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 with traverse of group I invention (claim 1-12) in the reply filed on 07/16/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that unity exist both group of inventions require the process of obtaining hydrogen of group I. This is not found persuasive because 37 CFR 1.45 expressly states “Where a group of inventions is claimed in an application, the requirement of unity of invention shall be fulfilled only when there is a technical relationship among those inventions involving”. In this case, both group I recited process and group II invention recited apparatus require an evaporation apparatus, a reforming reactor, one burner or combustion device, a membrane separator, at least two different heat exchangers, and means for introducing fluids (e.g. methanol, ammonia) or discharging fluids (evaporated methanol/ammonia) on the evaporation apparatus, on the reforming reactor, on the membrane apparatus, on the burner, on the heat exchangers. Therefore, the recited apparatus is the special technical feature, but such technical feature does not make a contribution over the prior art as explained in previous office action. Furthermore, applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out why such recited apparatus is not a shared technical feature between two inventions, rather asserts the process of obtaining hydrogen of group I being the technical relationship. Hence, such arguments are not found convincing.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 13 and 14 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 07/16/2026.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 02/12/2024 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
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.
Claim 1, 7-8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Wang et al. (CN112209341) (for applicant’s convenience, Machine translation has been provided hereof for citations) in view of Shi (CN106898794) (for applicant’s convenience, Machine translation has been provided hereof for citations) and Emonts et al. (Fuel cell drive system with hydrogen generation in test, Journal of Power Sources 86 (2000), page 228–236).
Wang et al. teaches a process of producing hydrogen from methanol comprising mixing desalinated water and methanol in a raw material tank, after the temperature regulating unit (item 12 Fig. 1) is heated, reforming methanol in a reformer reactor (item 11 Fig 1) to produce a hydrogen-rich gas, then separating the hydrogen-rich in a palladium membrane purification device (item 20, Fig. 1) --downstream of the reformer to purify hydrogen-rich gas thus obtaining a purified hydrogen gas and a residual gas ( i.e. a retentate) is mixed with air and introduced into a burner (item 30 Fig. 1) for combustion, wherein the combustion gas are routed via at least two different heat exchangers to provide heat in the flow direction of combustion gas, (i) first the reaction heat for reforming methanol, (ii) superheating the raw material of methanol and water (to reform reaction temperature of 400-410°C(under such temperature both methanol and water are vaporized) (claim 7-10, Fig. 1, description page 3 line 6-page 4 last line). Wang et al. also teaches the raw material being preheated in a preheater (item 120), then superheated in a heater (item 121) before entering the reformer, wherein such raw material temperature is controlled (Fig. 1, claim 8, page 4 lines 36), and the purification temperature range in the palladium membrane purification device is 380-420°C and the reaction temperature in the reforming reactor is controlled to be 400-410°C (claim 10, page 4 lines 3-8).
Since Wang et al. already teaches raw material (methanol and water) being preheated and super heated before entering the reforming reactor which has a reaction temperature range of 400-410°C, reforming reactor being controlled not exceeding palladium purification membrane unit purification temperature range of 380-420°C, since reformed product from the reformer reactor is used for heating up the purification unit being supplied besides the reformed product, therefore, the temperature range of the purification process is no more than its own variation, which is 30°C (420°C -380°C). One of ordinary skill in the art would also expect to that raw material for reforming reactor being heated to temperature around 400-410°C, and the permeate from purification temperature range of 380-420°C will lead to a permeate having such temperature range.
Regarding claim 1, Wang et al. does not expressly teach temperature difference (a) outgoing permeate and incoming ambient air temperature and (b) the outgoing combustion gas and the incoming methanol being between 1 and 200 °C.
Shi also teaches air being mixed with methanol, then heat exchanged via heat exchanger I (item 3, Fig. 1), heat exchanger II (item 4) wherein heat is changed to a range of 320-400 °C before it reaches 380 °C of reforming temperature (description page 2 lines 35- last lines, page 3 lines 14-48). Shi also teaches a second output (output for tailgas, a first output for delivering hydrogen into a buffer tank) goes into the input of the burner for combustion (Fig. 1, page 3 lines 14-48).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to adopt a temperature of 320-400 °C to heat the incoming methanol as suggested by Shi to modify the hydrogen producing process of Wang et al. because by doing so can help heat up methanol to desired reforming temperature as suggested by Shi (Fig. 1, page 3 lines 14-48). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to adopt such temperature range for incoming methanol before entering reforming reactor because adopting such well-known incoming methanol temperature to modify a burner for combustion in a hydrogen producing method for improvement would have predictable results (see MPEP §2143 KSR).
