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 Objections
Claims 1 and 14 are objected to because the term “reducing atmosphere” should be “a reducing atmosphere”.
Claims 2–10 are objected to because the limitation of “the device” and “layered device” are interchangeably used, please use the term consistently to avoid unnecessary confusion.
Claim 6 is indefinite because the limitation of “the substrate layer” is unteachably used the term “ceramic composite substrate layer”, please use the term consistently to avoid unnecessary confusion.
Claims 1–3, 6–8, 10–11, 14, 16, 17–20 are objected to because they interchangeably use the term “the substrate layer” and “ceramic composite substrate layer”. Please use the term consistently the avoid unnecessary confusion.
Claim 11 is objected to because the last recited “product hydrogen reservoir” should be “the product hydrogen reservoir”. Similar issue with claims 13–14, the recited “product hydrogen reservoir” should be “the product hydrogen reservoir”.
Claim 14 is objected to because the term “the layered” should be “the layered device”. The term “the fuel gas reservoir” should be “the fuel gas channel”.
Claim 21 is objected to because “a fuel gas” should be “[[a]] the fuel gas” and “the particle pressure of hydrogen in product hydrogen reservoir” should be “the partial pressure of hydrogen in the product hydrogen reservoir”
Claim 23 is objected to because of the following informalities:
The limitation of “a plurality of pressure-drive hydrogen separation devices” and “the plurality of devices” are interchangeably used in claim 12, please use the term consistently to avoid unnecessary confusion.
Appropriate correction is required.
Spec. Objections
The Spec. dated Dec. 12, 2023 is objected to because MPEP states “Where subject matter not shown in the drawing or described in the description is claimed in the application as filed, and such claim itself constitutes a clear disclosure of this subject matter, then the claim should be treated on its merits, and requirement made to amend the drawing and description to show this subject matter.” Here, claims 4 and 16 claims “any other reducible oxides” but the Spec. does not show such subject matter. The Spec. is therefore objected to for the reason stated above.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 4 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
MPEP states a broad genus claim is presented but the disclosure only describes a narrow species with no evidence that the genus is contemplated. See Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1349-50 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc). The written description requirement is not necessarily met when the claim language appears in ipsis verbis in the specification. "Even if a claim is supported by the specification, the language of the specification, to the extent possible, must describe the claimed invention so that one skilled in the art can recognize what is claimed. The appearance of mere indistinct words in a specification or a claim, even an original claim, does not necessarily satisfy that requirement."Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Gen-Probe, Inc., 323 F.3d 956, 968, 63 USPQ2d 1609, 1616 (Fed. Cir. 2002). MPEP 2163.03(V)(2).
Here, while the claim 4 recites “any other reducible oxides”, the specification does not provide support for that.
Similar issue with claim 16, because it has the same limitation of “other reducible oxide”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 12 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 3 is indefinite because the limitation of “ceramic proton conducting substate layer” lacks antecedent basis. It is unclear if it is the same as “ceramic composite substrate layer”.
Claim 7 is indefinite because the term “the composite” lacks antecedent basis. It is unclear if it is the same as “the ceramic composite substrate layer”. Claim 7 is also indefinite because the limitation of “the metal oxide grains” lacks antecedent basis. Claim 7 is also indefinite because the term “the metallic state” lacks antecedent basis. Additionally, claim 7 is also indefinite because it is unclear if the term ‘a reducing atmosphere” in claim 7 is the same as the recited “reducing atmosphere” in claim 1.
Claim 12 is indefinite because it is unclear if the recited “other low molecular weight hydrocarbons” is part of the claimed “mixture of gases”. Additionally, clarification is needed for the term “other low molecular weight hydrocarbons”. A quick search on the internet indicates “low molecular weight hydrocarbons” typically includes methane ethane and propane1. Another search indicates low molecular weight hydrocarbons are small, volatile organic compounds containing 1 to 12 carbon atoms2. There are therefore different definitions for the term “low molecular weight hydrocarbons”, clarification is needed from the applicant as to what is their definition for low molecular weight hydrocarbons.
