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 I invention (claim 1-11) in the reply filed on 08/20/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 12-20 are thus withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 08/20/2026.
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 1-11 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. In this case, claim 1 recites “a combined gas comprising the offgas”, one ordinary skill in the art is uncertain what other gas beside the offgas being included in such recited “a combined gas comprising the offgas”, therefore, such limitation renders claim indefiniteness. All claim 1’s depending claims are rejected for similar reasons.
Claim 2 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. In this case, claim 2 recites “a liquid ammonia derived therefrom”, one of ordinary skill in the art is uncertain what is relationship between or how such recited “a liquid ammonia derived therefrom” as compared to previously recited “at least a portion of the recovered liquid ammonia”, such “a liquid ammonia derived therefrom” having changed ammonia content changes or not, such as whether other components, e.g. water being added to the recovered liquid ammonia or not. Therefore, such limitation of “a liquid ammonia derived therefrom” renders claim indefiniteness.
Claim 3 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. In this case, claim 3 recites “e.g., in a TSA process”, the phrase " e.g., in a TSA process " renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Next, claim 3 recited abbreviated name “TSA” lacks complete and clear description, one of ordinary skill in the art is uncertain what is “TSA” actually represent. Thirdly, claim 3 recites “cold” process fluids, wherein the term --“cold” process fluids is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term-- “cold” process fluids is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree ( e.g. like what temperature range of process fluids can be considered as “cold” process fluids) and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. In other words, one of ordinary skill in the art is uncertain what temperature basis such “cold” process fluids being based on since the recited compressed offgas does not have a definite temperature range associated with.
Claim 4 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. In this case, claim 4 recites “reducing the pressure of the recovered liquid ammonia”, there is no pressure associated with recovered liquid ammonia as recited in its parent claim 1, and one of ordinary skill in the art is uncertain under what basis such recovered liquid ammonia pressure being reduced, nor one of ordinary skill in the art certain what pressure range of recovered liquid ammonia can be considered as claim 4 later-on recited “reduced pressure liquid ammonia”. Therefore, such limitations render claim indefiniteness.
Claim 5 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. In this case, claim 5 recites “cold” process fluids, wherein the term --“cold” process fluids is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term-- “cold” process fluids is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. In other words, one of ordinary skill in the art is uncertain what temperature basis such “cold” process fluids being based on since the recited “ammonia lean-offgas” or “an ammonia free offgas” does not have a definite temperature range associated with. Next, claim 5 recites “reducing the pressure of the partially condensed fluid”, there is no pressure associated with such recited “the partially condensed fluid”, and one of ordinary skill in the art is uncertain under what pressure basis such partially condensed fluid pressure being reduced. Therefore, such limitations render claim indefiniteness.
Claim 6 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. In this case, claim 6 recites “a trace amount of ammonia”, such term of “a trace amount of ammonia” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. This term is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, what can be considered as “a trace amount of ammonia” and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Next, claim 6 recites “e.g., in a TSA process”, the phrase " e.g., in a TSA process " renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Next, claim 6 recited abbreviated name “TSA” lack complete and clear description, one of ordinary skill in the art is uncertain what “TSA” actually represents.
Claim 7 and 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. In this case, claim 7 and 8 respectively recite “a regeneration outlet gas derived therefrom”, one of ordinary skill in the art is uncertain what is the exact deriving approach between such recited “a regeneration outlet gas derived from therefrom” as compared to previously recited “the hydrogen rich gas”, or what is the exact difference between these two, such as hydrogen concentration difference or components difference. Hence, one of ordinary skill in the art cannot ascertain the metes and bounds of such claimed limitation. Claim 8 recites “warmed hydrogen-rich gas”, one of ordinary skill in the art is uncertain what temperature range of hydrogen-rich gas can be considered as “warmed hydrogen-rich gas”, wherein “warmed hydrogen-rich gas” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “warmed hydrogen-rich gas” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, like what temperature range or based on what temperature basis, a hydrogen-rich gas can be considered as “warmed hydrogen-rich gas”, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 9 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. In this case, claim 9 recites “a nitrogen-enriched liquid derived therefrom”, one of ordinary skill in the art is uncertain what is the exact relationship between such claimed “a nitrogen-enriched liquid derived therefrom”, as compared to previously recited “at least a portion of the nitrogen-rich liquid”, such as nitrogen concentration difference/change or components changes between the derived nitrogen-enriched liquid as compared to the nitrogen-rich liquid, therefore, such limitations render claim indefiniteness.
Claim 10 and 11 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. In this case, claim 10 recites “reducing the pressure of at least a portion of the nitrogen-rich liquid”, there is no pressure associated with such recited “at least a portion of the nitrogen-rich liquid”, and one of ordinary skill in the art is uncertain under what pressure basis such at least a portion of the nitrogen-rich liquid pressure being reduced. Next, claim 10 also recites “reduced pressure nitrogen-enriched liquid”, one of ordinary skill in the art is uncertain such “reduced pressure nitrogen-enriched liquid” is based on what pressure basis/standard. Therefore, such limitations render claim indefiniteness. Claim 10’s depending claim 11 are rejected for similar reasons as well. Furthermore, claim 11 recites “warmed hydrogen-enriched flash gas”, wherein “warmed hydrogen-enriched flash gas” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “warmed hydrogen-enriched flash gas” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, like what temperature range or based on what temperature basis, a hydrogen-enriched flash gas can be considered as “warmed hydrogen-enriched flash gas”, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Next, claim 11 recites “a reduced pressure hydrogen-enriched flash gas derived therefrom”, one of ordinary skill in the art is uncertain what is the exact relationship between such recited “a reduced pressure hydrogen-enriched flash gas derived therefrom” as compared to previously recited “the hydrogen-enriched flash gas”, such as what’s the hydrogen concentration difference, or how can “the hydrogen-enriched flash gas” pressure or how much of “the hydrogen-enriched flash gas” being reduced since the claim does not even require such “the hydrogen-enriched flash gas” having a pressure range. Thirdly, claim 11 recites “at an appropriate point”, one of ordinary skill in the art is uncertain what is “an appropriate point” in the recited compression system. Fourthly, claim 11 recites “the compression system”, such limitation appears lacking sufficient antecedent basis in the claim.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. For example, White to WO2011/265648 (also published as US2021/00279053) teaches a process of cracking ammonia comprising using condensation and phase separator to recover residual ammonia as liquid ammonia (para [0024], [0092], [0094]). Zhang to (CN115784148) teaches an ammonia cracking process comprising using gas-liquid separator to separate the cooled crack gas, wherein liquid ammonia accumulated at the bottom of the gas-liquid separator under the pressure difference action or pump action periodically discharging return liquid ammonia into raw material of ammonia.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUN LI whose telephone number is (571)270-5858. The examiner can normally be reached IFP.
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, Ching-Yiu (Coris) Fung can be reached at 571-270-5713. 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.
/JUN LI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1732
Prosecution Insights