DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim 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 1-14 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 recites the limitation "the cooled cycle fluid" in section b) line 1 lacks proper antecedent basis. Should read --the cooled nitrogen cycle fluid--.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the at least one portion of the cycle fluid" in section b) line 2 lacks proper antecedent basis.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the outlet" in section b) line 3 lacks proper antecedent basis.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the gas" in section d) line 1 lacks proper antecedent basis.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the feed gas" in section d) line 2 lacks proper antecedent basis. The limitation should read –the hydrogen feed gas--.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "a cycle" in section d) line 4 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear how it relates with the previously cited limitation “a nitrogen cycle fluid” in section (a) or “the cycle fluid” in section b) line 2. It is unclear if the two cycles are same or entirely different cycles.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the liquid" in section e) line 1 lacks proper antecedent basis.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "cycle fluid" in section f) line 3 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear how it relates with the previously cited limitation “a nitrogen cycle fluid” in section (a) or “the cycle fluid” in section b) line 2 of the claim. It is unclear if the two cycles are same or entirely different cycles.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "it" in section e) line 3 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear what the word “it” is referring to.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the ratio", "the inlet pressure" and “the outlet pressure” all lacks proper antecedent basis.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the amount of liquid", “the outlet pressure”, “the cycle compressor”, “the inlet pressure” and “the expansion rate” all lacks proper antecedent basis.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the cycle compressor” in line 2 lacks proper antecedent basis.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "one portion of the cooled fluid” in line 1 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear how it relates with the previously cited limitation “at least one portion the cooled cycled fluid” in section b) line 1 of claim 1.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the cooled fluid" in line 1 lacks proper antecedent basis.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "it" line 3 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear what the word “it” is referring to.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "this liquid” in line 3 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear which “liquid” it refereeing to. The limitation should read –the liquid--.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the flow" in line 1 lacks proper antecedent basis.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the heat exchanger" in line 1 lacks proper antecedent basis. It is not clear if it is referring to the first or second heat exchanger.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the cycle fluid" lacks proper antecedent basis. Should read --the nitrogen cycle fluid--.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the cycle fluid" lacks proper antecedent basis. Should read --the nitrogen cycle fluid--.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the cycle" in line 2 lacks proper antecedent basis. Should read --the nitrogen cycle fluid--.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "this gas” in line 2 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear which “gas” it refereeing to. The limitation should read –the gas--.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the same composition” in line 2-3 lacks proper antecedent basis.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the inlet pressure” in line 3 lacks proper antecedent basis.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the proportion of liquid” in line 4 lacks proper antecedent basis.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the cycle fluid" lacks proper antecedent basis.
Claim 14 recites “the cooled feed gas” lacks proper antecedent basis. For examination purposes, examiner read the limitation as –the cooled hydrogen feed gas--.
Claim 14 recites “a refrigerant cycle” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear how it relates with the previously cited limitation “a refrigerant cycle” in line 1 of claim 1.
Claim 14 recites “a refrigerant cycle in which hydrogen or helium circulates” in line 2 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear how it relates with the previously cited limitation “a nitrogen cycle fluid” in section a) of claim 1, which is unclear if the refrigerant cycle is the same as the nitrogen cycle fluid, or entirely different refrigerant cycle.
Claims 3, 10 and 13 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for being dependent upon a rejected 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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 7-10 and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamashita Naohiko (JP 3647028 B2) in view of NPL “Integrated hydrogen liquefaction process with steam methane reforming by using liquefied natural gas cooling system” by Jae—Hyeon Yang, hereinafter “Yang”.
In regard to claim 1, Naohiko teaches a process for cooling a hydrogen feed gas (GH2) utilizing a refrigeration cycle (see fig. 4), wherein:
a) a helium cycle fluid (Helium cycle refrigerant that passed through compressors 21, 22; ¶ 0003, 0036) is cooled (in E10 against LNG) (see fig. 4),
b) at least one portion of the cooled cycle fluid (the refrigerant stream withdrawn from E8)) is expanded in a turbine (turbine expansion turbine 24) in order to cool the at least one portion of the cycle fluid, which produces a two-phase fluid at the outlet of the turbine (24) (see fig. 4; ¶ 0036), and either
or
f) the two-phase fluid (stream withdrawn from turbine 24) is heated directly in a first exchanger (E7) by way of heat exchange with the feed gas (GH2) to be cooled, which produces a cooled feed gas (LH2) and a heated cycle gas (fig. 4; ¶ 0036), which is sent to a compressor (21, 22) as cycle fluid before being cooled according to step a) (see fig. 4; ¶ 0036).
