power as taught by Callas [0013], because higher pressures lead to more power production and efficiency in a gas turbine.
Medina in view of Callas teaches an ammonia cracker and ammonia crackers have a catalyst that would have a surface exposed to the ammonia, but does not explicitly disclose:
tubes having interior surfaces with catalyst material defining passages therein,
However, Johnson teaches a gas turbine (title) and gaseous partially cracked ammonia then being fed to the pilot combustion chamber 32 (col 31-3):
[tubes] having interior surfaces with catalyst material defining passages therein (“amount of ammonia which will be cracked will depend upon the length of the tubes”, “A non-limiting example would be platinum which could be embedded in bands which could be inserted into the J-tubes 30” Col 3 ll. 17-35, providing catalyst on surfaces in the passage)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Medina in view of Callas with Johnson’s structure discussed above in order to provide an arrangement where “there is sufficient heat in this region of the main combustion chamber 28 in which the J-tubes 30 are disposed to crack a portion of the evaporated ammonia within the J-tubes 30 into the dissociation products ammonia” as taught by Johnson Col 3 ll. 12-18, providing a “relatively hot region adjacent the pilot combustor 32 so that the ammonia burns upon egress from the J-shaped tubes” Col 3 ll. 5-18, taking advantage of the heat and increasing system efficiency.
Medina in view of Callas and Johnson is silent about
said tubes extending along or inside of a liner wall of a combustion chamber of the engine such that the tubes receive heat from the combustion chamber
However, McMahan teaches a combustor with a liner with upstream and downstream end portion and comprising channels (abstract), and:
said tubes (channels 56, Figs. 3-5) extending along or inside of a liner wall of a combustion chamber of the engine (inside 34) such that the tubes receive heat from the combustion chamber (“flows into and through the channels 56, heat may be transferred away from the downstream end portion 52 of the combustor liner 34” [0036]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Medina in view of Callas and Johnson with McMahan's structure discussed above in order to provide a structure through which “heat may be transferred away” as taught by McMahan [0036], using the fuel to provide cooling for the combustor liner.
Regarding claim 27, Medina in view of Callas, Johnson and McMahan teaches the invention as discussed for claim 1. Medina further teaches:
wherein the conversion device further includes a plurality of additional tubes (a first channel [0047]) each supported on and externding along the surface of the liner wall or in the liner wall, said tubes each having a respective interior surface defining a respective interior passage (a first channel), and having thereon a catalyst (ammonia crackers have a catalyst that would have a surface exposed to the ammonia) configured to aid in cracking of ammonia to yield hydrogen (“a first channel within the cracker to thereby chemically decompose the first cracker fluid into two or more chemical species […] first cracker fluid may be ammonia, which may be decomposed inside the cracker into nitrogen and hydrogen” [0047]), each of the tubes receiving gaseous ammonia at a respective first end thereof, cracking the ammonia in the interior passage with heat from the combustion in the combustor chamber ([0047]) so as to produce the gas product mix containing the hydrogen gas (“By positioning the cracker inside the combustion chamber, the necessary heat for the decomposition” [0047]), and outputting the gas product mix at an opposite second end thereof (“channel” teaches a flow from one end to another) so as to flow to the separation unit (“The first fuel of the first injection fluid may be delivered from the cracker via an outlet of the first channel and may be separated from the one or more other chemical species in an intermediate stage (e.g. a molecular sieve). A molecular sieve may be suitable for separating hydrogen and nitrogen gases decomposed in the cracker from ammonia” [0048]).
Medina in view of Callas, Johnson and McMahan teaches an ammonia cracker as discussed above, and ammonia crackers have a catalyst that would have a surface exposed to the ammonia, but does not explicitly teach:
[tubes] each supported on and externding along the surface of the liner wall or in the liner wall
the interior surface having thereon a catalyst
However, Johnson teaches:
[tubes (30)] each supported on and externding along the surface of the liner wall or in the liner wall (30 supported on liner wall 31, Fig 1),
the interior surface having thereon a catalyst (“Another feasible possibility of increasing the amount of ammonia being cracked is the use of a catalyst. A non-limiting example would be platinum which could be embedded in bands which could be inserted into the J-tubes 30”, Col 3 ll 25-34).
Regarding claim 28, Medina in view of Callas, Johnson and McMahan teaches the invention as discussed for claim 27. Medina further teaches:
gaseous ammonia being derived from stored liquid ammonia (liquid ammonia fuel, which is the second fuel, is pumped from the fuel tank [0123]) exposed to heat in a heat exchanger apparatus in the engine (0054]).
