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 Status
The status of the claims are as follows
Claims currently under considerations
1-9
Currently rejected claims
1-9
Allowed Claims
None
Claim Objections
Claim 1 objected to because of the following informalities: missing conjunction words such as “and”. Such objections can be found in claim 1, line 6
feeding ambient air into a pressure sing adsorption (PSA) separator to produce a nitrogen flow stream “and”;
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities:
“catalyst be reactor…”, should be amend to “catalyst bed reactor…”
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.
Claim 9 is 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 9 recites the limitation "the ammonia reactor" in Line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The term ammonia reactor was not defined previously. For the purposes of examination, it is presumed that the ammonia reactor is the catalyst bed reactor of claim 1, Line 7.
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) 1-2, 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Randhava (US 8,679,439) in view of Ivanova (Ivanova et al “Producing Nitrogen via Pressure Swing Adsorption” 2012).
Randhava teaches a method for producing an agricultural fertilizer product using corn fibers and other corn biomass (Col.4, Line7-8), the method comprising of feeding corn fiber into a pressurized gasifier, which may include dried corn stover or corn cobs (Col.4, Line 5-7), heating the corn fiber in the gasifier (Col 12, Line 18-19) to produce synthesis gas containing hydrogen (Col 11, Line 56-57).
Randhava teaches purifying synthesis gas to produce a hydrogen flow stream (Col.22, Line 16-20).
Randhava teaches the step of reacting hydrogen flow stream and the nitrogen flow stream (Col.23, Line 38-40) in a catalyst bed reactor (Col.23, Line 54-60) to produce ammonia (Col.23, Line 41-42).
Randhava teaches that ambient air is fed into an cryogenic air distillation separator (Col.9, Line 11-13) to produce a nitrogen flow stream (Col.10, Line 7-11).
Randhava does not explicitly discloses using a Pressure Swing Adsorption (PSA) separator to produce a nitrogen flow stream.
In a similar field of endeavor, Ivanova teaches that industrial nitrogen gas can be produced by either cryogenic fractional distillation of liquefied air, or separation of gaseous air using adsorption or permeation (Ivanova, Pg.38, Col.2, Line 12-14). Nitrogen flow stream can be obtained by feeding ambient air into a pressure swing adsorption (PSA) separator (Ivanova, Fig.1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to substitute a cryogenic separator taught by Randhava with a PSA separator taught by Ivanova to produce a nitrogen flow stream using a PSA separator. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because a PSA separator can be more cost effective than traditional cryogenic distillation when extremely high purity is not required (Ivanova, Pg.38, Right Column, Line 5-9). Because the nitrogen purity percentage was not disclosed by the claim, substituting the cryogenic system with a PSA system for lower purity nitrogen can reduce cost (Ivanova, Pg.39, Figure 4). In comparison to an onsite PSA generator, cryogenic distillation plants have relatively high capital and power costs (Ivanova, Pg.39, Left Column, Line 12-14).
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in substituting the cryogenic distillation separator of Randhava with Ivanova’s PSA separator because Randhava teaches a method of producing nitrogen from ambient air and Ivanova teaches a method of producing nitrogen from ambient air using a PSA separator. A person of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one method for another to yields the invention as claimed.
Regarding Claim 2, Randhava-Ivanova teaches the method of claim 1, where ammonia comprises an anhydrous ammonia product (Col.4, Line 38-39).
Regarding claim 4, it is understood that the ammonia synthesis reaction described by Randhava to be a Haber-Bosch process for the production of ammonia, even if not stated outright. Using broadest reasonable interpretation of the process, the general outline of the Haber-Bosch process is as follow: the nitrogen (N2) and hydrogen (H2) reacts inside a high-pressure reaction vessel, with iron metal as a catalyst, to form ammonia (NH3) in a highly exothermic reaction.
Although Randhava does not explicitly state that the ammonia synthesis process is the Haber-Bosch process, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize this as the process described in claim 1. The hydrogen gas and nitrogen gas reaction took place inside a vertical vessel with three shallow radio flow beds (Col.6, Line 25-29), the process occurs at high pressure (Col.23, Line 47-49) to synthesize ammonia (Fig.1). This reaction utilizes metal catalyst (Col 25, Line 9-10) and is strongly exothermic (Col.23, Line 49).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Randhava (US 8,679,439) and Ivanova (“Producing Nitrogen via Pressure Swing Adsorption” 2012) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Garst (US2,874,029).
Regarding claim 3, Randhava-Ivanova teaches the method of claim 1.
Randhava-Ivanova’s method does not teaches that the ammonia product comprises an aqueous ammonia product.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Garst teaches a method to convert anhydrous ammonia to aqueous ammonia (Col.2, Line 40-41) because of the expense in storing anhydrous ammonia (Col.1, Line 57-58), and that aqueous ammonia can be handled in non-pressure tanks (Col.1, Line 51-52).
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the aqua ammonia preparation process of Garst as analogous to the ammonia production process of Randhava-Ivanova, as both references are drawn to the same field of endeavor as the claim invention, a method of manufacturing an agricultural fertilizer product. A reference is analogous art to the claimed invention if the reference is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, In re Bigio, 381 F.3d at 1325, 72 USPQ2d at 1212.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Randhava-Ivanova with Garst to obtain aqueous ammonia. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated by the lower cost in storing aqueous ammonia in comparison to anhydrous ammonia (Col.1, Line 57-58).
Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in making this modification. Because Garst is mixing water with anhydrous ammonia to form aqueous ammonia in the fertilizer manufacturing industry , implementing this technique would not involve undue experimentation, but rather predictable use of known elements according to their established functions.
Claim 5, 7-8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Randhava (US 8,679,439) and Ivanova (“Producing Nitrogen via Pressure Swing Adsorption” 2012.) as applied to claim 1 above, and further view of Cook (US 3,310,376).
Regarding claim 5, Randhava-Ivanova discloses the method of manufacturing ammonia of claim 1 as set forth above,
However, Randhava-Ivanova does not teach feeding ammonia from the catalyst bed reactor to a urea reactor; delivering a carbon dioxide feed stream to the urea reactor; and reacting the ammonia and the carbon dioxide in the urea reactor to produce urea.
In the same field of endeavor, Cook teaches the method of producing urea from ammonia.
Cook teaches that the ammonia from the catalyst ammonia converter (Col.4, Line 70-73) is passed to urea reactor (Col.4, Line 26-29), and carbon dioxide in the form of compressed gas stream is delivered to the urea reactor (Col.3, Line 18-20). The ammonia is then reacting with the carbon dioxide in the urea reactor to produce urea (Col.7, Line 22-25).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the ammonia synthesis process of Randhava-Ivanova with the integrated ammonia-urea synthesis process taught by Cook to produce both products in one continuous process (Col.2, Line 62-63).
A person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so because of the expected benefit of the reduction of capital investment cost and plant utilities requirement of the ammonia synthesis facility (Col.2, Line 30-32), and reducing or eliminating steam generation facilities previously required for urea synthesis (Col.2, Line 51-52).
Cook teaches an ammonia synthesis process where the carbon dioxide byproduct is then reused for the urea synthesis process (Col.3, Line 23-28) instead of being scrubbed, reducing capital investment cost and plant utilities requirement (Cook, Col.2, Line 29-36). Because the need to remove carbon dioxide from the synthesis gas has been eliminated, the steam which is consumed to scrub carbon dioxide is now available for utilization in the urea plant, thus reducing or eliminating steam generation facilities previously required (Col.2, Line 51-52). Furthermore, ammonia derived at elevated pressure from ammonia synthesis is directly passed to urea synthesis, obtaining substantial compression economy (Col.2, Line 37-39).
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining Cook’s integrated ammonia-urea manufacturing process with Randhava-Ivanova’s ammonia manufacturing process using corn biomass. This is because both processes are used in the fertilizer manufacturing industry, and implementing this combination would not involve undue experimentation, but rather the predictable use of known elements according to their established functions.
Regarding claim 7, the recitation that the corn fiber and the carbon dioxide “are produced in an ethanol plant” is written in a passive language tone. The recitation is not limited to a step of producing the materials and only defines the source of the materials. This source recitation does not functionally limit the method steps and corn fiber as taught by Randhava is considered substantially identical to corn fiber sourced from an ethanol plant as described by the applicant. The location from which corn fiber and carbon dioxide are produced does not impart any manipulative changes to the method of claim 5.
Regarding claim 8, the recitation “the ethanol plant is co-located with a fertilizer processing plant” is written in a passive language tone. The recitation does not positively recite an action, only that the ethanol plant’s location is in proximity with the fertilizer processing plant. The location of the ethanol plant, in relation to the fertilizer processing plant, does not impart any manipulative changes to the method of producing corn fiber and carbon dioxide of claim 7.
Claim 6 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Randhava (US 8,679,439) and Ivanova (“Producing Nitrogen via Pressure Swing Adsorption” 2012.) and Cook (US 3,310,376) as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Othmer (Othmer et al “Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology, Section 4).
Regarding claim 6, Randhava-Ivanova-Cook discloses claim 5 as set forth above.
Randhava-Ivanova-Cook does not teach drying the urea to form a dry urea fertilizer product.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Othmer teaches drying the urea to form a dry urea fertilizer product (Othmer, Sec.4, Pg.12, Line 4-6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of Randhava-Ivanova-Cook with the teaching of Othmer to obtain dry urea product
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated by the benefit of solid urea, which can be shipped, stored, distributed, and used more economically than in solution. Furthermore, urea in solid form is more stable and biuret formation less likely (Othman, Sec.4, Pg.12, Line 6-7).
Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in making this modification. Because Othmer utilizes the technique of drying liquid urea into dry urea in the field of fertilizer manufacture, implementing this combination would not involve undue experimentation, but rather the predictable use of known elements according to their established functions.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 9 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.
The following is an examiner’s statement for the reason for allowable subject matter:
A close prior art to this claim limitation of claim 9 is Rugnone (US 10,550,075B2). Rugnone teaches a method for producing urea ammonium nitrate through the integration of the urea synthesis process, ammonium nitrate synthesis process, and the urea ammonium nitrate synthesis process, in one continuous system. However, Rugnone fails to teach or suggest the step of integrating the ammonia production process in that system, where said process will provide oxygen used for the urea ammonium nitrate synthesis process downstream.
The prior art references do not teach or render obvious all the cumulative limitations of claim 9 with particular attention to “reacting oxygen separated by the PSA separator and ammonia from the ammonia reactor to produce ammonium nitrate…”. Therefore, it would not have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at the presently claimed invention.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Thinh G Hoang whose telephone number is 571-270-0275. The examiner can normally be reached at M-Th: 08:00a-4:00pm ET.
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, Emily Le can be reached on (571) 272-0903. 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.
/T.H.G/
Examiner, Art Unit 1793
/EMILY M LE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1793
Prosecution Insights