Naohiko teaches cooling the helium cycle fluid in E10 with LNG, but does not explicitly teach the cycle fluid is nitrogen.
Naohiko teaches helium refrigerant cycle fluid is cooled using LNG in a heat exchanger (E10), thereby utilizing LNG cold energy for precooling, but does not explicitly teach that the refrigerant cycle fluid is nitrogen.
Yang teaches hydrogen liquefaction system including a nitrogen Brayton cycle used as a precooling loop, wherein the system integrates LNG cold energy within the precooling section, such that LNG contributes to cooling the nitrogen refrigeration loop, which in turn cools hydrogen (see page 8, fig. 9). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Naohiko by substituting the helium refrigerant cycle with a nitrogen refrigeration cycle as taught by Yang, because Yang teaches that nitrogen Brayton cycles are suitable and efficient for hydrogen cooling when integrated with LNG cold energy, thereby reducing system complexity and improving thermodynamic efficiency. Such substitution merely involves the use of a known alternative cryogenic refrigerant performing the same cooling function, yielding predictable results. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
To the extent the claim requires that the nitrogen cycle fluid is cooled to a temperature lower than −100°C, neither reference explicitly discloses the exact numerical temperature. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to cool the nitrogen refrigerant to temperatures below −100°C because: LNG utilized in both references inherently possesses temperatures on the order of approximately −160°C, and heat exchange with such a cryogenic source would necessarily cool the working refrigerant (including nitrogen) to similarly low temperatures sufficient for hydrogen precooling. Further, selecting a specific cooling temperature (e.g., below −100°C) constitutes optimization of a result-effective variable (temperature) to achieve efficient hydrogen liquefaction, which is well within the routine skill in the art. See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454 (CCPA 1955).
Note: section c) - e) of the claim are optional/alternate limitations.
In regard to claim 7, the modified Naohiko teaches the process as claimed in claim 1, wherein all of the liquid of the two-phase fluid (fluid exiting the turbine 24) sent to the phase separator or directly to the heat exchanger (sent to the first heat exchanger (E7)) originates from the turbine (see fig. 4 of Naohiko).
In regard to claim 8, the modified Naohiko teaches the process as claimed in claim 1, wherein the cycle fluid contains at least 90 mol% of nitrogen (see the rejection of claim 1 above in view of Yang).
In regard to claim 9, the modified Naohiko teaches process as claimed in claim 1, wherein, during step a), the cycle fluid is cooled by an external source of cold in a third heat exchanger (E10) and is sent directly to the turbine (24) without passing through the first heat exchanger (E7) (see fig. 4, wherein Naohiko teaches the cycle fluid being cooled in E10 and sent to turbine 24 prior to being introduced into heat exchanger (E7)).
In regard to claim 10, the modified Naohiko teaches the process as claimed in claim 1, wherein the liquid (see the bottom liquid) formed in the phase separator (30) is withdrawn from the phase separator (30) (see Naohiko fig. 4; ¶ 0034), but does not explicitly teach one portion of the liquid serves as a liquid product of the process. It is well known in the art that: in cryogenic liquefaction systems, liquid collected in a phase separator may be withdrawn as a product stream, particularly where the process is intended to produce liquefied gas. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the process of Naohiko to withdraw a portion of the liquid formed in the separator as a product because recovering liquid product from a separator is a conventional and expected operation in liquefaction processes. This represents a routine engineering expedient and predictable use of known process configurations.
In regard to claim 12, the modified Naohiko teaches the process as claimed in claim 1, wherein the cycle fluid is cooled in step a) to a temperature greater than -192ºC (See the rejection of claim 1 above).
In regard to claim 13, the modified Naohiko teaches the process as claimed in claim 1, wherein the cooled feed gas (GH2) is then liquefied (see Naohiko fig. 4; ¶ 0034).
In regard to claim 14, the modified Naohiko teaches the process as claimed in claim 13, wherein the cooled feed gas (GH2) is then liquefied by a refrigeration cycle in which hydrogen or helium circulates (see Naohiko fig. 4; ¶ 0003, 0036).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Naohiko and Yang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hakamade et al. (US 2015/0067246).
In regard to claim 2, Naohiko teaches the process as claimed in claim 1, wherein Naohiko teaches expanding the cycle fluid in a turbine, but does not explicitly teach the ratio between the inlet pressure and the outlet pressure in bar absolute of the turbine is equal to or greater than 11.