Claims 7–8, 13, 16 and 19 are indefinite because it is unclear if the limitations after term “for example” meant to further limit the claim.
Claim 16 is indefinite because the term “the ceramic proton conducting substrate layer” lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 18 is indefinite because it is unclear if the recited “a reducing atmosphere” is the same as “reducing atmosphere” recited in claim 14. Claim 18 is indefinite because the limitation of “the interface” the metal membrane” “the opposing surface” lacks antecedent basis.
Claims 19 –20 are indefinite because the term “the hydrogen membrane layer” lacks antecedent basis.
Claims 10 and 20 is also indefinite because the limitation of “the layers” lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 24 is indefinite because the limitation of “the plurality of arrayed hydrogen generation systems” lacks antecedent basis.
The claims sets are replete with antecedent basis issues, typos and lack of written description issues. Please proof read before resubmitting.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102(a)(1)
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.
The claims are rejected as follows:
Claims 1–9 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by KJØLSETH et al., US 2019/0284048 A1 (“KJØLSETH”).
Regarding claim 1:
KJØLSETH discloses that a layered device (KJØLSETH’s electrode support structure as shown in Fig. 4, KJØLSETH Fig. 4, [0274]) comprising:
a ceramic composite substrate layer (KJØLSETH’s support of layer 1, KJØLSETH Fig. 4, [0046]), comprising a metal oxide phase (KJØLSETH discloses its support layer comprising a metal oxide, KJØLSETH [0148], which reads on the claimed “metal oxide phase”) and ceramic proton conducting oxide phase (KJØLSETH discloses its support comprising ceramic mixed metal oxide, KJØLSETH [0185], which read on the claimed “ceramic proton conducting oxide phase” because KJØLSETH’s support is an electrode, which is capable of conduct proton),
wherein the substrate layer (KJØLSETH’s layer ) is dense upon sintering (KJØLSETH discloses its electrode is sintered/densified, KJØLSETH, Fig. 4, [0157], and KJØLSETH discloses that sintering process includes a step of densifying, KJØLSETH [0217], KJØLSETH therefore discloses its substate layer is “dense upon sintering”) and has contiguous porosity upon reduction in reducing atmosphere (KJØLSETH also discloses its electrode sintered and then exposed to a reducing gas, which reduces the nickel oxide to nickel and leaving a porous structure, KJØLSETH [0190], KJØLSETH’s porous structure would necessary be contiguous because KJØLSETH discloses reduction creates a porous structure through which the likes of hydrogen can pass, which its pore is open and connected to allow the likes of hydrogen to pass, KJØLSETH [0190]), and
a hydrogen permeable layer (KJØLSETH’s layers 2 and 3, KJØLSETH discloses its layer 2 is hydrogen transport membrane and therefore read on the term “hydrogen permeable layer”, KJØLSETH Fig. 4, [0154] and [0045]) comprising a single metal, metal alloys or layers of different metals (KJØLSETH discloses its layer 3 is an outer electrode layer, and KJØLSETH discloses its electrode layer could be single phase of metals/metal alloys, KJØLSETH Fig. 4, [0132] and [0047]–[0048]).
Regarding claim 2:
KJØLSETH discloses that the device of claim 1, wherein the state of the substrate layer (KJØLSETH’s layer 1) is selected from the group consisting of: sintered and unreduced; sintered and partially reduced thereby having some surface porosity but no contiguous porosity throughout the substrate; sintered and fully reduced thereby having contiguous percolating porosity throughout the substrate from the first surface to the second surface (KJØLSETH’s substrate layer of layer 1 is sintered and fully reduced thereby to have contiguous percolating porosity through the substate from first surface to the second surface because KJØLSETH discloses its first electrode is a porous structure through which the likes of hydrogen can pass, KJØLSETH [0190], which means it has contiguous percolating porosity because otherwise, the likes of hydrogen won’t be able to pass).