Medina in view of Callas, Cocks and Johnson is silent about:
wherein a manifold connects the first ends of the tubes with a line supplying the gaseous ammonia,
[ammonia exposed] to heat from a low pressure compressor in a heat exchanger apparatus in the engine
However, Callas teaches compressors 12a and 12b, and a heat exchanger in between and in contact with NH3 (Fig 1), and:
wherein a manifold (inter alia, 52) connects the first ends of the tubes of the conversion device (50 is a catalytic cracker [0019], reading on the claimed tubes, Fig 1) with a line supplying the gaseous ammonia (NH3 shown in Fig 1, flowing through, inter alia, 38, 42, 48, 46, 52, 50),
heat from a low pressure compressor (12a) in a heat exchanger apparatus in the engine (38).
Regarding claim 29, Medina in view of Callas, Johnson and McMahan teaches the invention as discussed for claim 27. Medina in view of Callas, Johnson and McMahan, as discussed so far, is silent about:
wherein the tubes each extend in a respective pathway on or in the liner wall between the ends of said tube, said pathway being partly or completely circumferential about a circumference of the combustor liner wall or axially of the combustor liner.
However, Johnson teaches:
wherein the tubes (30) each extend in a respective pathway on the liner wall between the ends of said tube (Fig 1), said pathway being partly or completely axially of the liner wall (Fig 1).
Regarding claim 30, Medina in view of Callas, Johnson and McMahan teaches the invention as discussed for claim 29. Medina in view of Callas, Johnson and McMahan is silent about:
wherein the tubes are embedded within the liner wall of the combustor liner
However, McMahan teaches:
wherein the tubes (56, Fig 3-5) are embedded within the liner wall of the combustor liner (34).
Claim(s) 6, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Medina 20240060645 in view of Callas 20090133400, Johnson 3313103 and McMahan 20110247341 and further in view of HØJLUND NIELSEN 20230383420.
Regarding claim 6, Medina in view of Callas, Johnson and McMahan teaches the invention as discussed for claim 1. Medina further teaches:
wherein the gas product mixture contains the hydrogen gas, nitrogen supplied thereto ([0047]).
Medina in view of Callas, Johnson and McMahan as discussed so far, is silent about some of the ammonia supplied thereto as claimed.
However, HØJLUND NIELSEN teaches:
some of the ammonia supplied thereto (The resulting gas mixture is composed of hydrogen and nitrogen in the proportion 3:1 (75% of H.sub.2 and 25% of N.sub.2) with very little amount (20-100 ppm) of residual undissociated ammonia with dew point −60° F. to −20° F. (−51° C. to −29° C.). When performed under the conditions of the present invention, catalysts are preferably Fe-based and the process is performed at lower temperatures, between approximately 300-700° C [0039]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Medina in view of Callas, Johnson and McMahan with HØJLUND NIELSEN 's structure discussed above in order to account for residual undissociated ammonia and provide a “process is performed at lower temperatures, between approximately 300-700° C” as taught by HØJLUND NIELSEN [0039], providing a way to “improve efficiency and reduce costs of ammonia decomposition or cracking at low temperatures, while increasing the total yield of produced hydrogen” [0001].
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Medina 20240060645 in view of Callas 20090133400, Johnson 3313103 and McMahan 20110247341 and further in view of Cocks 20220162999.
Regarding claim 9, Medina in view of Callas, Johnson and McMahan teaches the invention as discussed for claim 7. Medina in view of Callas, Johnson and McMahan is silent about:
wherein the first gaseous product is supplied to the combustor chamber, and the first gaseous product supplied to the combustor chamber contains
30% to 70% by volume of the hydrogen gas; and
30% to 70% by volume of ammonia.
However, Cocks teaches “the decomposition or conversion process of ammonia into component parts of hydrogen and nitrogen can reach an equilibrium point shown at 22 based on a temperature indicated at 24 and pressure indicated by lines 26, 28, 30 and 32“ [0038] and seen in Fig 2. Cocks teaches “The degree of conversion decreases as the pressure of the ammonia fuel increases, as is shown by graph 20. At pressures of around 68 atm (1000 psi), the degree of conversion is reduced to below 70% at 400° C” [0039]. Therefore, Cocks teaches and the gas mixture supplied to the combustor chamber contains 30% to 70% by volume of hydrogen gas; and 30% to 70% by volume of ammonia.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Medina in view of Callas, Johnson and McMahan with Cocks’ teachings discussed above in order to provide and account for the amount of hydrogen and ammonia in the gas mixture depending on the temperature and pressure in the system.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Medina 20240060645 in view of Callas 20090133400, Cocks 20220162999, Johnson 3313103 and HØJLUND NIELSEN 20230383420 further in view of Wiedenhoefer 20220128310.
Regarding claim 10, Medina in view of Callas, Johnson and McMahan teaches the invention as discussed for claim 1. As already discussed, Medina teaches:
wherein the vehicle is an aircraft (as already discussed and taught by Medina, the invention can be used in Aerospace vehicles [0001]).
Medina in view of Callas, Johnson and McMahan is silent about engine has an exhaust area as claimed.
the engine has an exhaust area through which products of the combustion are expelled, said exhaust area having an additional heat exchanger extracting heat from the exhaust, and wherein the aircraft has a supercritical CO2 (sCO2) system receiving the extracted heat and converting said heat to electrical current supplied to the aircraft.