However, Hakamade teaches a liquid hydrogen production process/apparatus wherein the apparatus comprising a refrigeration cycle unit (R) for producing liquid hydrogen by cooling gaseous hydrogen (a/11), the refrigeration cycle unit (R) comprises an expansion turbine (4) and the ratio between the inlet pressure and the outlet pressure in bar absolute of the turbine (4) is equal to or greater than 11 (Table 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the process of Naohiko by operating the turbine of Naohiko at a pressure ratio equal to or greater than 11, as taught by Hakamade because: increasing the turbine pressure ratio is a known means to enhance refrigeration effect and improve thermodynamic efficiency in cryogenic expansion processes. Further: selecting a particular pressure ratio (including values ≥ 11) constitutes optimization of a result-effective variable (pressure ratio) to achieve desired cooling performance, which would have been routine to one of ordinary skill in the art. (KSR; In re Aller).
Claim(s) 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Naohiko and Yang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Prosser et al. (US 2020/0333050).
In regard to claim 3, Naohiko teaches the process as claimed in claim 1, wherein Naohiko teaches a cryogenic refrigeration cycle including a turbine configured to expand a cycle fluid, wherein expansion of the refrigerant results in a two-phase fluid (see Fig. 4; para. 33), but does not teach the two-phase fluid contains a proportion of liquid between 5 and 20 mol% of liquid.
However, Prosser teaches a refrigeration cycle to liquefy a fluid wherein the refrigeration cycle turbine expanded working fluid exiting the turbine is preferably between about 5 mol % to about 10 mol % liquid (see ¶ 0011, 0024).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to operate the turbine expansion of Naohiko such that the resulting two-phase fluid includes a liquid proportion between 5 and 20 mol%, as taught by Prosser, in order to optimize refrigeration efficiency and heat transfer performance. Further: selecting a liquid fraction within a known range, including 5–20 mol%, constitutes optimization of a result-effective variable, which would have been routine. (In re Aller).
Claim(s) 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Naohiko, Yang and Prosser as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Mahoney et al. (US 5,901,579).
In regard to claim 4, Naohiko teaches the process as claimed in claim 3, wherein Naohiko, as modified by Prosser teaches compressor compressing the cycle fluid in compressor (21, 22) and the compressor discharge feeds the turbine (24) inlet (see fig. 4). Prosser teaches formation of a two-phase fluid with controlled liquid fraction (paras. [0011], [0024]), indicating that liquid production is dependent on thermodynamic operating conditions, including pressure, but does not explicitly teach the amount of liquid produced in the turbine is adjusted by adjusting the outlet pressure of the cycle compressor and therefore the inlet pressure of the turbine, thus modifying the expansion rate of the turbine.
However, Mahoney teaches adjusting the amount of liquid produced in the turbine is adjusted by adjusting the outlet pressure of the cycle compressor and therefore the inlet pressure of the turbine, thus modifying the expansion rate of the turbine (see col. 1, line 49-63). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the process of Naohiko by adjusting the outlet pressure of the cycle compressor in order to adjust the amount of liquid produced in the turbine of Naohiko, as taught by Mahoney, in order to control performance, and applying such control to the process of Naohiko would have predictably allowed regulation of liquid production.
Claim(s) 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Naohiko and Yang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Frenzel et al. (US 5,144,806).
In regard to claim 11, the modified Naohiko teaches the process as claimed in claim 1, but does not explicitly teach gas is added, from an external source, to the cycle downstream of the compressor, this gas having the same composition as the cycle fluid, in order to increase the inlet pressure of the compressor in order to increase the proportion of liquid produced by the turbine.
However, Frenzel teaches a process for a liquefaction of gases, wherein the process comprise adding a gas from an external source to a refrigerant cycle fluid downstream of a compressor (11), this gas having the same composition as the cycle fluid, in order to increase the inlet pressure of the compressor in order to increase the proportion of liquid produced by the turbine (17) (col. 3, ln 1-5; fig. 1, valved conduits that are feed and return lines at the inlet of the expansion turbine 17).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the process of Naohiko by adding an external gas downstream the compressor, as taught by Frenzel, in order to predictably increases system pressure and turbine inlet pressure, which directly increases the expansion ratio and resulting liquid fraction, as recognized in cryogenic thermodynamics. It is well known in the art that: in closed-cycle refrigeration systems, adding working fluid of the same composition to the cycle is used to increase system pressure and mass flow rate. Further: increasing system pressure increases turbine inlet pressure and expansion ratio, thereby increasing liquid formation in the expanded stream.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 5 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 6 depend from claim 5.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WEBESHET MENGESHA whose telephone number is (571)270-1793. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 7-4, alternate Fridays, EST. Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Frantz Jules can be reached at 571-272-6681. 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.
/W.M/Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/FRANTZ F JULES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763