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 II, claims 2-22 in the reply filed on 8/31/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 1, 25 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 8/31/2026.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 2 recites the limitation “the ammonia cracker decompose…”. Subject and verb are not in agreement.
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 2-22 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 2 recites the limitation “the production system” in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “the ammonia synthesis reactor (6)” in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “the synthesis reactor” in line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “the ammonia cracker” in line 13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “the ammonia storage unit (8)” in line 19. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “the ammonia cracker”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4, 15-16, 20, 22 recites the limitation “the system”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 5, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 5 recites the broad recitation “at least 0.15%”, and the claim also recites “such as from 0.05% to 1%” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 6-8, 12, 15 recites the limitation “the ammonia synthesis reactor”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 recites the limitation “the ammonia separation reactor”. It is unclear as to which among the “ammonia separation reactor” in claim 2 and “at least one ammonia separation reactor” recited in claim 13 said limitation refers to. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 15 recites the limitation “the ammonia separator”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Further, dependent claims 3-22 are rendered indefinite due to their dependency on any of the indefinite claims as set forth above.
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.
Claim(s) 2-9, 12-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mukelabai, Mulako Dean, et al. “A novel integration of a green power-to-ammonia to power system: Reversible solid oxide fuel cell for hydrogen and power production coupled with an ammonia synthesis unit,” International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 46, pages 18546-18556, (2021). in view of Rouwenhorst, Kevin H.R. et al., “Islanded ammonia power systems: Technology review & conceptual process design,” Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 114, 109339, (2019).
Regarding claim 2, Mukelabai discloses an energy production system (1), utilising ammonia for storage of electrical power and hydrogen for production of electric power (power-to-ammonia to power system: Reversible solid oxide fuel cell for hydrogen and power production coupled with an ammonia synthesis unit, see Title, Abstract) wherein:
a reversible electrochemical cell system (2) adapted for production of hydrogen from electric power in an electrolysis mode when the energy production system (1) runs in electric power storage mode and production of electric power from hydrogen in fuel-cell mode when the production system runs in electric power production mode (reversible solid oxide fuel cell, see p.18548);
an air separator (3) adapted to achieve at least 96% pure N2, wherein the air separator is arranged to provide N2 to the ammonia synthesis reactor (6) when the energy production system (1) runs in electric power storage mode (air separation unit, see p.18550; split fraction of 0.987 nitrogen, see sections 4,5,6 of the supplementary material);
an ammonia synthesis-and ammonia cracker reactor comprising a catalyst, wherein the synthesis reactor is arranged to receive H2 from the reversible electrochemical cell system (2) and N2 from the air separator (3) when the energy production system (1) runs in electric power storage mode and wherein the ammonia cracker decompose the ammonia into N2 and in electric power production mode thereby providing a H2 gas stream to the reversible electrochemical cell system (2) (nitrogen rich fuel electrode exhaust gas for ammonia synthesis during FC mode, ammonia production in EC mode, see p.18552-18554),
an ammonia separation reactor (7) which separates ammonia from N2 and H2 and adapted for receiving ammonia, and unreacted N2 and H2 from the ammonia synthesis-and ammonia cracker reactor and providing ammonia to the ammonia storage unit (8) when the energy production system (1) runs in electric power storage mode (ammonia separation during EC mode and FC mode, see Fig. 9) and;
an ammonia storage unit (8) adapted to store ammonia wherein the ammonia storage unit is arranged to receive ammonia from the ammonia synthesis-and ammonia cracker reactor and/or an ammonia separation reactor (7) when the energy production system (1) runs in electric power storage mode and arranged to provide ammonia to the ammonia synthesis-and ammonia cracker reactor when the energy production system (1) runs in electric power production mode (ammonia storage during EC mode and FC mode, see Fig. 9);
a heat transfer system comprising at least one heat exchanger (16 a, b, c, d, e, f, g) adapted to transfer heat generated in the energy production system (1) (heat transfer, see p.18551).