However, Wiedenhoefer teaches:
the vehicle is an aircraft (aircraft [0085]) and the engine has an exhaust area through which products of the combustion are expelled (Fig 30), said exhaust area having a heat exchanger extracting heat from the exhaust (20), and the aircraft has a supercritical CO2 (sCO2) system (The first flowpath 900 is a leg of a supercritical CO.sub.2 (sCO.sub.2) bottoming Brayton cycle (referred to herein as the waste heat recovery system 801) [0087]) receiving the extracted heat ([0087, Fig 30) and converting said heat to electrical current supplied to the aircraft (the heat exchanger 20 is connected to transfer heat from the turbine exhaust to the waste heat recovery system 801, and the waste heat recovery system 801 converts the heat into rotational work (which may be used for various purposes such as driving an electrical generator (not shown) to power aircraft systems) [0087]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Medina in view of Callas, Johnson and McMahan with Wiedenhoefer 's structure discussed above in order to “convert[s] the heat into rotational work (which may be used for various purposes such as driving an electrical generator […] to power aircraft systems)” as taught by Wiedenhoefer [0087]).
Claim(s) 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Medina 20240060645 in view of Callas 20090133400, Johnson 3313103 and McMahan 20110247341 and further in view of Ford 4473537.
Regarding claim 13, Medina in view of Callas, Johnson and McMahan teaches the invention as discussed for claim 1. As discussed above for claim 1, Medina teaches:
wherein the vehicle is an aircraft (as already discussed and taught by Medina, the invention can be used in Aerospace vehicles [0001]).
Medina in view of Callas, Johnson and McMahan is silent about:
and the engine has an exhaust area through which products of the combustion are expelled, the exhaust area including a catalyst screen and spray device spraying ammonia into the exhaust so as to reduce NOX in the products of the combustion.
However, Ford teaches:
the engine has an exhaust area through which products of the combustion are expelled (inter alia, 32, 34), the exhaust area including a catalyst screen (50, Col 10 ll. 24-49) and spray device spraying ammonia (ammonia is added in spray elements 56 Col 10 ll. 24-49) into the exhaust so as to reduce NOX in the products of the combustion (Title).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Medina in view of Callas, Johnson and McMahan with Ford's structure discussed above in order “to react injected ammonia with NO.sub.x from the combustor of the gas turbine to reduce atmospheric emission of NO.sub.x from the system” as taught by Ford (Abstract).
Claim(s) 15, 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Medina 20240060645 in view of Callas 20090133400, Johnson 3313103 and McMahan 20110247341 and further in view of Ravikumar 20090304574.
Regarding claim 15, Medina in view of Callas, Johnson and McMahan teaches the invention of claim 1. Medina further teaches:
The power system of claim 1, wherein the vehicle is an aircraft (marine, aerospace and train applications [0001]), and
the storage tank storing the ammonia and is configured to maintain the ammonia in said liquid form (a desired storage state for the second fuel (e.g. liquid) [0054]) at all environmental temperatures of the aircraft (second fuel may be warmed prior to combustion which may improve efficiency and/or produce a state change from a desired storage state for the second fuel (e.g. liquid) to a desired combustion state (e.g. gas) [0077], teaching the fuel remains in liquid form until ready for combustion),
Medina in view of Callas, Johnson and McMahan is silent about the tank pressure as claimed.
However, Ravikumar taches:
the storage tank being configured to maintain the ammonia therein at a pressures of at least 15 atm (the ammonia storage tank where the liquefied ammonia is preferably stored at a pressure of at least 20 atm [0008]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Medina in view of Callas, Johnson and McMahan with Ravikumar 's structure discussed above in order to store undissociated ammonia in a liquefied state, as taught by Ravikumar [0008]
Regarding claim 34, Medina in view of Callas, Johnson, McMahan and Ravikumar teaches the invention of claim 15.
Ravikumar further teaches:
The power system of claim 15, wherein the storage tank is configured to maintain the ammonia therein at a pressures of at least 20 atm (the ammonia storage tank where the liquefied ammonia is preferably stored at a pressure of at least 20 atm [0008]).
Response to Arguments/Remarks
Applicant’s arguments have been considered, but they are not persuasive because they do not apply to the new combination of references, i.e., adding a new reference to the old combination of references, that was necessitated by applicant’s amendment. However, to the extent possible, applicant’s arguments have been addressed in the body of the rejections above, at the appropriate location.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Roberto T. Igue whose telephone number is (303)297-4389. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-4:30 PT.
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, Phutthiwat Wongwian can be reached on (571) 270-5426. 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.
/ROBERTO TOSHIHARU IGUE/ Examiner, Art Unit 3741
/PHUTTHIWAT WONGWIAN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3741