Emonts et al. also teaches a hydrogen producing method including use burners to supply energy wherein the burner temperature need be less than 650 °C, and reach equilibrium temperature around 433°C and exhaust gas having an equilibrium temperature of 183°C (Fig. 1, page 232 section 3.2 -page 233 first para.)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to adopt a temperature of less than 650 °C, or such as combustion equilibrium temperature of 433°C as shown by Emonts et al. to heat the incoming ambient air for need combustion because adopting such well-known combustion temperature to provide desired incoming ambient air for combustion in a hydrogen producing method for improvement would have predictable results (see MPEP §2143 KSR).
Since Wang already teaches purification membrane unit purification temperature range of 380-420°C, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to expect that outgoing permeate temperature from such separation unit will be in a similar temperature range of 380-420°C. Shi teaches incoming methanol temperature range being 320-400 °C and Emonts et al. already teaches incoming ambient air to a burner being less than 650 °C, such as being 433°C while outgoing exhaust gas temperature being about 183 °C, therefore, the temperature difference between outgoing permeate and the incoming ambient air overlaps with that of instantly claimed 1-200 °C, while the temperature difference between the outgoing combustion gas and incoming methanol can overlap with that of instantly claimed 1-200 °C as well, thus renders a prima facie case of obviousness (see MPEP 2144. 05 I). Regarding claim 7, Wang et al. already teaches the purification temperature being from 380-420°C wherein a 40 °C temperature difference with such step is expected.
Regarding claim 8, Wang et al. already teaches such limitations as discussed above.
Regarding claim 10, Wang et al. also teaches the burner is supplied with methanol as well with retentate from the membrane (Fig. 1, description page 3 line 25 -page 4 line 20).
Claim 2, 9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Wang et al. (CN112209341) (for applicant’s convenience, Machine translation has been provided hereof for citations) in view of Shi (CN106898794) (for applicant’s convenience, Machine translation has been provided hereof for citations) and Emonts et al. (Fuel cell drive system with hydrogen generation in test, Journal of Power Sources 86 (2000), page 228–236) as applied above, and further in view of Autenrieth (US6294149).
Wang et al further teaches the burner (item 30, Fig. 1), the reforming reactor (item 11) and the superheater (item 121) have a cyclically flowing intermediate heat exchange working medium, and in practical applications, the intermediate heat exchange working medium is subjected to heat exchange between the burner, the reforming reactor and the superheater 121 in a manner of natural circulation or forced circulation wherein the recovered heat is fully utilized through the intermediate heat exchange working medium (description page 3 last para.-page 4 fourth para.). Wang et al. also teaches additional methanol can be supplied into burner for needed heating demand to heat up methanol (description page 4 fourth para.). Therefore, Wang teaches combustion gas being routed and heat exchanged to heat reaction in reformer, and being routed and heat exchanged with superheater to vaporize fuel of methanol, wherein Wang et al. already teaches using three different heat exchangers for adopting combustion gas heat, preheater (item 120), a superheater (item 121) and flowing heat medium as discussed above.
Regarding claim 2, Wang et al. in view of Shi and Emonts et al does not expressly teach combustion gas being routed to and heat reformate.
Autenrieth teaches a reforming methanol process of producing hydrogen comprising an evaporator, a reformer, hydrogen separation and series burners (Fig. 1, col. 4 line 66-col. 5 line 55), wherein exhaust gas from a burner can be used to heat up the reformate gas out of the reactor 1 through first heat conduiting partition (Fig. 1 has been reproduced as following).
PNG
media_image1.png
273
564
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to adopt such well-known heat exchanger to recover energy from combustion gas to heat reformate gas on the direction of flow as well as to use combustion gas heat up the reformer and to heat up the evaporator as shown by Autenrieth because adopting such well-known technique for recovering combustion gas to heat reformate gas for membrane separation temperature would have predictable results. Futhermore, adopting such well-known adopting a heat exchanger to recovery combustion gas heat to heat up reformate gas before membrane separation is economically advantage for one of ordinary skill in the art (see MPEP §2143 KSR).
