DETAILED ACTION The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Claims 1-1 8 are pend ing in the instant application . Priority This application , filed on Octo ber 1 st, 2020 , claims the benefit of priority under 35 U.S.C. §119 (a) and (b) to US Provisional Patent Application No. 63/469,839, filed May 31, 2023 I nformation Disclosure Statements Applicants’ Information Di sclosure Statement, filed on 1 0 / 0 2 /202 3 , ha s been considered. Pl ease refer to Applicant’s cop y of t he PTO-1449 submitted herewith. Status of the Claims Claims 1-18 are under examination on the merits. 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 appl icant regards as his invention. Claims 1- 18 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Specifically, claim 1 is drawn to a process for producing hydrogen-rich gas and/or ammonia synthesis gas to produce ammonia . In addition, claim 1 defines at least a portion of the hydrogen-rich stream and/or the ammonia synthesis gas stream is used for ammonia synthesis, the sum of the heat exchange duties taking place in the fired heater does not exceed 1 MWh/ ton ammonia (on 100% ammonia purity basis) produced or 3MWh/ tonhydrogen (on 100% hydrogen purity basis) produced and the direct carbon dioxide emission from the ammonia production process does not exceed 0.7 kg carbon dioxide/kg ammonia (on 100% ammonia purity basis) produced or 2.5 kg carbon dioxide / kg hydrogen (on 100% hydrogen purity basis) . It seems claim 1 is drawn to two processes 1) a process for producing hydrogen-rich gas ; and/or 2) a process for producing hydrogen-rich gas and/or ammonia synthesis gas to produce ammonia . In addition, claim 1 also uses the term “ and/or ” to define the claimed process. It is not clear claim 1 is drawn to a process for producing hydrogen-rich gas ; for producing ammonia synthesis gas , or for both processes. In addition, producing ammonia is not a claimed limitation because claim 1 is drawn to a process for producing hydrogen-rich gas and/or ammonia synthesis gas . The metes and bound of the claim are not clear. Therefore, c laim 1 is indefinite. I t is difficult for the Office to carry out appropriate prior art search of the full scope of claim 1. Claims 2-6 depending on claim 1 are rejected, accordingly. In terms of claims 7-12, claim 7 is drawn to a process for producing hydrogen-rich gas and/or ammonia synthesis gas to produce ammonia . In addition, claim 7 defines at least a portion of the hydrogen-rich stream and/or the ammonia synthesis gas stream is used for ammonia synthesis, the sum of the heat exchange duties taking place in the fired heater does not exceed 1 MWh/ ton ammonia (on 100% ammonia purity basis) produced or 3MWh/ton hydrogen (on 100% hydrogen purity basis) produced and the direct carbon dioxide emission from the ammonia production process does not exceed 0.7 kg carbon dioxide/ kg ammonia (on 100% ammonia purity basis) produced or 2.5 kg carbon dioxide / kg hydrogen (on 100% hydrogen purity basis) produced. It seems claim 7 is drawn to two processes 1) a process for producing hydrogen-rich gas ; and/or 2) a process for producing hydrogen-rich gas and/or ammonia synthesis gas to produce ammonia . In addition, claim 1 also uses the term “ and/or” to define the claimed process. It is not clear claim 1 is drawn to a process for producing hydrogen-rich gas ; for producing ammonia synthesis gas , or for both processes. In addition, ammonia production process is not a claimed limitation because claim 7 is drawn to a process for producing hydrogen-rich gas and/or ammonia synthesis gas . It is difficult to interpreter claim 7 because the metes and bound of the claim are not clear. Therefore, claim 7 is indefinite. In addition, it is very difficult for the Office to carry out appropriate prior art search of the full scope of claim 7 . Claims 8 -1 3 depending on claim 7 are rejected, accordingly. In terms of claims 13 -1 8 , claim 13 is drawn to a process for producing hydrogen-rich gas and/or ammonia synthesis gas to produce ammonia . In addition, claim 13 defines at least a portion of the hydrogen-rich stream and/or the ammonia synthesis gas stream is used for ammonia synthesis, the sum of the heat exchange duties taking place in the fired heater does not exceed 1 MWh/ ton ammonia (on 100% ammonia purity basis) produced or 3MWh/ton hydrogen (on 100% hydrogen purity basis) produced and the direct carbon dioxide emission from the ammonia production process does not exceed 0.7 kg carbon dioxide/ kg ammonia (on 100% ammonia purity basis) produced or 2.5 kg carbon dioxide / kg hydrogen (on 100% hydrogen purity basis) produced. It seems claim 13 is drawn to two processes 1) a process for producing hydrogen-rich gas ; and/or 2) a process for producing hydrogen-rich gas and/or ammonia synthesis gas to produce ammonia . In addition, claim 1 also uses the term “ and/or” to define the claimed process. It is not clear claim 1 is drawn to a process for producing hydrogen-rich gas ; for producing ammonia synthesis gas , or for both processes. In addition, ammonia production process is not a claimed limitation because claim 13 is drawn to a process for producing hydrogen-rich gas and/or ammonia synthesis gas . It is difficult to interpreter c laim 13 because the metes and bound of the claim are not clear. Therefore, c laim 13 is indefinite. In addition , it is very difficult for the Office to carry out appropriate prior art search of the full scope of claim 13 . Claims 14 -1 8 depending on claim 13 are rejected, accordingly. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d): (d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.— Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph: Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Specifically, claim 6 depend s on claim 1 and further limit s the fired heater is replaced by an electric heater . However, an electric heater is not a limitation of claim 1, which claim 6 depends upon . A claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. Therefore, claim 6 fails to further limit the base claim 1 , and rejected. 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 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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co. , 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US201 3 /0 243686 (“the `686 publication”) to Genkin et al , in view of EP2233433 (“the `433 publication”) , and US201 9 /0 047852 (“the ` 852 publication”) to Pach et al Applicant’s claim 1 is drawn to a process for producing hydrogen-rich gas and/or ammonia synthesis gas to produce ammonia, comprising: producing a raw syngas stream within an autothermal reformer from an ATR feed stream comprising a hydrocarbon feed stream and a steam stream, wherein the raw syngas stream comprises hydrogen, carbon monoxide , carbon dioxide, and water ; cooling the raw syngas stream by vaporizing boiler feed water thereby producing a steam stream and a second syngas stream ; the second syngas stream is mixed with water and/or steam added prior to introduction to a catalytic water-gas shift reactor thereby producing a minimum required ratio of steam to dry gas for the shift catalyst (> 0.2 mol/mol) ; producing a first shifted syngas stream by shift reaction inside the catalytic water-gas shift reactor ; producing a second shifted syngas stream by cooling the first shifted syngas stream by heat exchange with a steam stream superheater or a hydrocarbon feed stream or a mixed stream of hydrocarbon and steam or by raising steam or all of these ; further cooling the second shifted syngas stream in subsequent step(s) prior to introduction to pre-combustion carbon dioxide capture unit producing at least one carbon dioxide -rich stream and one carbon dioxide-depleted stream, and ; preheating either a process stream or superheating a steam stream or both, with a supplementary fired heater, wherein : at least a portion of the hydrogen-rich stream and/or the ammonia synthesis gas stream is used for ammonia synthesis, the sum of the heat exchange duties taking place in the fired heater does not exceed 1 MWh/ ton ammonia (on 100% ammonia purity basis) produced or 3MWh/ton hydrogen (on 100% hydrogen purity basis) produced and the direct carbon dioxide emission from the ammonia production process does not exceed 0.7 kg carbon dioxide/ kg ammonia (on 100% ammonia purity basis) produced or 2.5 kg carbon dioxide / kg hydrogen (on 100% hydrogen purity basis) produced. Applicant’s claim 7 is drawn to a process for producing hydrogen-rich gas and/or ammonia synthesis gas to produce ammonia, comprising: producing a raw syngas stream within an autothermal reformer from an ATR feed stream comprising a hydrocarbon feed stream and a steam stream, wherein the raw syngas stream comprises hydrogen, carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, and water ; cooling the raw syngas stream by vaporizing boiler feed water thereby producing a steam stream and a second syngas stream ; superheating a steam stream by utilizing the sensible heat of the second syngas stream, thereby producing a third syngas stream ; the third syngas stream is mixed with water and/or steam added prior to introduction to a catalytic water-gas shift reactor thereby producing a minimum required ratio of steam to dry gas for the shift catalyst (> 0.2 mol/mol) ; producing a first shifted syngas stream by shift reaction inside the catalytic water-gas shift reactor ; producing a second shifted syngas stream by cooling the first shifted syngas stream by heat exchange with a hydrocarbon feed stream or a mixed stream of hydrocarbon and steam or by raising steam or all of these ; further cooling the second shifted syngas stream in subsequent step(s) prior to introduction to pre-combustion carbon dioxide capture unit producing at least one carbon dioxide -rich stream and one carbon dioxide-depleted stream, and ; preheating either a process stream or superheating a steam stream or both, with a supplementary fired heater, wherein: at least a portion of the hydrogen-rich stream and/or the ammonia synthesis gas stream is used for ammonia synthesis, the