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 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 13-14 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 13 recites the limitations "the predetermined value" and "the dilutant gas" in lines 5-6 and 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 14 is rejected due to dependency.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Harano (US 20180202053 A1).
In regards to claim(s) 1, Harano discloses a method of operating an electrolyzer (Fig. 2; 22) by providing a power supply (rectifier 21), providing a reactant flow stream (55) to an inlet (fed by pump 26) of the electrolyzer and operating the electrolyzer to split the reactant into one or more product flow streams (51/52), determining the magnitude of the power supply (electrical power supply sensor 43; [0064]), and introducing a dilutant gas flow stream (N2 also inert) in the reactant flow stream (valve 72v feeds to the circulation tank) before the electrolyzer if the magnitude of the power supply is less than or equal to a predetermined value (sensor 43 signals control device 41, which commences shutdown and opens nitrogen gas valves, [0064]-[0065]).
In regards to claim(s) 2, Harano discloses N2 (Fig. 2).
In regards to claim(s) 3, Harano discloses reactant flows to both sides of the electrolyzer (Fig. 2) and that N2 gas is provided via valve 72v as explained in claim 1.
In regards to claim(s) 6, Harano discloses N2 (Fig. 2) and the reactant is water (pure water tank W).
In regards to claim(s) 8, Harano discloses N2 is fed via 72v and 74v (Fig. 2) and thus a product flow of H2/N2 will be present at 51.
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.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harano in view of Naito (US 20140079593 A1).
In regards to claim(s) 12, Harano does not disclose using a current supplied to the electrolyzer to estimate the amount of hydrogen produced by the electrolyzer.
Naito pertain to hydrogen electrolysis ([0003]) and is therefore in the same field of endeavor as Harano. Naito discloses a current meter for detecting an electrical current amount supplied to the hydrogen production device 4 ([0062]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Harano with Naito’s current meter in order to have “the later-described computation processing device 11 estimates (computes) a hydrogen amount produced by the hydrogen production device 4, based on these detected values, and the control device 6 controls the amount of unsaturated hydrocarbon to be supplied to the hydrogenation device 5, based on the estimated hydrogen amount.” (Naito, [0064]). In other words, having a hydrogen estimate amount would be useful for any downstream hydrogen use process.
Claim(s) 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawasaki (US 20190092645 A1) as submitted on Applicant's Information Disclosure Statement filed 28 December 2023 in view of Harano, and in further view of Heid (US 20170145915 A1).
In regards to claim(s) 15, Kawasaki discloses (Figs. 10-11):
A system for producing ammonia (liquid ammonia), the system comprising:
an electrolyser configured to split water into a hydrogen product stream ([0064] and [0091] indicate that hydrogen is generated at cathode) and an oxygen product stream (oxygen gas) in use, wherein the electrolyser comprises
In Fig. 11 of Kawasaki, water is fed on the cathode side along with nitrogen supply pipe. So, Kawasaki does not disclose showing nitrogen and water fed by the same pipe. Kawasaki does not disclose feeding water to each side of the electrolyzer at the same time. Kawasaki does not disclose a nitrogen control valve.
Hasano pertains to electrolyzers (abstract) and is therefore in the same field of endeavor as Kawasaki. Hasano discloses feeding water on both sides (reactant flow stream (55) to an inlet (fed by pump 26) of the electrolyzer; Fig. 2). Hasano discloses that nitrogen and water can both fed to an inlet (via valve 72v). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the single water feed of Kawasaki with the dual feed of Hasano because the substituted components were known, their functions were known in the art (providing water reactant to an electrolyzer), one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one known component for another and that the results of the substitution would have been predictable. See MPEP 2143 I (B). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the separate water feed and nitrogen feed of Kawasaki with the combined water and nitrogen feed of Hasano because the substituted components were known, their functions were known in the art (providing water and nitrogen to an electrolyzer), one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one known component for another and that the results of the substitution would have been predictable. See MPEP 2143 I (B).
Heid pertains to ammonia production via electrolyzer (abstract; [0025]) and is therefore in the same field of endeavor as Kawasaki. Heid discloses changing the amount of production of NH3 by changing the gas mass flow by the electrolyzer 21 and ASU 22 ([0074]). While Heid does not disclose a valve on the ASU to control the amount of N2, Heid does discloses that valves are used to control the flow rate of oxygen ([0072]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Kawasaki in view of Hasano with Heid’s control unit 60 in order to match the energy demands from the energy grid 300 (Heid, [0074]). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Heid’s ASU 22 mass flow rate control with a flow valve because all claimed elements were known, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately (“flow control”) and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. See MPEP 2143 I (A).
In regards to claim(s) 16, Kawasaki does not disclose a second nitrogen supply pipe to connect the nitrogen supply apparatus (nitrogen PSA) to the feed stock inlet.
Heid discloses wherein the nitrogen product (5) from the ASU (22) is fed to the ammonia reaction chamber (41; [0061]; Fig. 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kawasaki’s feed inlet with feeds from both a nitrogen source directly and from the electrolyzer because all claimed elements were known, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately (providing nitrogen feedstock) and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. See MPEP 2143 I (A).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-5, 7, 9-11 and 17 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Claims 13-14 are not rejected by prior art.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: In regards to claim(s) 4, prior art does not disclose, teach or suggest a method of operating an electrolyzer comprising feeding a second gas flow stream different than the dilutant gas in the context of instantly claimed combination. Claim 17 defines over the prior art for the same reasons. Applicant’s invention is to operate a water electrolyzer under different power regimes in order to optimize the use of the water electrolyzer under lower power conditions and protect the water electrolyzer from hydrogen cross-over. Applicant’s lower power regime (below the first predetermined value) would cause a dilutant gas to flow, along with hydrogen produced, to feed an ammonia process, while the higher regime would produce hydrogen alone. Applicant’s instant claim 9 further recognizes the safety of the system and shuts it down when it reaches a second, lower predetermined value. Thomassen (US 20210147986 A1) discloses an alternative arrangement to protect an electrolyzer from hydrogen crossover (humidified air to the anode with a thin membrane; [0052]), but does not disclose adding nitrogen to the cathode side. Lopez (Lopez et al., “Dynamic operation of water electrolyzers: A review for applications in photovoltaic systems integration,” Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 182 (2023) 113407; pp. 1-15) provides a review of dynamic operation of water electrolyzers, but does not qualify as prior art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS A SMITH whose telephone number is (571)272-8760. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30am-3:30pm.
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, Srilakshmi Kumar can be reached at (571)272-7769. 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.
/NICHOLAS A SMITH/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1752
Prosecution Insights