DETAILED ACTIONNotice 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/Restriction
Applicant's election with traverse of in the reply filed on June 1, 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that “Bösmann et al. provides no disclosure as to removing oxygen-carrying and/ or sulfur-carrying and/ or halogen-containing components from the liquid hydrogen carrier material as featured in the present invention. As such, Group I and Group II do include a special technical feature that does make a contribution over the prior art in view of Bösmann et al.”.
While this argument is found persuasive over Bösmann, the common technical features of removing oxygen-carrying and/or sulfur-carrying and/or halogen-containing components from the liquid hydrogen carrier material, releasing hydrogen gas by catalytic dehydrogenation of the purified hydrogen carrier material, and conditioning the released hydrogen gas do not make a contribution over the prior art in view of Blanc et al. (US 2023/0174374 A1). The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 11-15 and 18 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on June 1, 2026.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitations recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitations are: “by means of adsorption” in claim 2, “by means of at least one of a purge gas stream and a solvent stream” in claim 4, and “by means of catalysis” in claim 7.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In Claim 1, line 4, “halo-gen” should read “halogen”.
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.
Claims 3 and 4 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 3 recites the limitation “the use of at least one polar adsorbent and based on activated carbon” in lines 2-3. It is unclear whether the claim requires a polar adsorbent based on activated carbon or one of a polar adsorbent and activated carbon.
Claim 4 is rejected due to its dependence on Claim 3.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Blanc et al. (US 2023/0174374 A1).
With regard to Claim 1, Blanc teaches a method for providing hydrogen gas comprising providing a liquid hydrogen carrier material and removing oxygen-carrying and/or sulfur-carrying and/or halogen-containing components from the liquid hydrogen carrier material (Paragraph 0009, one group of impurities that may be present in the LOHC fluid, and which may be present and/or co-produced with the hydrogen during the dehydrogenation step, comprises gaseous species such as oxygen derivatives, mainly oxides, and more particularly carbon oxides (COx), nitrogen oxides (NOx) and sulfur oxides (SOx); Paragraph 0016, the treatment of an LOHC liquid, for example an aromatic liquid, optionally at least partially or completely hydrogenated, can be purified, and in particular the content of oxygenated organic impurities can be significantly reduced, by bringing said LOHC liquid into contact with a filtering agent).
Blanc teaches releasing hydrogen gas by catalytic dehydrogenation of the purified hydrogen carrier material and conditioning the released hydrogen gas (Paragraph 0047, The hydrogen production process according to the present invention may also comprise one or more steps, well known to those skilled in the art, of purifying the hydrogen produced by dehydrogenation of the LOHC liquid; Paragraph 0055, the step of purifying the organic liquid by contacting with the filtering agent is carried out before the dehydrogenation step).
With regard to Claims 2-4, Blanc teaches removing at least one of the oxygen-carrying components and/or sulfur-carrying components and halogen-containing components from the liquid hydrogen carrier material by means of adsorption, and using mineral or organic filtering agents including activated carbon (Paragraph 0017, The filtering agents which have proved to be the most suitable are adsorbent filtering agents; Paragraph 0018, Mention may be made, as nonlimiting examples, of mineral or organic filtering agents, and in particular those chosen from clays, zeolites, diatomaceous earths, ceramics, carbonates, and coal derivatives; Paragraph 0023, derivatives of coal, wood, shells, for example coconut shells, olive pits or husks, and more generally those known under the name of activated carbons).
Since activated carbon is not required by Claim 4, Blanc teaches the limitation.
With regard to Claim 5, Blanc teaches the removal of components from the liquid hydrogen carrier material carried out at least one of at a temperature of 0°C to 100°C and at a pressure of atmospheric pressure or slight overpressure (Paragraph 0050, The temperature at which the liquid is brought into contact with the porous filtering agent is generally between 0° C. and 100° C.; Paragraph 0051, the contacting is advantageously carried out under atmospheric pressure, or even slight overpressure, in particular overpressure resulting from the circulation of the liquid through said filtering medium).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1-10, 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kusche et al. (US 2019/0292048 A1) in view of Blanc et al. (US 2023/0174374 A1).
With regard to Claim 1, Kusche teaches a method for providing hydrogen gas comprising providing a liquid hydrogen carrier material, releasing hydrogen gas by catalytic dehydrogenation of the purified hydrogen carrier material and conditioning the released hydrogen gas (Claim 1, A method for providing hydrogen gas, the method comprising the process steps: pre-heating an at least partially hydrogenated hydrogen carrier material; releasing hydrogen gas by at least partial dehydrogenation of the at least partially hydrogen carrier material; purifying the released hydrogen gas).
Kusche is silent to removing oxygen-carrying and/or sulfur-carrying and/or halogen-containing components from the liquid hydrogen carrier material.