Regarding claim 3:
KJØLSETH discloses that the device of claim 1, wherein the ceramic proton conducting substrate layer comprises a perovskite ceramic proton conductor (KJØLSETH discloses its first electrode adopts a perovskite crystal structure, KJØLSETH [0189]) having the general composition:
PNG
media_image1.png
34
115
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein the A-site comprises Ba or Sr, the B-site comprises Zr and/or Ce and X comprises an aliovalent dopant cation consisting of Y, Yb, Eu, Gd, other rare earth elements or combinations thereof (KJØLSETH [0082]–[0086]).
Regarding claim 4:
KJØLSETH discloses that the device of claim 1, wherein the metal oxide phase comprises a compound selected from the group consisting of: NiO, CoO, CuO, and any other reducible oxides (KJØLSETH disclose its first electrode comprise NiO, KJØLSETH [0190]).
Regarding claim 5:
KJØLSETH discloses that the device of claim 4, wherein the metal oxide phase comprises nickel oxide (KJØLSETH [0190]).
Regarding claim 6:
KJØLSETH discloses that the device of claim 1, wherein the substrate layer is in a reduced state wherein the metal oxide phase is reduced to metal, and wherein the metal oxide phase comprises nickel oxide (KJØLSETH [0190]).
Regarding claim 7:
KJØLSETH discloses that the device of claim 1, wherein:
when in an unreduced state the volume of the metal oxide phase in the composite is sufficient to ensure that metal oxide grains are in contact in the ceramic proton conducting oxide phase (KJØLSETH discloses its first electrode material is a composite material, where ceramic mixed metal oxide, ideally BZY combined with NiO, such composite is considered sufficient to ensure metal oxide grains in contact in the ceramic proton conducting oxide phase, because KJØLSETH discloses a reduction step is necessary to create a porous structure, KJØLSETH [0190], which means before reduction, the compoite material of BZY and NiO are sufficient in contact with no porous structure), and
upon reduction of the metal oxide phase to the metallic state in a reducing atmosphere, a continuous and open porous network is formed throughout the substrate to allow diffusion of hydrogen gas from the interface of the hydrogen permeable layer and the substrate to the opposing surface (KJØLSETH’s step of reducing NiO to Ni at a temperature between 500 and 1000 °C, which creates a porous structure to allow the likes of hydrogen to pass, KJØLSETH [0190]).
Regarding claim 8:
KJØLSETH discloses that the device of claim 1, wherein the hydrogen permeable layer is disposed over a first surface of the substrate layer, for example wherein the hydrogen permeable layer is disposed in direct contact with the substrate layer and in the absence of an intervening electrolyte layer (as shown in KJØLSETH’s Fig. 4, the hydrogen permeable layer 2, 3 is disposed a top side of layer 1 in the absence of an intervening electrolyte layer, KJØLSETH Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 9:
KJØLSETH discloses that the device of claim 1, wherein the device has a curved surface and/or is spherical (as shown in KJØLSETH Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 22:
KJØLSETH discloses a method for forming a layered hydrogen separation device (KJØLSETH’s device as mapped in claim 1) comprising the steps of:
I. forming a ceramic composite substrate layer comprising a metal oxide and ceramic proton conducting oxide (forming KJØLSETH’s layer 1, which comprise metal oxide and ceramic proton conducting oxide, KJØLSETH Fig. 4, [0046], [0148], [0185]),
II. sintering the substrate layer formed in step I (KJØLSETH [0190]) ,
III. reducing the sintered substrate layer formed in step II in a reducing atmosphere (KJØLSETH [0190]; and
IV. depositing a hydrogen diffusion membrane layer over a first surface of the substrate layer (the step of depositing KJØLSETH’s layers 2 and 3 over a top surface of KJØLSETH’s layer 1, KJØLSETH Fig. 4),
wherein the hydrogen diffusion membrane layer (layers 2 and 3 of KJØLSETH) contains a single metal, metal alloys or layers of different metals (KJØLSETH discloses its layer 3 is an outer electrode layer, and KJØLSETH discloses its electrode layer could be single phase of metals/metal alloys, KJØLSETH Fig. 4, [0132] and [0047]–[0048]).