However, Mukelabai does not expressly disclose an ammonia separation reactor (7) comprising a solid absorbent material and an ammonia storage unit (8) comprising a metal halide.
Rouwenhorst discloses absorption of ammonia in metal halides is preferred as it is currently most technologically advanced and capable of intermittent operation (see section 2.6. Ammonia separation & storage).
Mukelabai and Rouwenhorst are analogous art because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely ammonia separation and storage.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate metal halides for ammonia separation and storage in Mukelabai because Rouwenhorst teaches metal halides are the preferred material for ammonia separation and storage and capable of being used intermittently.
Regarding claim 3, modified Mukelabai discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Mukelabai further discloses the reversible electrochemical cell system operates in a temperature range from 400° C. to 800° C (Fig. 3 shows operation at 1073 K).
Regarding claim 4, modified Mukelabai discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Mukelabai further discloses the reversible electrochemical cell system is adapted to tolerate impurities in the H2 gas stream provided from the ammonia cracker when the system runs in electric power production mode (Fig. 9 shows FC mode).
Regarding claim 5, modified Mukelabai discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Mukelabai further discloses the reversible electrochemical cell system is adapted to tolerate at least 0.15% ammonia in the H2 gas stream such as from 0.05% to 1% ammonia (the reversible solid oxide fuel cell of Mukelabai is considered capable of tolerating the claimed ammonia amount).
Regarding claim 6, modified Mukelabai discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Mukelabai further discloses the reversible electrochemical cell system is connected to or comprises a reactor (4) for H2 separation and compression and arranged to provide H2 to the ammonia synthesis reactor (hydrogen produced is stored, see p.18554), wherein the energy production system is adapted for production of ammonia in electric power storage mode (ammonia production in EC mode, see p.18553).
Regarding claim 7, modified Mukelabai discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Mukelabai further discloses the ammonia synthesis reactor is adapted to operate at a temperature in the range from 250° C. to 500° C (Fig. 5 ammonia synthesis within the claimed temperature range).
Regarding claim 8, modified Mukelabai discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Mukelabai further discloses the ammonia synthesis reactor is adapted to operate at pressure of 3 MPa or lower (ammonia synthesis unit starting at 1 bar, see section 5 of supplementary material).
Regarding claim 9, modified Mukelabai discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Mukelabai further discloses the catalyst comprises an Fe-based catalyst, an Ru-based catalyst, a ceramic mixed oxide-based catalyst, or a promoted metal catalyst on a reducible or partially reducible mixed oxide support material (iron or ruthenium based catalyst, see p.18553-18554).
Regarding claim 12, modified Mukelabai discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Mukelabai further discloses the ammonia synthesis reactor is adapted to operate at a pressure-times (*)-volume of about 3 MPa*litre or lower (the ammonia synthesis reactor of Mukelabai is considered capable of tolerating the claimed ammonia amount).
Regarding claim 13, modified Mukelabai discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Mukelabai further discloses the ammonia storage unit is connected to or comprises at least one ammonia separation reactor comprising an ammonia separation material (see Fig. 9).
Regarding claim 14, modified Mukelabai discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Rouwenhorst further discloses the ammonia separation material of the ammonia separation reactor is a metal halide (see section 2.6 Ammonia separation & storage).
Regarding claim 15, modified Mukelabai discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Mukelabai further discloses the system includes a recirculation pump that is adapted to pump unreacted H2 and N2 and unabsorbed NH3 back into the ammonia synthesis reactor from the ammonia separator (Fig. 9 shows a recycle loop).