Blanc, in a method for producing hydrogen gas, teaches removing oxygen-carrying and/or sulfur-carrying and/or halogen-containing components from the liquid hydrogen carrier material (Paragraph 0009, one group of impurities that may be present in the LOHC fluid, and which may be present and/or co-produced with the hydrogen during the dehydrogenation step, comprises gaseous species such as oxygen derivatives, mainly oxides, and more particularly carbon oxides (COx), nitrogen oxides (NOx) and sulfur oxides (SOx); Paragraph 0016, the treatment of an LOHC liquid, for example an aromatic liquid, optionally at least partially or completely hydrogenated, can be purified, and in particular the content of oxygenated organic impurities can be significantly reduced, by bringing said LOHC liquid into contact with a filtering agent).
Blanc notes that removing impurities avoid contamination of hydrogen produced from dehydrogenation of the liquid hydrogen carrier material, as well as the liquid hydrogen carrier material itself (Paragraph 0011, The removal of impurities should advantageously be carried out one or more times before the dehydrogenation/hydrogenation steps in order to prevent contamination of the hydrogen produced and the accumulation of the impurities in the LOHC fluid after several dehydrogenation/hydrogenation cycles).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention for Kusche to disclose removing oxygen-carrying and/or sulfur-carrying and/or halogen-containing components from the liquid hydrogen carrier material, as taught in Blanc, to avoid contamination of hydrogen produced from dehydrogenation of the liquid hydrogen carrier material, as well as the liquid hydrogen carrier material itself.
With regard to Claims 2-4, Blanc teaches removing at least one of the oxygen-carrying components and/or sulfur-carrying components and halogen-containing components from the liquid hydrogen carrier material by means of adsorption, and using mineral or organic filtering agents including activated carbon (Paragraph 0017, The filtering agents which have proved to be the most suitable are adsorbent filtering agents; Paragraph 0018, Mention may be made, as nonlimiting examples, of mineral or organic filtering agents, and in particular those chosen from clays, zeolites, diatomaceous earths, ceramics, carbonates, and coal derivatives; Paragraph 0023, derivatives of coal, wood, shells, for example coconut shells, olive pits or husks, and more generally those known under the name of activated carbons).
Since activated carbon is not required by Claim 4, Blanc teaches the limitation.
With regard to Claim 5, Blanc teaches the removal of components from the liquid hydrogen carrier material carried out at least one of at a temperature of 0°C to 100°C and at a pressure of atmospheric pressure or slight overpressure (Paragraph 0050, The temperature at which the liquid is brought into contact with the porous filtering agent is generally between 0° C. and 100° C.; Paragraph 0051, the contacting is advantageously carried out under atmospheric pressure, or even slight overpressure, in particular overpressure resulting from the circulation of the liquid through said filtering medium).
With regard to Claims 6 and 7, Kusche teaches the conditioning comprising removing at least one of oxygen-carrying components and sulfur-carrying components from the released hydrogen gas and by means of catalysis (Paragraph 0010, it is possible by this means to provide for an individual separation stage for each aggregate state of an impurity, i.e. solid, liquid or gaseous… Gaseous impurities may be present in the form of carbon monoxide, methane, carbon dioxide and/or water vapor, as well as in the form of volatile hydrocarbons, such as toluene or cyclohexane; Paragraph 0016, It has been found that the reaction conditions present in the product flow correspond to those of a catalytic gas-phase reaction, as for example the methanation of carbon monoxide).
With regard to Claim 8, Kusche teaches the removal of components from the released hydrogen gas taking place at least one of at a temperature of at most 100 °C and at a pressure of at least 5 bar (Paragraph 0014, In pressure swing adsorption, gas is conducted under increased pressure of at least 5 bar, in particular at least 10 bar and in particular at least 15 bar to a reactor, in particular a fixed bed reactor filled with the adsorbent; Paragraph 0015, the adsorptive separation can be carried out in the form of pressure swing adsorption and/or temperature change adsorption. The temperature in a possible temperature change adsorption usually is less than 100° C… The purity of the hydrogen gas may be improved by this means).
With regard to Claim 9 and 17, Kusche teaches at least one of a storage and transport of the purified liquid hydrogen carrier material which is protected from a first location to a second location (Paragraph 0035, in particular two separate LOHC storage containers are provided; one for the charged, i.e. high-energy LOHC, and one for the discharged, i.e. low-energy LOHC; Paragraph 0036, it is also possible that large LOHC storage containers, respectively, are arranged outside the transport container 1 in order to ensure a sufficient, long-term supply with LOHC).
