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 § 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) 1-3, 7-9, 11, 14 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hufton et al. (US 7,909,913).
With regards to Claims 1-3:
Hufton teaches:
A system comprising a guard bed and an H2PSA bed, See Fig. 6, which reads on applicant's claimed system for treating gaseous hydrogen which has an inlet, coming from a cooling energy recovery wash water, which reads on applicant's claimed inlet for supplying gaseous hydrogen and an outlet which draws off high purity hydrogen which reads on applicant's claimed outlet for drawing off treated hydrogen. (See Hufton Fig. 4 and 6 and Col. 9 line 40 to Col. 10 line 15, and Col. 10 lines 15-26, 40-52) The guard bed contains high purity silica gel which reads on applicant's claimed drying unit with an active drying material such as silica gels. The H2PSA vessel which reads on applicant's claimed adsorption unit with an active adsorbent material, comprising activated carbon, which reads on applicant's claimed adsorption unit with an active adsorbent material for adsorbing impurities from the dried hydrogen.
As detailed in Table 2 Hufton teaches an adsorbent ratio of silica gel to activated carbon ranging from 0.75:1 to 1.2:1. (See Hufton Col. 15 example 4 Table 2)
Hufton teaches the claimed invention except for the range of mass ratios between he active drying material and the active adsorption material are slightly outside of the claimed range. Hufton renders the claimed range obvious as it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to optimize the range disclosed by Hufton as discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In the instant case where the claimed range, 1.5:1 to 50:1, and the prior art range, 0.75:1 to 1.2:1 as disclosed by Hufton, do not overlap it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that these ranges are very close and would be expected to produce a product having the same properties and thus one of ordinary skill in the art would consider them to be obvious variants. See MPEP 2144.05
The courts have held that where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, the PTO can require an applicant to prove that the prior art products do not necessarily or inherently possess the characteristics of the claimed product. Whether the rejection is based on "inherency" under 35 USC § 102, on “prima facie obviousness" under 35 USC § 103, jointly or alternatively, the burden of proof is the same, and its fairness is evidenced by the PTO's inability to manufacture products or to obtain and compare prior art products. See MPEP 2112
With regards to Claim 7 Hufton teaches:
A water washing unit which removes particulates and condensibles which reads on applicant's claimed micro-separation unit. (See Hufton Fig. 4 and Col. 9 lines 40-52) All of the other parts are listed as “or” and are not considered necessary to meet the limitations of the claim.
With regards to Claim 11 Hufton teaches:
The structure as detailed above in the rejection of Claim 1 which is used by feeding gaseous hydrogen at an inlet of the system, removing moisture from the supplied hydrogen in a drying unit, adsorbing impurities from the dried hydrogen in an adsorption unit, and then drawing off treated hydrogen at an outlet of the system. (See Hufton Fig. 4 and 6 and Col. 9 line 40 to Col. 10 line 15, and Col. 10 lines 15-26, 40-52)
With regards to Claim 14:
The claim requires that “the treated hydrogen satisfies the requirements of DIN EN 17124 or ISO 14687” which are testing standards related to inherent qualities of the product of the claimed method which is performed by Hufton in an identical manner as claimed by applicant using a structure which is an obvious variant to that claimed by applicant.
The results of this testing, pass or fail, is considered an inherent result of testing the resulting hydrogen from the claimed structure and method, and thus does not differentiate the claimed product from Hufton as they are otherwise structurally obvious variants and would be expected to behave identically when tested. See MPEP 2112(III)
The courts have held that where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, the PTO can require an applicant to prove that the prior art products do not necessarily or inherently possess the characteristics of the claimed product. Whether the rejection is based on "inherency" under 35 USC § 102, on “prima facie obviousness" under 35 USC § 103, jointly or alternatively, the burden of proof is the same, and its fairness is evidenced by the PTO's inability to manufacture products or to obtain and compare prior art products. See MPEP 2112
With regards to Claims 8, 9, and 15:
Compression of a gas after it is processed ahead of sales or distribution is well known and it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing that the hydrogen that has been purified can be compressed to a desired pressure in order to facilitate easy storage or transportation. A multi-stage compressor is a known system for compressing to higher pressures in order to reduce the wear and tear on any particular compressor.
Claim(s) 4-6, 10, 12, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hufton et al. (US 7,909,913) in view of Oliker (US 4,324,564).
With regards to Claims 4-6, 10, 12, and 13
Hufton teaches the structure above.
Hufton does not explicitly teach the use of sensors to control the adsorption bed.
Oliker teaches:
A sensor, such as a temperature sensor or any other sensor which “detects an intrinsic property of the fluid within the bed” is used to control the process by which an adsorption bed is utilized. (See Oliker Col. 4 lines 22-63, Col. 13 lines 25-31)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Hufton to include a sensor which measures an intrinsic property of the fluid within the adsorption bed, such as a pressure dew point, as Oliker states at Col. 13 lines 25-31 and there is implicit desire to control the moisture content of the hydrogen which would provide a quality control benefit for the final hydrogen product. Shutting down the system at a specified dew point would prevent fouling of the primarily gas and solid adsorption bed in the presence of water or moisture and would inform the user that the drying material is fully saturated and needs to be regenerated or replaced. See MPEP 2144.01
With regards to Claims 4 and 5, the location of the sensor is a design decision as detailed by Oliker Col. 12 lines 25-60 and Col. 13 lines 10-15 “It should be emphasized that to optimize the cycle any such estimate can be perfected empirically”.
With regards to Claim 10, controlling the system to prevent cavitation or other damage to a compressor when a sensor detects excess moisture, when a predefined dew point threshold value has been exceeded, would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing.
Other Applicable Prior Art
All other art cited not detailed above in a rejection is considered relevant to at least some portion or feature of the current application and is cited for possible future use for reference.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIT E ANBACHT whose telephone number is (571)272-9876. The examiner can normally be reached on M, T, R, F 11 am - 4 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jennifer Dieterle can be reached on (571) 270-7872. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-9876.
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). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BRIT E. ANBACHT/Examiner, Art Unit 1776
BRIT E. ANBACHT
Examiner
Art Unit 1776