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
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-2, 5-12, 14-15, 18-19, 21, and 23-26 in the reply filed on 05/26/2026 is acknowledged.
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 11-12 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.
In regards to claim 11, it is unclear to what “the length L of the reaction chamber is such that the reaction chamber volume allows a minimal residence time of air and hydrogen, inside the reaction chamber” refers. It is not possible for one of ordinary skill in the art to determine the metes and bounds of the claim because a length of chamber of zero or near zero would be the length corresponding to a minimal residence time. The term “minimal residence time” is not modified by any claim language that defines any specific goal (e.g. completion of a chemical reaction in minimal time) that must be completed in the residence time. Thus, it is unclear what length, if any, is required. Claim 12 is also rejected as it is dependent on claim 11.
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, 6, 7, 18, and 24-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hirata (EP3450843A1).
In regards to claim 1, Hirata teaches a process for producing a gas comprising nitrogen and hydrogen in a reaction chamber [0020], (Fig. 2),
comprising injecting air and hydrogen into the reactor and combusting a portion of the injected hydrogen with oxygen from the air [0008], (Fig. 3), [0029],
where the combustion is supported by a flame, or ignition apparatus [0025]
and produced by an air flow and hydrogen flow that has a velocity v1 and v2, where v2 is greater than v1 due to the ratio taught by Hirata [0027].
In regards to the reaction chamber of length L of a reactor, Hirata teaches a reactor that extends along the y-axis [Fig. 1; Fig. 2], which shows a reaction chamber of length L for a reaction of hydrogen and oxygen.
In regards to claim 6, Hirata does not explicitly teach the velocities of the hydrogen and air flows as claimed. However, Hirata teaches that the ratio between air flow velocity and hydrogen flow velocity is in a range of no lower than 0.1 and no higher than 3.0 [0027]. Taking the lowest values of the velocities with Va/Vh of 5/10 comes out to a flow velocity ratio of 0.5. Thus, Hirata teaches that the velocity of the air flow and hydrogen flow can be within the range as claimed.
In regards to claim 7, Hirata does not explicitly teach the velocities of the hydrogen and air flows as claimed. However, Hirata teaches that the ratio between air flow velocity and hydrogen flow velocity is in a range of no lower than 0.1 and no higher than 3.0 [0027]. Taking the lowest values of the velocities with Va/Vh of 10/15 comes out to a flow velocity ratio of 0.66. Thus, Hirata teaches that the velocity of air flow and hydrogen flow can be within the range as claimed.
In regards to claim 18, Hirata teaches that the temperature is maintained in the reaction chamber by dissipating heat generated by the flame to the outside of the reaction chamber through radiation [0017]
In regards to claims 24 and 25, Hirata does not explicitly teach that the pressure in the reaction is at least 1 atm to about 10 atm. However, as the reaction of Hirata is not pressurized, it can be interpreted that the reaction occurs at about 1 atm.
In regards to claim 26, Hirata does not teach that the hydrogen comes from a water electrolysis reaction. However, this is a nested product by process claim. The hydrogen being used is not required to come from a water electrolysis process, as any hydrogen would be sufficient to be used in the process as claimed in claim 1.
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) 2, 5, and 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirata (EP3450843A1).
In regards to claim 2, Hirata does not explicitly teach that the velocity of air flow is about 1 m/s to about 200 m/s. However, as the velocity of air flow is a variable that can be modified, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine the proper velocity of the air flow in order to successfully operate the reactor and carry out the reaction within the claimed range.
In regards to claim 5, Hirata does not explicitly teach that the velocity of the hydrogen flow is from about 2 m/s to about 220 m/s. However, as the velocity of the hydrogen flow is a variable that can be modified, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine the proper velocity of hydrogen flow in order to successfully operate the reactor and carry out the reaction within the claimed range.
In regards to claim 8-10, Hirata teaches that air and hydrogen are injected with a molar flow rate where the ratio is comprised between 1.2 and about 3.5 (Para. 0027, “Therefore, the ratio Va/Vh is preferably equal to or close to 1.0. For example, the ratio Va/Vh is preferably in a range of no lower than 0.1 and no higher than 3.0”). This presents an overlapping range with the instant claim and overlapping ranges are prima facie obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05.
In regards to claim 11, Hirata does not explicitly teach a length L of the reactor that allows for minimal residence time of air and hydrogen inside the reaction chamber. However, given that any length of a reactor would allow for a minimal residence time for the air and hydrogen to react within the reaction chamber, Hirata teaches a reactor that extends along the y-axis [Fig. 2]. As such, the reactor of Hirata fulfills the claim limitation of being a length L which allows for minimal residence time of air and hydrogen inside the reaction chamber.
Claim(s) 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirata (EP3450843A1) in view of Pfefferle (US20100330510A1).
In regards to claim 19, Hirata does not teach that the temperature is maintained in the reaction chamber by recovery of heat by a heat transfer fluid.
Pfefferle teaches the recovery of heat by use of a cooling combustion air stream, where air would be considered the fluid [0025]. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the heat recovery of Pfefferle in the method taught by Hirata to decrease the stoichiometric flame temperature and reduce the production of NOx within the system [0025].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 14-15, 21, and 23 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Hirata (EP3450843A1) and Pfefferle (US20100330510A1) are considered to be the closest prior art to the claimed invention.
In regards to claim 14 and 15, Hirata and Pfefferle do not teach or suggest that multiple reaction chamber regions are maintained at an average temperature between about 500°C to about 1500°C.
In regards to claim 21, Hirata and Pfefferle do not teach or suggest that the heat transfer fluid is water which is converted to superheated steam that is further required in the process to or generate electricity.
In regards to claim 23, Hirata and Pfefferle do not teach or suggest that heat dissipation is performed by convection in the presence of air.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAANZEB RAJA whose telephone number is (703)756-4531. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 8:30-6.
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.
/JAANZEB C RAJA/ Examiner, Art Unit 1736
/ANTHONY J ZIMMER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1736
Prosecution Insights