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.
The claims are rejected as follows:
Claim 1, 10, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Mundschau et al., US 2003/0183080 A1 (“Mundschau”) in view of KJØLSETH.
Regarding claim 1:
Mundschau discloses that a layered device (Mundschau’s layered device as shown in Fig. 4, Mundschau Fig. 4, [0021]) comprising:
a ceramic composite substrate layer comprising a metal oxide phase and ceramic proton conducting oxide phase ((Mundschau discloses its cermet is formed by sintering together powders of ceramic and powders of hydrogen-permeable metals and alloys, Mundschau [0021], Mundschau discloses its ceramic component of the cermet can be derived from one or more metal oxides Mundschau [0021], and could be a proton conductor, Mundschau [0141] which read on the “ceramic proton conducting oxide phase”, and Mundschau also discloses that its ceramic could also include metal oxide, Mundschau [0036] and therefore read on the “metal oxide phase”), wherein the substrate layer is dense upon sintering (because Mundschau discloses its finder powders of ceramic and metal alloys are sintered to form “dense cermets”, Mundschau [0140]).
Mundschau also discloses that a hydrogen permeable layer (Mundschau’s catalyst layer 47A, which is hydrogen permeable, because hydrogen has to travel through layer 47A, Mundschau [0070]) comprising a single metal, metal alloys or layers of different metals (Mundschau discloses coated on both sides preferably with Ni, Pd or alloys thereof or with Pt, Ir, Rh or alloys thereof, which at least reads on single metal, metal alloys, Mundschau Fig. 4, [0070]).
While Mundschau does not disclose that contiguous porosity upon reduction in reducing atmosphere, Mundschau’s porosity necessarily has to be contiguous to allow hydrogen to travel through the membrane. What Mundschau does not disclose it that the contiguous porosity is formed upon reductio in reducing atmosphere.
In the analogous art of cermet configured for hydrogen transportation membrane, KJØLSETH discloses a NiO-cermet that is sintered to retain NiO in the material and then a reducing step is needed to give the necessary porosity, KJØLSETH [0280]. It would therefore have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing for Mundschau to include KJØLSETH’s reduce step after sintering step, because KJØLSETH discloses a reduction step is necessary to turned the dense sintered structure into a porous structure to allow hydrogen to pass through, KJØLSETH [0280] and [0190].
Regarding claim 10:
Modified Mundschau discloses that the device of claim 1, wherein the substrate layer and the hydrogen permeable layer lack the presence of electrical connectors (e.g. wires or contact pad) to provide a bias potential between the layers (as shown in Mundschau Fig. 4).
Claims 11–21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Mundschau in view of KJØLSETH as applied to claim 1, and in further view of Edlund et al., US 5,645,626 A (“Edlund”).
Regarding claim 11:
Modified Mundschau discloses that a hydrogen separator (Mundschau discloses a reactor for hydrogen separation, Mundschau [0070]) comprising:
a fuel gas channel (structure in Mundschau’s reactor for hydrogen separation responsible to supply hydrogen source 42 to Mundschau’s membrane 40, Mundschau Fig. 4, [0070]) comprising a fuel gas containing hydrogen (Mundschau discloses as hydrogen source 42, Id.),
a product hydrogen reservoir containing product hydrogen (Mundschau’s hydrogen sink 44, Id.), and
the layered device of claim 1 (modified Mundschau as discussed in claim 1 above),
wherein:
the layered device (modified Mundschau as discussed in claim 1 above) is disposed between and separates the fuel gas channel and the product hydrogen reservoir (as shown in Mundschau Fig. 4, [0070]),
the hydrogen permeable layer (47A of Mundschau) is disposed facing the fuel gas channel (42 as shown in Mundschau Fig. 4),
the ceramic composite substrate layer is disposed facing the product hydrogen reservoir (Mundschau’s cermet structure having a bottom surface facing Mundschau’s hydrogen reservoir 44, Mundschau Fig. 4, [0070]).
Modified Mundschau does not disclose the partial pressure of hydrogen in the fuel gas channel (42 of Mundschau ) is greater than the partial pressure of hydrogen in product hydrogen reservoir (40 of Mundschau).
In the analogous art of hydrogen separation membranes comprising ceramic and metal, Edlund discloses that a hydrogen partial pressure on the feed side of the membrane is elevated relative to the hydrogen partial pressure on the permeate side of the membrane, Edlund col. 7, ll. 6–8. Edlund discloses that its membrane exhibits outstanding hydrogen selectivity at a 100 psig hydrogen feed side pressure and permeate side pressure at ambient pressure, Edlund col. 7, ll. 21–25. It would therefore have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to further modify Mundschau use the partial pressure disclosed by Edlund because such pressure is known in the art as being related to outstanding hydrogen selectivity for hydrogen separation membranes.
Regarding claim 12:
Modified Mundschau discloses that the hydrogen separator of claim 11, wherein the fuel gas channel comprises a mixture of gases selected from the group consisting of: H2, CO, C02, H20, Ar, N2, CH4 and other low molecular weight hydrocarbons (Mundschau discloses its hydrogen source could have hydrogen and other gases such as carbon dioxide and therefore read on the claim, Mundschau [0034]).
Regarding claim 13:
Modified Mundschau discloses that the hydrogen separator of claim 11, wherein the partial pressure of hydrogen in the fuel gas channel is between 1.1 and 50 times greater (for example between 1.5 and 40, between 2 and 30,or between 2 and 20 times greater) than the partial pressure of hydrogen in product hydrogen reservoir, for example wherein the partial pressure of hydrogen pressure of hydrogen in the product hydrogen reservoir is about 1 ATM (or less such as under vacuum) and the partial pressure of hydrogen in fuel gas channel is at least 1.5 ATM (for example 2 ATM, 3 ATM, 5 ATM, 10 ATM or more) (Mundschau as modified in claim 11 discloses a hydrogen partial pressure in the feed side is 100 psig, which is equivalent to 6.86 atm, and permeate side hydrogen partial pressure is ambient pressure, which is 1 atm, and therefore, modified Mundschau discloses a range of partial pressure of hydrogen in the fuel gas channel in of 6. 86 times greater than that in product hydrogen reservoir, and thus falls within the claimed range, Edlund col. 7, ll. 21–25).
Regarding claim 14:
Modified Mundschau discloses that a pressure-driven hydrogen separation device (the hydrogen separator as discussed in claim 11) comprising:
a layered device comprising a ceramic composite substrate layer comprising a metal oxide phase and ceramic proton conducting oxide phase, wherein the substrate layer is dense upon sintering and has contiguous porosity upon reduction in reducing atmosphere (modified Mundschau’s layered device as discussed in claim 1 in view of KJØLSETH),
a fuel gas channel comprising a fuel gas containing hydrogen (Mundschau’s channel supplying hydrogen source gas 42, Mundschau Fig. 4, [0070]), and
a product hydrogen reservoir (Mundschau’s hydrogen sink 44, Mundschau Fig. 4, [0070]) containing product hydrogen, wherein:
the layered is disposed between and separates the fuel gas reservoir and the product hydrogen reservoir (as shown in Fig. 4 of Mundschau),
the partial pressure of hydrogen in the fuel gas channel is greater than the partial pressure of hydrogen in product hydrogen reservoir (as discussed in claim 11 in view of Edlund).
Regarding claim 15:
Modified Mundschau discloses that the device of claim 14, wherein: the layered device further comprises a hydrogen permeable layer (Mundschau’s catalyst layer 47A, which is hydrogen permeable, because hydrogen has to travel through layer 47A, Mundschau [0070]) comprising a single metal, metal alloys or layers of different metals (Mundschau discloses coated on both sides preferably with Ni, Pd or alloys thereof or with Pt, Ir, Rh or alloys thereof, which at least reads on single metal, metal alloys, Mundschau Fig. 4, [0070]),
the ceramic composite substrate layer is disposed facing the product hydrogen reservoir (as shown in Mundschau’s Fig. 4, bottom of modified Mundschau’s ceramic composite substrate layer facing Mundschau’s product hydrogen reservoir 44, Mundschau Fig. 4, [0070]), and
the hydrogen permeable layer (47A of Mundschau is disposed facing the fuel gas channel (42 of Mundschau, Mundschau Fig. 4, [0070]).