sum of the heat exchange duties taking place in the fired heater does not exceed 1 MWh/ ton ammonia (on 100% ammonia purity basis) produced or 3MWh/ton hydrogen (on 100% hydrogen purity basis) produced and the direct carbon dioxide emission from the ammonia production process does not exceed 0.7 kg carbon dioxide/ kg ammonia (on 100% ammonia purity basis) produced or 2.5 kg carbon dioxide / kg hydrogen (on 100% hydrogen purity basis) produced. Applicant’s claim 13 is drawn to a process for producing hydrogen-rich gas and/or ammonia synthesis gas to produce ammonia, comprising: producing a raw syngas stream within an autothermal reformer from an ATR feed stream comprising a hydrocarbon feed stream and a steam stream, wherein the raw syngas stream comprises hydrogen, carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, and water ; cooling the raw syngas stream by vaporizing boiler feed water thereby producing a steam stream and a second syngas stream ; heating a hydrocarbon feed stream by using the sensible heat of the second syngas stream, thereby producing a third syngas stream ; the third syngas stream is mixed with water and/or steam added prior to introduction to a catalytic water-gas shift reactor thereby producing a minimum required ratio of steam to dry gas for the shift catalyst (> 0.2 mol/mol) ; producing a first shifted syngas stream by shift reaction inside the catalytic water-gas shift reactor ; producing a second shifted syngas stream by cooling the first shifted syngas stream by heat exchange with a steam stream superheater or a hydrocarbon feed stream or a mixed stream of hydrocarbon and steam or by raising steam or all of these ; further cooling the second shifted syngas stream in subsequent step(s) prior to introduction to pre-combustion carbon dioxide capture unit producing at least one carbon dioxide -rich stream and one carbon dioxide-depleted stream ; and preheating either a process stream or superheating a steam stream or both, with a supplementary fired heater, wherein: at least a portion of the hydrogen-rich stream and/or the ammonia synthesis gas stream is used for ammonia synthesis, the sum of the heat exchange duties taking place in the fired heater does not exceed 1 MWh/ ton ammonia (on 100% ammonia purity basis) produced or 3MWh/ton hydrogen (on 100% hydrogen purity basis) produced and the direct carbon dioxide emission from the ammonia production process does not exceed 0.7 kg carbon dioxide/ kg ammonia (on 100% ammonia purity basis) produced or 2.5 kg carbon dioxide / kg hydrogen (on 100% hydrogen purity basis) produced. The `686 publication (Abstract) discloses a h ydrogen p roduction p rocess w ith l ow CO 2 e missions wherein steam and a hydrocarbon feed is reacted in a prereformer, the prereformed intermediate is further reacted in an oxygen-based reformer, the reformate is shifted and then separated by a pressure swing adsorber to form a H.sub.2 product stream and a tail gas, a first portion of the tail gas is recycled to the prereformer and/or the oxygen-based reformer, and a second portion of the tail gas is recycled to the pressure swing adsorber. Specifically, t he `686 publication ( FIG. 2 ) illustrated said process . The difference between Applicant’s claims 1- 18 and the `686 publication (FIG. 2) is that the prior art does not teach the step of further cooling the second shifted syngas stream in subsequent step(s) prior to introduction to pre-combustion carbon dioxide capture unit producing at least one carbon dioxide -rich stream and one carbon dioxide-depleted stream . In addition, the `686 publication does not teach the limitation ” wherein : at least a portion of the hydrogen-rich stream and/or the ammonia synthesis gas stream is used for ammonia synthesis, the sum of the heat exchange duties taking place in the fired heater does not exceed 1 MWh/ ton ammonia (on 100% ammonia purity basis) produced or 3MWh/ton hydrogen (on 100% hydrogen purity basis) produced and the direct carbon dioxide emission from the ammonia production process does not exceed 0.7 kg carbon dioxide/ kg ammonia (on 100% ammonia purity basis) produced or 2.5 kg carbon dioxide / kg hydrogen (on 100% hydrogen purity basis) produced. ”. In terms of the difference of the prior art does not teach the step of further cooling the second shifted syngas stream in subsequent step(s) prior to introduction to pre-combustion carbon dioxide capture unit producing at least one carbon dioxide -rich stream and one carbon dioxide-depleted stream , the `433 publication teaches the step of further cooling the second shifted syngas stream in subsequent step(s) prior to introduction to pre-combustion carbon dioxide capture unit producing at least one carbon dioxide -rich stream and one carbon dioxide-depleted stream in the ATR process ( see Figure 2 ), wherein the shifted syngas was further cooling through heat exchanger (25a) after the catalytic water-gas shift converter (24) : . In terms of the limitation “ wherein : at least a portion of the hydrogen-rich stream and/or the ammonia synthesis gas