With regard to Claim 10, Kusche teaches the method wherein at least one of oxygen-carrying components in the released hydrogen gas are less than 200 ppmv and sulfur-carrying components in the released hydrogen gas are less than 1 ppmv (Paragraph 0017, A typical degree of purity may be 99.999% for the hydrogen gas). This translates to 10 ppm, which meets the limitation of less than 200 ppmv oxygen-carrying components in the released hydrogen gas.
With regard to Claim 16, Kusche teaches a selective catalyst material comprising at least one of nickel, copper, cobalt, molybdenum and noble metal (Paragraph 0022, Using a catalyst material such as platinum, palladium, nickel, rhodium and/or ruthenium, each with a weight portion of 0.1 % to 10% with reference to the, in particular inert, catalyst carrier allows for an efficient release of the hydrogen gas).
Claims 6-10, 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blanc et al. (US 2023/0174374 A1) in view of Kusche et al. (US 2019/0292048 A1).
With regard to Claims 6 and 7, Blanc is silent to the conditioning comprising removing at least one of oxygen-carrying components and sulfur-carrying components from the released hydrogen gas and by means of catalysis.
Kusche, in a method for providing hydrogen gas, teaches the conditioning comprising removing at least one of oxygen-carrying components and sulfur-carrying components from the released hydrogen gas and by means of catalysis (Paragraph 0010, it is possible by this means to provide for an individual separation stage for each aggregate state of an impurity, i.e. solid, liquid or gaseous… Gaseous impurities may be present in the form of carbon monoxide, methane, carbon dioxide and/or water vapor, as well as in the form of volatile hydrocarbons, such as toluene or cyclohexane; Paragraph 0016, It has been found that the reaction conditions present in the product flow correspond to those of a catalytic gas-phase reaction, as for example the methanation of carbon monoxide). Kusche notes that this is done to purify the released hydrogen gas (Paragraph 0016, In particular, the purification of the hydrogen gas can be provided as an integral process step upon provision of the hydrogen gas).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention for Blanc to disclose the conditioning comprising removing at least one of oxygen-carrying components and sulfur-carrying components from the released hydrogen gas and by means of catalysis, as taught in Kusche, to purify the released hydrogen gas.
With regard to Claim 8, Kusche teaches the removal of components from the released hydrogen gas taking place at least one of at a temperature of at most 100 °C and at a pressure of at least 5 bar (Paragraph 0014, In pressure swing adsorption, gas is conducted under increased pressure of at least 5 bar, in particular at least 10 bar and in particular at least 15 bar to a reactor, in particular a fixed bed reactor filled with the adsorbent; Paragraph 0015, the adsorptive separation can be carried out in the form of pressure swing adsorption and/or temperature change adsorption. The temperature in a possible temperature change adsorption usually is less than 100° C… The purity of the hydrogen gas may be improved by this means).
With regard to Claim 9 and 17, Kusche teaches at least one of a storage and transport of the purified liquid hydrogen carrier material which is protected from a first location to a second location (Paragraph 0035, in particular two separate LOHC storage containers are provided; one for the charged, i.e. high-energy LOHC, and one for the discharged, i.e. low-energy LOHC; Paragraph 0036, it is also possible that large LOHC storage containers, respectively, are arranged outside the transport container 1 in order to ensure a sufficient, long-term supply with LOHC).
With regard to Claim 10, Kusche teaches the method wherein at least one of oxygen-carrying components in the released hydrogen gas are less than 200 ppmv and sulfur-carrying components in the released hydrogen gas are less than 1 ppmv (Paragraph 0017, A typical degree of purity may be 99.999% for the hydrogen gas). This translates to 10 ppm, which meets the limitation of less than 200 ppmv oxygen-carrying components in the released hydrogen gas.
With regard to Claim 16, Kusche teaches a selective catalyst material comprising at least one of nickel, copper, cobalt, molybdenum and noble metal (Paragraph 0022, Using a catalyst material such as platinum, palladium, nickel, rhodium and/or ruthenium, each with a weight portion of 0.1 % to 10% with reference to the, in particular inert, catalyst carrier allows for an efficient release of the hydrogen gas).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Bösmann et al. (US 2021/0276862 A1) discloses a method for dehydrogenating a hydrogen carrier medium. The reference does not disclose removal of oxygen-carrying and/or sulfur-carrying and/or halogen-containing components from the hydrogen carrier medium.
Teichmann et al. (DE 102014006430 A1) discloses a method for supplying energy based on liquid organic hydrogen carrier (LOHC) materials. The reference does not disclose removal of oxygen-carrying and/or sulfur-carrying and/or halogen-containing components from the LOHC material.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABDUL-RAHMAN YUSUF WALEED SMARI whose telephone number is (571)270-7302. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:30-5, F 7:30-4.
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.
/ABDUL-RAHMAN YUSUF WALEED SMARI/Examiner, Art Unit 1736
/RICHARD M RUMP/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights