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
Claim 9 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 8/19/26.
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-8 in the reply filed on 8/19/26 is acknowledged.
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.
Claims 1-8 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 1 refers to a heating medium that is “heated by thermal energy at 600 °C or higher” (see claim 1 at lines 2-3), but while temperature and thermal energy are closely related terms, it is not possible for thermal energy to have a temperature as recited. It would seem that what is intended is to set forth the temperature of the thermal energy source which is at 600 °C or higher. Please note, for purposes of claim interpretation the examiner will be treating the limitation as requiring a thermal energy source capable of generating temperatures at 600 °C or higher as recited.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "a heating medium" in line 4 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Specifically, it is unclear whether the limitation is setting forth a new heating medium or if it is meant to refer back to the heating medium previously set forth.
Please note, for purposes of claim interpretation the examiner will be treating the “heating medium” being referred to as the previously set forth heating medium since this would appear to be most in keeping with the likely intent.
Please note, all other claims not explicitly addressed above are included herein only as a result of their dependency and corresponding inclusion of the indefiniteness issues as set forth above.
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) 1, 2 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsumura et al., (US Pub. No. 2007/0217995) (hereinafter referred to as “MATSUMURA”) in view of Hunt et al., (US Pub. No. 2022/0065162) (hereinafter referred to as “HUNT”) and Yasuo et al., (JP2010-176939A) with reference to the provided machine translation (hereinafter referred to as “YASUO”).
Regarding claim 1, MATSUMURA teaches a hydrogen production system (see generally MATSUMURA at Abstract and Fig. 4 and Fig. 5), comprising:
a heat exchanger configured to heat steam by using a heating medium heated by thermal energy at 600 °C or higher (see MATSUMURA at Fig. 4 and Fig. 5 depicting vapor generator 202 which transfers thermal energy from the heating medium sodium/helium to the water to generate steam; see also MATSUMURA at ¶130 and ¶139 teaching the heat source being capable of providing heat to the heating medium at temperatures as claimed); and
a high-temperature steam electrolysis device configured to produce hydrogen by using the steam heated by the heating medium (see MATSUMURA at Fig. 4 and Fig. 5 depicting high-temperature steam electrolysis apparatus 205 which produces hydrogen from the generated steam; see also MATSUMURA at ¶142).
While MATSUMURA teaches that additional heat may be required than what is supplied by other sources (see MATSUMURA at ¶76), MATSUMURA fails to explicitly teach a heating device configured to heat the high-temperature steam electrolysis device by using the heating medium heated by the thermal energy as set forth.
However, HUNT teaches that it is known when utilizing an electrolyzer within a hydrogen production system including a heat source useable for steam generation to provide the extracted thermal energy, at least in part, to the electrolysis cells (see HUNT at ¶75). Moreover, YASUO teaches that it is known to provide the heat from an external heat source via a heating medium that is configured to transfer the heat to a steam electrolysis cell (see YASUO at Fig. 1 and Abstract; see also YASUO at ¶27 teaching the steam electrolysis requiring additional heat which is provided by the heat transfer medium in flow loop 13).
As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the heating medium of MATSUMURA could be used to not only generate the steam but also to provide additional heat to the steam electrolysis cell as taught by HUNT and YASUO. Additionally, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have done so since the heating medium would readily allow for providing that additional heat that is necessary for the operation of the high-temperature steam electrolysis cell and reduce the need to apply additional electrical energy.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided for the heat transfer medium of MATSUMURA to also heat the steam electrolysis cell as taught by HUNT and YASUO as combined.
Regarding claim 2, MATSUMURA as modified by HUNT and YASUO teaches the hydrogen production system wherein the heating device compensates for thermal energy that is lost by endothermic reaction when the high-temperature steam electrolysis device produces hydrogen (see YASUO at ¶ 27 teaching the providing of heat sufficient to sustain the reaction which in the system of MATSUMURA as modified by HUNT and YASUO would be configured to allow for the same).
