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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 15-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 07/09/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by JP5371542B2, hereinafter ‘JP ‘542’.
Regarding Claim 1, JP ‘542 discloses a method for cracking ammonia in a cyclic flow reaction system ([0001]), comprising:
mixing a fuel flow comprising ammonia and a first O2-containing flow in a reaction system to form a mixture comprising an O2 content of 0.1 vol % or more, reacting the mixture to heat one or more surfaces in a reaction zone to a cracking temperature, at least a portion of the reaction zone comprising a cracking catalyst ([0032]: in an upstream ammonia oxidation zone, when ammonia and air are brought into contact at room temperature in the presence of an ammonia oxidation catalyst containing a metal oxide support in a reduced state, the support in the reduced state reacts with oxygen. The heat generated in this exothermic reaction is supplied to the ammonia decomposition zone, where ammonia is decomposed in the presence of an ammonia decomposition catalyst to produce hydrogen);
the reaction system comprising the reaction zone and a recuperation zone ([0041]: the reaction system comprises a decomposition zone, corresponding to the reaction zone as claimed, and an ammonia oxidation zone, corresponding to the recuperation zone as claimed); and
exposing a reactant stream comprising ammonia to the cracking catalyst in the reaction zone under cracking conditions to form a hydrogen-containing effluent ([0032]: ammonia is decomposed in the presence of an ammonia decomposition catalyst to produce hydrogen),
a direction of flow of the reactant stream being reversed relative to a direction of flow for the mixture ([0011]: reversing the direction of the gas flow after a predetermined amount of time is disclosed, which would thereby reverse the flow of the reactant stream relative to a direction of flow for the mixture).
Regarding Claim 12, JP ‘542 as modified above makes obvious the O2-containing stream comprises air ([0032]: air is introduced with the ammonia stream).
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) 8-9 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP5371542B2, hereinafter ‘JP ‘542’.
Regarding Claim 8, JP ‘542 as modified above makes obvious the cracking conditions comprise a peak temperature in the reaction zone of 750° C. to 1100° C ([0035] of JP ‘542: the endothermic decomposition reaction of ammonia can be carried out at a temperature of 400 °C or higher – this makes obvious the claimed range of a peak temperature in the reaction zone of 750° C. to 1100° C. As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art,” a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) – as such, the instant claimed range is obvious over the prior art range).
Regarding Claim 9, JP ‘542 as modified above makes obvious the cracking conditions comprise an average temperature in the reaction zone of 400° C. to 700° C ([0035] of JP ‘542: the endothermic decomposition reaction of ammonia can be carried out at a temperature of 400 °C or higher – this makes obvious the claimed range of an average temperature in the reaction zone of 400° C. to 700° C).
Regarding Claim 14, JP ‘542 as modified above makes obvious the cracking catalyst comprises Ni, NiAl2O4, or a combination thereof ([0013]: the catalytically active metal supported on the carrier is preferably at least one metal selected from the group consisting of Group VIII metals such as ruthenium, platinum, rhodium, palladium, iron, cobalt, and nickel, as well as tin, copper, silver, manganese, chromium, and vanadium – it would be obvious to one of skill in the art to choose any of these metals for the catalytically active metal, including nickel).
Claim(s) 2-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP5371542B2, hereinafter ‘JP ‘542’, in view of US20080167178A1, hereinafter ‘Malyala’.
Regarding Claim 2, the process of JP ‘542 as modified above reacts ammonia with air in the same way as claimed – therefore, absent evidence to the contrary, there is a reasonable prima facie basis to conclude that the reaction of these reactants would have the same or nearly the same products, including a flue gas comprising nitrogen oxides, absent evidence to the contrary. Products made by the same method of making cannot have mutually exclusive properties – see MPEP 2112.01(I).
Further regarding Claim 2, while the combustion of ammonia in the presence of air as performed in the process of JP ‘542 as modified above would necessarily produce some amount of nitrogen oxides, which are known pollutants, JP ‘542 as modified above does not disclose exposing the flue gas to selective catalytic reduction conditions in the presence of a catalytic reduction catalyst and a reductant in a selective catalytic reduction zone.
Malyala discloses a catalyst and method for selective reduction of nitrogen oxides in a gas stream with ammonia. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized Malyala as analogous to the claimed invention, as it is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the instant inventors, the reduction of nitrous oxides generated by combustion - a reference is analogous art to the claimed invention if the reference is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventors, In re Bigio, 381 F.3d at 1325, 72 USPQ2d at 1212.
Malyala discloses contacting a gas stream containing nitrogen oxides with ammonia in the presence of a catalyst. The catalyst contains a first component comprising a zeolite or mixture of zeolites, and a second component is selected from the group consisting of cerium, iron, copper, gallium, manganese, chromium, cobalt, molybdenum, tin, rhenium, tantalum, osmium, barium, boron, calcium, strontium, potassium, vanadium, nickel, tungsten, an actinide, mixtures of actinides, a lanthanide, mixtures of lanthanides, and mixtures thereof; optionally an oxygen storage material (“OSM”); and optionally an inorganic oxide. The catalyst of the invention has particular utility for use with high temperature exhaust gases in the range of about 300° C to about 700° C ([0012]).
Further, Malyala specifically embodies a reverse flow reactor system including a reaction zone containing a cracking catalyst and a recuperation zone having a fuel inlet, an oxidant inlet, and a reaction effluent outlet, and finally a selective catalytic reduction zone having a catalytic reduction catalyst, an ammonia reactant inlet, and a flue gas outlet ([0008]). This directly mirrors the reverse flow reactor system of JP ‘542 as modified above, showing that it was known to integrate an SCR zone into such a reverse flow reactor system.
Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to integrate an SCR zone into the reverse flow reactor of JP ‘542 as modified above. Such an integration would provide for the effective reduction of nitrogen oxides from the gas stream resulting from combustion of ammonia in the process, thereby rendering the process of producing hydrogen therefrom more environmentally neutral.
Regarding Claim 3, JP ‘542 as modified above makes obvious the use of ammonia as the reductant (as discussed above, Malyala discloses contacting the gas stream with ammonia).
Regarding Claim 4, JP ‘542 as modified above makes obvious the reductant is introduced into the reaction system at an interface between the selective catalytic reduction zone and the reaction zone ([0064]: the ammonia may normally be introduced into the exhaust gas before the exhaust gas contacts the catalyst according to an embodiment of the present invention. This location, located after the reaction zone, but prior to the SCR zone, is considered an interface between the selective catalytic reduction zone and the reaction zone, as neither reaction nor selective catalytic reduction is taking place at this location).
Regarding Claims 5 and 6, JP ‘542 as modified above makes obvious the catalytic reduction catalyst comprises a mixture of a zeotype material and at least one of vanadium, molybdenum, tungsten, copper, or a combination thereof (as discussed above, Malyala discloses the catalyst contains a first component comprising a zeolite or mixture of zeolites, and a second component is selected from the group consisting of cerium, iron, copper, gallium, manganese, chromium, cobalt, molybdenum, tin, rhenium, tantalum, osmium, barium, boron, calcium, strontium, potassium, vanadium, nickel, tungsten, an actinide, mixtures of actinides, a lanthanide, mixtures of lanthanides, and mixtures thereof; per [0081] of the instant published specification, it is disclosed that “[i]n aspects where both zeotype materials and catalytic metals are used, the zeotype materials and catalytic metals can be mixed together, or separate stages of zeolite and catalytic metal can be used.” From this, the term ‘zeotype’ is interpreted to encompass zeolites as disclosed by Malyala).
Regarding Claim 7, JP ‘542 as modified above makes obvious the selective catalytic reduction zone comprises an average temperature of 300° C. to 500° C ([0068]: The exhaust gas and ammonia may be contacted with the catalyst at a temperature of about 450° C. to about 600° C – this overlaps with and makes obvious the instant claimed range).
Claim(s) 10-11, 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP5371542B2, hereinafter ‘JP ‘542’, in view of US20230313995A1, hereinafter ‘Selim’.
Regarding Claim 10, while JP ‘542 discloses a process of mixing a fuel flow comprising ammonia and a first O2-containing flow in a reaction system to form a mixture comprising an O2 content of 0.1 vol % or more, JP ‘542 as modified above does not disclose the fuel flow further comprises 0.1 vol % to 5.0 vol % hydrogen.
Selim discloses methods of operating gas turbine combustors on a fuel mixture containing ammonia ([0001]). A person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized Salem as analogous to the claimed invention, as both are drawn to the combustion of fuel mixtures containing ammonia - 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.
Selim discloses that the ammonia fuel may be a fuel mixture containing hydrogen. The fuel mixture may contain, for example, between about 1% and about 10% hydrogen, or particularly about 5% hydrogen. Selim discloses that because ammonia has a low flame speed as compared to traditional fuel sources, and because hydrogen has a very high flame speed as compared to traditional fuel sources, mixing a small amount of hydrogen with the ammonia may advantageously increase the flame speed, which enables the ammonia to be used in a gas turbine combustor without causing potential flame holding issues ([0054]).
Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to utilize a small amount of hydrogen, e.g., about 5% hydrogen, in the fuel mixture of JP ‘542 as modified above. The introduction of such an amount of hydrogen has been shown by Selim to advantageously increase the flame speed such that the ammonia fuel does not exhibit flame holding issues in the process of cracking ammonia.
Regarding Claim 11, while JP ‘542 as modified by Selim above suggests the use of about 5% hydrogen in the ammonia fuel, JP ‘542 as modified above does not disclose that the fuel flow comprises at least a portion of the hydrogen-containing effluent.
However, JP ‘542 discloses hydrogen as a major product of the cracking process ([0034]-[0035]). Thus, the process of JP ‘542 produces hydrogen that may be used in the ammonia fuel as suggested by Selim. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to utilize a portion of the hydrogen product generated by the process of JP ‘542 to supply the ammonia fuel with an amount of hydrogen of about 5%. The use of this hydrogen stream for this purpose eliminates the need for a separate stream of hydrogen and therefore simplifies the process of providing hydrogen in the fuel stream.
Regarding Claim 13, while JP ‘542 discloses supplying the ammonia fuel to the cracking reaction with air, JP ‘542 does not disclose that the mixture comprises 90% to 200% of a stoichiometric amount of O2 for combustion of the fuel flow.
However, Selim discloses using a fuel to air ratio defined as a ratio of the amount supplied to the amount stoichiometrically required for the reaction, otherwise called an equivalence ratio ([0038]-[0039]). Selim discloses that in exemplary implementations, the rich mixture of fuel and the first portion of oxidant may have an equivalence ratio of between about 1.05 and about 2. For the ratio of air supplied to the reactor to the amount stoichiometrically required, the ratio is given by the reciprocal of the equivalence ratio. Therefore, Selim teaches providing between 50 and 95.2% of the stoichiometrically required amount of air for the reaction.
Given this, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to utilize an amount of air between 50 and 95.2% of the stoichiometrically required amount of air for the reaction. As shown by Selim, such an amount is shown to result in effective and efficient combustion of ammonia.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LOGAN LACLAIR whose telephone number is (571)272-1815. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9:30-5:30 PST.
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, Anthony Zimmer can be reached at (571) 270-3591. 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.
LOGAN LACLAIR
Examiner
Art Unit 1736
/L.E.L./ Examiner, Art Unit 1736
/ANTHONY J ZIMMER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1736
Prosecution Insights