Regarding claim 16:
Modified Mundschau discloses that the device of claim 14, wherein the ceramic proton conducting substrate layer comprises a perovskite ceramic proton conductor (Mundschau [0126]), and
wherein the metal oxide phase comprises a compound selected from the group consisting of: NiO, CoO, CuO, and any other reducible oxides, for example wherein the metal oxide phase comprises nickel oxide (Mundschau [0211]).
Mundschau does not discloses its perovskite ceramic proton conductor having the general composition
PNG
media_image2.png
31
110
media_image2.png
Greyscale
, wherein the A-site comprises Ba or Sr, the B-site comprises Zr and/or Ce and X comprises an aliovalent dopant cation consisting of Y, Yb, Eu, Gd, other rare earth elements or combinations thereof.
However, KJØLSETH its perovskite could be AB.sub.1-qB′.sub.qO.sub.3-z, wherein A=La, Ba, Sr or Ca or a mixture thereof; B═Ce, Zr, Ti, In, Tb, Th or Cr or a mixture thereof and B′═Y, Yb, Gd, Pr, Sc, Fe, Eu, In or Sm or a mixture thereof: z is a number sufficient to neutralize the charge; and 0.01≤q≤0.5. It will be appreciated that B and B′ are different metals, KJØLSETH [0083]–[0084]. KJØLSETH discloses compared to unstable perovskites of the prior art, its composition is stable even in chemically harsh conditions at high temperatures, KJØLSETH [0072]. It would therefore have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use KJØLSETH’s perovskites in modified Mundschau for the stability under harsh conditions.
Regarding claim 17:
Modified Mundschau discloses that the device of claim 14, wherein the substrate layer is in a reduced state wherein the metal oxide phase is reduced to metal, and wherein the metal oxide phase comprises nickel oxide (as discussed in modified Mundschau, it would therefore have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing for Mundschau to include KJØLSETH’s reduce step after sintering step, because KJØLSETH discloses a reduction step is necessary to turned the dense sintered structure into a porous structure to allow hydrogen to pass through, and KJØLSETH discloses its metal oxide is nickel oxide, KJØLSETH [0280] and [0190]).
Regarding claim 18:
Modified Mundschau discloses that the device of claim 14,
when in an unreduced state the volume of the metal oxide phase in the composite is sufficient to ensure that metal oxide grains are in contact in the ceramic proton conducting oxide phase (KJØLSETH discloses its first electrode material is a composite material, where ceramic mixed metal oxide, ideally BZY combined with NiO, such composite is considered sufficient to ensure metal oxide grains in contact in the ceramic proton conducting oxide phase, because KJØLSETH discloses a reduction step is necessary to create a porous structure, KJØLSETH [0190], which means before reduction, the compoite material of BZY and NiO are sufficient in contact with no porous structure),
wherein upon reduction of the metal oxide phase to the metallic state in a reducing atmosphere, a continuous and open porous network is formed throughout the substrate to allow diffusion of hydrogen gas from the interface of the hydrogen permeable layer and the substrate to the opposing surface (KJØLSETH’s step of reducing NiO to Ni at a temperature between 500 and 1000 °C, which creates a porous structure to allow the likes of hydrogen to pass, KJØLSETH [0190]).
Regarding claim 19:
Modified Mundschau discloses that the device of claim 14, wherein the hydrogen membrane layer is disposed over a first surface of the substrate layer, for example wherein the hydrogen membrane layer is disposed in contact with the substrate layer and in the absence of an intervening electrolyte layer (as shown in Mundschau Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 20:
Modified Mundschau discloses that the device of claim 14, wherein the substrate layer and the hydrogen permeable layer lack the presence of electrical connectors (e.g. wires or contact pad) to provide a bias potential between the layers (as shown in Mundschau Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 21:
Modified Mundschau discloses that a method for pressure-driven separation of hydrogen (a method of using modified Mundschau’s pressure driven hydrogen separation device as discussed in claim 14) comprising the steps of:
I. providing the pressure-driven hydrogen separation device of claim 14 (the step of providing modified Mundschau’s hydrogen separation device as discussed in claim 14),
II. flowing a fuel gas in the fuel gas channel (flow modified Mundschau’s hydrogen source 42 in the fuel gas channel, similar to that shown in Mundschau’s Fig. 6, Mundschau’s source gas inlet 52, Mundschau Figs. 4 and 6, [0072]),
III. allowing hydrogen to permeate across the ceramic composite substrate layer and into the product hydrogen reservoir (allowing hydrogen source 42 to permeate through the membrane structure as shown in Mundschau’s Fig. 4),
wherein:
the partial pressure of hydrogen in the fuel gas channel is greater than the particle pressure of hydrogen in product hydrogen reservoir (as discussed in claim 11 in view of Edlund).
Claims 23–24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Mundschau in view of KJØLSETH and Edlund as applied to claim 14, and in further view of Reed et al., US 2010/0116133 A1 (“Reed”).
Regarding claim 23:
Modified Mundschau does not disclose that an arrayed hydrogen separation system comprising:
a plurality of pressure-driven hydrogen separation devices as described in claim 14,
a common product hydrogen channel,
and a common fuel gas channel,
wherein:
the plurality of devices are disposed in a planar radial array about the common product hydrogen channel,
the plurality of devices are each spherical and enclose their respective product hydrogen reservoir which are connected to and in fluid communication with the common hydrogen channel,
the common fuel gas channel is common to the plurality of devices.
In the analogous art of gas separation membranes, Reed discloses a plurality of tubular membrane elements 14,
a common product channel (Reed’s oxygen stream 42, Reed Fig. 1, [0027]),
and a common fuel gas channel (Reed’s feed stream 36. Reed Fig. 1, [0027]),
wherein:
the plurality of devices are disposed in a planar radial array about the common product hydrogen channel (as shown in Reed Fig. 2, [0028]),
the plurality of devices are each spherical and enclose their respective product reservoir which are connected to and in fluid communication with the common channel (as clearly shown in Reed Figs. 1–2, [0026]–[0028]),
the common fuel gas channel is common to the plurality of devices (as clearly shown in Reed Fig. 1, [0027]).
Reed discloses its design allows gas separation membranes to be manifolded together, and allows efficiently use in gas separation, Reed [0010]. It would therefore have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use Reed’s configuration in modified Mundschau to separate hydrogen, such that modified Mundschau’s hydrogen separation system could look like Reed’s oxygen separation system for an improved efficiency because more membranes could be manifolded together for an increased filtration capacity and efficiency.
Regarding claim 24:
Modified Mundschau does not disclose that a stacked arrayed hydrogen separation system comprising a plurality of arrayed hydrogen separation systems as described in claim 23, wherein:
the plurality of arrayed hydrogen generation systems are stacked axially about the common product hydrogen channel, and
the common product hydrogen channel and the common fuel gas channel are common to the plurality of arrayed hydrogen separation systems.
However, Edlund discloses its separation element 20 could be stack together to increase the total membrane surface area, Edlund Fig. 4, col. 11–12, ll. 66–17. It would therefore have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to stack Reed’s separation membrane configuration as shown in Fig. 2 radially as disclosed by Edlund to further increase the total membrane surface area. With such modification, the plurality of arrayed hydrogen separation systems would share a common fuel gas channel and product hydrogen channel similar to that disclosed in Fig. 3b of Edlund.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to QIANPING HE whose telephone number is (571)272-8385. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:30-5:00 M-F.
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, Jennifer Dieterle can be reached on (571) 270-7872. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/Qianping He/Examiner, Art Unit 1776
1 low molecular weight hydrocarbon definition - Search
2 low molecular weight hydrocarbon definition - Google Search