Regarding claim 5, MATSUMURA as modified by HUNT and YASUO teaches the hydrogen production system wherein the high-temperature steam electrolysis device includes an electrolyte layer, a hydrogen gas diffusion electrode layer, and an oxygen gas diffusion electrode layer (see MATSUMURA at Fig. 2 and ¶117 discussing the high-temperature steam electrolysis cell having a solid oxide electrolyte diaphragm 114, i.e. an electrolyte layer, an anode side 115, i.e. an oxygen gas diffusion electrode layer, and a cathode side 116, i.e. a hydrogen gas diffusion electrode layer as claimed), and the heating device heats the hydrogen gas diffusion electrode layer and the oxygen gas diffusion electrode layer (see rejection of claim 1 which by providing heat to the steam electrolysis cell as set forth would act to heat both electrode layers as claimed).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MATSUMURA as modified by HUNT and YASUO as applied to claims 1 and 5 above, and further in view of Balestrino et al., (US Pub. No. 2008/0289955) (hereinafter referred to as “BALESTRINO”).
Regarding claim 6, while MATSUMURA teaches heating the gas to be supplied to the anode (see Fig. 4 and Fig. 5 at line going from the scrubber 211 through the pyrolysis furnace 209 before traveling to high-temperature steam electrolysis apparatus 205), MATSUMURA fails to explicitly teach the gas supply device configured to supply gas to the oxygen gas diffusion electrode layer and a gas heating device configured to heat the gas to be supplied to the oxygen gas diffusion electrode layer by using the heating medium heated by the thermal energy as claimed.
However, BALESTRINO teaches a hydrogen producing solid oxide electrolysis cell (see BALESTRINO at Absract and Fig. 2), in which the gas being fed to the anode chamber, i.e. the oxygen gas diffusion electrode layer, is heated (see BALESTRINO at ¶27-¶29 teaching heat exchanger 5 acting to elevate the temperature of the gas going to the anode 1a). Additionally, BALESTRINO teaches that the heat to be provided by the “thermal vector” can be derived from a number of sources including heat from a nuclear reactor or other process heat conveniently available (see BALESTRINO at ¶29). One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the heating medium, which is heated by a nuclear reactor, and which is readily available could be used to provide heating to the new gas being provided to the anode.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further included a heating device configured so as to provide heat to the anode gas entering the electrolysis cell, as taught by BALESTRINO, by using the heating medium which is providing thermal energy obtained from the nuclear reactor in the hydrogen production system of MATSUMURA as modified by HUNT and YASUO.
Claim(s) 7 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MATSUMURA in view of HUNT and YASUO as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of O’Donnell et al., (US Pub. No. 2022/0170388) (hereinafter referred to as “ODONNELL”).
Regarding claims 7 and 8, while MATSUMURA as modified by HUNT and YASUO teaches a heat source that is able to generate the thermal energy and the heating medium being helium (see MATSUMURA at Fig. 4 and Fig. 5 depicting nuclear reactor 201 and see Fig. 5 depicting helium as the heating medium), MATSUMURA as modified by HUNT and YASUO fails to explicitly teach the heat source being a high-temperature gas furnace with the heat exchanger providing heat as claimed.
However, ODONNELL teaches a thermal energy storage system (see ODONNELL at Abstract and ¶2) which can be incorporated into a high-temperature solid oxide electrolyzer (see ODONNELL at ¶43). Moreover, ODONNELL teaches that the input energy system could be nuclear or natural gas amongst other sources (see ODONNELL at ¶152 which in the case of natural gas would be understood to provide heat via a combustion process in an appropriate furnace). As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that heat could be sourced from a variety of different sources and, in a situation in which a nuclear reactor was not available, could also use a natural gas furnace to provide the necessary thermal energy.
Furthermore, as taught by MATSUMURA, it was known to have a primary heating loop which provided heat to a secondary heating loop (see MATSUMURA at Fig. 4 depicting primary and secondary heating loops). While MATSUMURA teaches the use of the primary and secondary heating loops with a sodium heating medium (see MATSUMURA at Fig. 4), one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that this configuration could also be used with other heating mediums, such as the helium of Fig. 5.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used as the heat source a gas furnace as taught by BALESTRINO instead of the nuclear reactor in the system of MATSUMURA as modified by HUNT and YASUO and to have connected the gas furnace as claimed.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3 and 4 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and 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: the prior art of record fails to teach the hydrogen production system comprising the steam generator via the steam supply path and first and second heat exchangers configured and arranged as claimed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Bryan D. Ripa whose telephone number is (571)270-7875. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00AM-4:00PM ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, James Lin can be reached at (571) 272-8902. 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.
/BRYAN D. RIPA/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1794
Prosecution Insights