Regarding claim 16, modified Mukelabai discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Further regarding claim 16 reciting the limitation “the system comprises a central system controller and a sensor wherein the central system controller is adapted to receiving that a current power production is either above or below a power production threshold; and transmitting a signal from the central system controller to cause the energy production system to switch to energy storage mode in which the reversible electrochemical cell system operates in electrolysis mode in the event that the power production rate is above the power production threshold; or to cause the energy production system to switch to an energy production mode in which the reversible electrochemical cell system operates in fuel-cell mode in the event that the power production is below the power production threshold”, while features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997). In this case, Mukelabai teaches switching between a fuel cell mode and an electrolytic cell mode (see p.18550, 18553-18554) such that the system of Mukelabai is considered capable of performing the claimed function.
Regarding claim 17, modified Mukelabai discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Mukelabai further discloses the heat transfer system comprising at least one heat exchanger adapted to transfer heat generated by one or more of a unit of the energy production system in order to capture and provide heat to a water-based heating system in a household or a small commercial building (recovery of heat, see p.18548; waste heat recovery, see p.18550; and thus capable of providing heat to an external system).
Regarding claim 18, modified Mukelabai discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Mukelabai further discloses the heat transfer system comprising at least one heat exchangers adapted to transfer heat between at least two separate units of the energy production system (recovery of heat, see p.18548; waste heat recovery, see p.18550).
Regarding claim 19, modified Mukelabai discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Mukelabai further discloses the reversible electrochemical cell system is connected to a heat exchanger in order to capture and provide heat to a water-based heating system in a household or a small commercial building (recovery of heat, see p.18548; waste heat recovery, see p.18550; and thus capable of providing heat to an external system).
Regarding claim 20, modified Mukelabai discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Mukelabai further discloses the system comprises or is connected to an intermittent energy resource (solar PV or wind farm provide electricity during electrolysis mode, see p.18554).
Regarding claim 21, modified Mukelabai discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Mukelabai further discloses the intermittent energy resource is selected from—a solar PV module, a wind turbine, a water turbine, and combinations thereof (solar PV or wind farm provide electricity during electrolysis mode, see p.18554).
Regarding claim 22, modified Mukelabai discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Mukelabai further discloses while the reference does not explicitly disclose the system is a compact system having dimensions of less than 10 cubic meter, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed to change the dimensions of the system, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size (or dimension) of a component. A change in size (dimension) is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, and the device having the claimed dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device, Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
Claim(s) 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mukelabai, Mulako Dean, et al. “A novel integration of a green power-to-ammonia to power system: Reversible solid oxide fuel cell for hydrogen and power production coupled with an ammonia synthesis unit,” International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 46, pages 18546-18556, (2021). in view of Rouwenhorst, Kevin H.R. et al., “Islanded ammonia power systems: Technology review & conceptual process design,” Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 114, 109339, (2019)., as applied to claims 2-9, 12-22 above, and further in view of Muhler et al. (US 2002/0004451A1).
Regarding claim 10, modified Mukelabai discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. However, Mukelabai does not disclose the catalyst is a promoted metal catalyst on a reducible or partially reducible mixed oxide support material.
Muhler discloses a process for catalytic ammonia production comprising catalytically active metal ruthenium, promoted with one or more components selected from the groups of alkali metals, alkaline earth metals and lanthanides, the catalytically active metal being supported by a magnesium oxide material (see Title, Abstract, claim 1).
An obviousness determination is not the result of a rigid formula disassociated from the consideration of the facts of a case. Indeed, the common sense of those skilled in the art demonstrates why some combinations would have been obvious where others would not. Leapfrog Enterprises Inc. v. Fisher-Price Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1687 (Fed. Cir. 2007); see also KSR v. Teleflex, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007).
The claim would have been obvious because a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art.
The claim would have been obvious because “a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If the leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.”
It has been held that choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success is generally within the skill of the art.
Regarding claim 11, modified Mukelabai discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Muhler further discloses the support material is selected from Mg, Ce, La, and a combination thereof (supported by a magnesium oxide material, see Title, Abstract, claim 1).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-7937. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9AM - 5PM.
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, NICOLE BUIE-HATCHER can be reached at (571)270-3879. 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.
/James Lee/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725 9/17/2026
Prosecution Insights