Regarding claim 9, Autenrieth teaches such limitation as discussed above.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to adopt a second burner to heat up the combustion gas for providing desired energy between the reformate heat exchanger and the evaporator exchanger as shown by Autenrieth because adopting a second burner for providing intermediate heating for combustion gas to modify a hydrogen producing process for improvement would have predictable results (see MPEP §2143 KSR).
Regarding claim 11, Wang et al. already teaches using three different heaters of utilizing combustion gas to preheat methanol, to heat reformer, to heat up evaporator. While Autenrieth teaches combustion heat with three different heating conduction partition (heat exchangers) to heat up reformate gas, reformer and evaporator. Therefore, adopting four different heat exchangers first to heat exchange combustion gas with the reformate (a hydrogen containing gas) gas, to heat up reformer, to heat up evaporator for evaporating the reformer feed, to preheat methanol only involves routine skill for one of ordinary skill in the art for such process with desired heat recovery and maximum energy efficiency generated from burners.
Claim 3, 5 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Wang et al. (CN112209341) (for applicant’s convenience, Machine translation has been provided hereof for citations) in view of Shi (CN106898794) (for applicant’s convenience, Machine translation has been provided hereof for citations) Emonts et al. (Fuel cell drive system with hydrogen generation in test, Journal of Power Sources 86 (2000), page 228–236) and Autenrieth (US6294149) as applied above, and further in view of Powell (US7811529).
Regarding claim 12, Wang et al. in view of Shi, Emonts et al and Autenrieth does not expressly teach the fuel being ammonia.
Powell teaches a hydrogen producing method can either using ammonia as fuel supply or using methanol etc. hydrocarbon as supply (col. 4 lines 25-30, Fig. 1-2).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to adopt ammonia as fuel because adopting such well-known fuel for modifying a well-known hydrogen producing method for improvement would have predictable results (see MPEP §2143 KSR). Since Wang et al. Autenrieth already teaches the combustion gas can be used to heat up the reformer wherein vaporous fuel being heated up, for heating up evaporator and for evaporating fuel, therefore, the limitations of three different heat exchangers as that of recited in claim 12 just results naturally flowing from the applied references’ teachings.
Regarding claim 5, Powell further teaches air can be supplied via an air injector pump (col 12 lines 20-24), wherein such air injector pump is a jet pump.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to adopt such well-known air injector pump as shown by Powell to modify the air supply step of hydrogen producing method of Wang et al. in view of Shi, Emonts et al and Autenrieth because adopting such well-known technique to modify a well-known hydrogen producing process for improvements would have predictable results (see MPEP §2143 KSR).
Regarding claim 3, Powell further teaches the conversion efficiency of fuel to hydrogen being 80% or 95% (col. 14 line 8 -14, table I).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to adopt such conversion rate as shown by Powell to modify the hydrogen producing process of Wang et al. in view of Shi, Emonts et al and Autenrieth because by doing so can help convert majority of fuel to hydrogen thus increase the efficiency of the hydrogen producing process as suggested by Powell (col. 14 lines 8-14).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Wang et al. (CN112209341) (for applicant’s convenience, Machine translation has been provided hereof for citations) in view of Shi (CN106898794) (for applicant’s convenience, Machine translation has been provided hereof for citations) and Emonts et al. (Fuel cell drive system with hydrogen generation in test, Journal of Power Sources 86 (2000), page 228–236) as applied above, and further in view of Xiang (US2017/0183226).
Regarding claim 4, Wang et al in view of Shi and Emonts et al. does not expressly teach the methanol being routed in the exterior chamber of the heat exchanger while combustion gas routed through tubes of the heat exchanger.
However, a shell-tube heat exchanger for heat exchanging is well known in the art. Xiang teaches low temperature methanol and water feed stock heat exchange with high temperature hydrogen (Fig. 1-3, para. [0040]) wherein heat exchange tubes (item 2) round a shell of a reformer (high temperature).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to adopt such well-known shell and tube heat exchanger as shown by Xiang to modify the heat exchanger for heat exchanging between feedstock and combustion gas of Wang et al in view of Shi and Emonts et al. because adopting such known technique of shell and tube heat exchange to adopt heat from hot combustion gas flowing inside the tube to heat up feedstock in exterior of the chamber ( i.e. exterior chamber of the heat exchanger ) to provide evaporated feedstock for reforming would have predictable results(see MPEP §2143 KSR).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim 1, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
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