stream is used for ammonia synthesis ”, the `852 publication [0005] teaches a process for producing ammonia synthesis gas from a hydrocarbon-containing feedstock, with steps of primary reforming, secondary reforming with an oxidant stream, and further treatment of the synthesis gas including shift, removal of carbon dioxide and methanation . In terms of the limitation “ the sum of the heat exchange duties taking place in the fired heater does not exceed 1 MWh/ ton ammonia (on 100% ammonia purity basis) produced or 3MWh/ton hydrogen (on 100% hydrogen purity basis) produced and the direct carbon dioxide emission from the ammonia production process does not exceed 0.7 kg carbon dioxide/ kg ammonia (on 100% ammonia purity basis) produced or 2.5 kg carbon dioxide / kg hydrogen (on 100% hydrogen purity basis) produced ”, it would have been obvious for one skilled in the art to optimizing the heat exchange duties taking place in the fired heater does not exceed 1 MWh/ ton ammonia and the direct carbon dioxide emission from the ammonia production process does not exceed 0.7 kg carbon dioxide/ kg ammonia produced or 2.5 kg carbon dioxide / kg hydrogen in order to prepare high quality of ammonia with cost effective. Therefore, the `686 publication in view of the `433 publication, and the `852 publication would have rendered claim 1 obvious. In terms of claims 2-6, the combined references would have also rendered the claims obvious because it is well known to one ordinary skilled in the art that the adjustment of particular design elements of chemical plants, and rearranging steps in a reaction sequence without criticality, is deemed merely a matter of judicious selection and routine optimization which is well within the purview of the skilled artisan. An ordinarily skilled artisan would have understood that any of the processes disclosed in the applied references would have been suitable for a process for producing hydrogen-rich gas and/or ammonia synthesis gas , wherein a person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton, see KSR Int' l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 US. 398, 421 (2007) (“A person of ordinary skill 1s also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton' ' ) . Therefore, claims 1- 6 would have been obvious over the teaching of the combined references above. In terms of independent claims 7 and 13, they are similar processes with the process of claim 1. Therefore, the `686 publication in view of the `433 publication, and the `852 publication would have also rendered claim s 7 and 13 obvious based on the similar analysis . In terms of claims 8 - 12, and 14-18 , the combined references would have also rendered the claims obvious because it is well known to one ordinary skilled in the art that the adjustment of particular design elements of chemical plants, and rearranging steps in a reaction sequence without criticality, is deemed merely a matter of judicious selection and routine optimization which is well within the purview of the skilled artisan. An ordinarily skilled artisan would have understood that any of the processes disclosed in the applied references would have been suitable for a process for producing hydrogen-rich gas and/or ammonia synthesis gas , wherein a person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton, see KSR Int' l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 US. 398, 421 (2007) (“A person of ordinary skill 1s also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton' ' ) . Therefore, claims 7 - 18 would have also been obvious over the teaching of the combined references above. 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 obviousness-type 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b). Claims 1-18 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of co-pending U.S. Patent Application No. 18/375,863 (“the `863 application”) published as US20240400385. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because Applicant’s claims 1-18 are drawn to a process for producing hydrogen-rich gas and/or ammonia synthesis gas to produce ammonia , while claims 1-18 of the `863 application are drawn to a process for producing hydrogen with very similar process. Claim 2 of the `863 application defines hydrogen purification unit producing at least one hydrogen-rich stream (>90 mole% hydrogen purity) , which is the same product of produced by the presently claimed process of claims 1-18. Therefore, claims 1-18 would have been ODP of claims 1-18 of the `863 application . Conclusions Claims 1- 18 are rejected. Telephone Inquiry Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Yong L. Chu, whose telephone number is (571)272-5759 . The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30am-5:00pm . If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s s upervisor, Amber R. Orlando can be reached on 571-270-3149 . The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300. Status Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). /YONG L CHU/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1731