DETAILED ACTION
Claims 24-46 are pending, of which claims 41-46 have been withdrawn.
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
Claims 41-46 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 8/3/26.
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 24-40 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 24 recites the limitation "the hot effluent" in line 29 and the limitation “the fresh feed gas” in line 30. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 35 recites the limitation “the ammonia synthesis converter” and “the converter”. It is unclear if these are the same components as the ammonia converter recited in claim 24. As the specification does not disclose an embodiment with multiple converters, Examiner assumes that each instance is referring to the same converter.
Claim 36 recites “preferably wherein said electric power is a renewable power.” The term “preferably” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation following the phrase is part of the claimed invention.
Claim 37 recites “preferably wherein said water electrolyzer is powered by renewable energy” and “more preferably being solar powered.” The claim is indefinite because it is unclear whether the preferred limitations are part of the claimed invention.
Claim 39 recites that the components are “preferably fired with hydrogen or ammonia”. It is unclear whether the limitation following “preferably” is part of the claimed invention.
Any claim not specifically described above is indefinite due to dependency from indefinite claim 24.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 24-29 and 34-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US20220371905 (“Mulder”).
Regarding claim 24, Mulder teaches an ammonia system comprising an ammonia synthesis section where ammonia is produced from hydrogen and nitrogen and necessarily operates at an ammonia synthesis pressure (see e.g. reactor 120, described in paragraph [0142]), a hydrogen generation section configured to produce gaseous hydrogen (see e.g. electrolyzer 111, described in paragraph [0157]), and a hydrogen storage tank connected to the hydrogen generation section (see e.g. tank 112, described in paragraph [0157]).
Mulder teaches that a compressor feeds hydrogen to the ammonia synthesis section and the total amount of hydrogen is therefore controlled (see e.g. paragraph [0158]). The amount of hydrogen that comes from the hydrogen storage tank will always be within the range of 0-100%. The amount of hydrogen sent to the storage tank is also controlled depending on the availability of renewable resources (see e.g. paragraph [0112]). Mulder teaches controlling the amount of hydrogen that comes from the storage tank and the amount that comes from the hydrogen generation system, which necessarily controls the amount of hydrogen contained in the storage tank, the flow rate of hydrogen delivered to the ammonia synthesis section, and the rate of change in the flow rates over time (see e.g. paragraphs [0114] and [0158]-[0159]).
Mulder teaches that the incoming gases can be heated to about 350°C by heat exchange with the hot effluent, which would keep the system in autothermal operation (see e.g. paragraphs [0055]-[0056]).
Regarding claim 25, the claim does not define the minimum or maximum levels for hydrogen in the hydrogen tank. As such, the broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 25 includes a minimum of no hydrogen and a maximum of a completely filled hydrogen tank. Accordingly, the method of Mulder would necessarily keep the hydrogen level between these two amounts.
Regarding claim 26, Mulder teaches that the amount of hydrogen and nitrogen used are set to achieve a desired ammonia synthesis pressure (see e.g. paragraph [0040]).
Regarding claim 27, Mulder teaches that the amount of hydrogen sent to or from the hydrogen storage tank is controlled based on the output of the hydrogen generation section, with excess hydrogen being routed to the tank (see e.g. paragraph [0114]).
Regarding claim 28, Mulder teaches that the amount of hydrogen in the storage tank is maintained at a set level, such as enough to provide hydrogen at full capacity for one hour (see e.g. paragraph [0114]). As such, the amount of hydrogen directed to the tank would be based on a set point generated as a function of the amount of hydrogen already in the tank. Further, Mulder teaches that the remaining hydrogen is sent to the reactor, which is therefore also based on the amount of hydrogen that is already in the storage tank (Id.).
Regarding claim 29, Mulder teaches that the method is carried out by a controller (see e.g. paragraph [0082] and claim 12). This controller controls all aspects of the method, and is thus a master controller (see e.g. paragraph [0090]). Flow through the system is controlled, and is thus controlled by a slave controller (see e.g. paragraph [0119]). As described, the flow of hydrogen is based in part on the amount of hydrogen available in the hydrogen storage tank, and thus the controller must be sensitive to the amount of hydrogen in the storage tank (see e.g. paragraph [0114]). The flow of hydrogen is controlled using flow regulating valves, and thus, the flow controllers operate the flow regulating valves (see e.g. paragraph [0168]).
Regarding claim 34, Mulder teaches that the hydrogen in the storage tank is used to maintain ammonia generation at or near capacity, which would keep the generating within the claimed range (see e.g. paragraph [0023]).
Regarding claim 35, Mulder teaches that the reactor pressure is controlled based on the amount and pressure of each feed gas fed to the reactor (see e.g. paragraph [0040]).
Regarding claim 36, Mulder teaches that the hydrogen is produced by electrolysis of water using renewable power that is variable over time (see e.g. paragraph [0145]).
Regarding claim 37, Mulder teaches that the hydrogen is produced by electrolysis of water (see e.g. paragraph [0157]).
Regarding claim 38, Mulder states that the system may be connected to the electric grid, which implies that the system need not be connected as renewable power is used (see e.g. paragraph [0137]). Mulder further teaches a backup battery power system during times of low renewable energy (see e.g. paragraph [0113]). The low renewable energy times are times where little or no hydrogen is produced by the electrolyzer (Id.).
Regarding claim 39, Mulder teaches that the backup power is provided by a suitable battery (see e.g. paragraph [0113]).
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.
Claims 30-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mulder.
Regarding claim 30, Mulder teaches that the amount of hydrogen in the storage tank is maintained at a set amount (see e.g. paragraph [0114]). Mulder does not specifically state that the amount is determined using a pressure sensor. However, given that the pressure of a gas in a given volume tank is determined by the amount of the gas in the tank, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use pressure as the means for determining the actual amount of hydrogen in the tank.
Regarding claims 31-32, Mulder teaches regulating the flow of hydrogen to the storage tank and the flow of hydrogen to the ammonia reactor (see e.g. paragraph [0119]). Further, Mulder teaches that valves are used to control flow (see e.g. paragraph [0148]). Although Mulder does not specifically show the valves recited in claim 31, considering that the regulation is taught by Mulder, and the use of valves to regulate flow is taught by Mulder, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use the recited valves in the recited locations.
Regarding claim 33, Mulder teaches that the amount of hydrogen in the storage tank is maintained near a preset level which is enough hydrogen to operate at full capacity for a specified duration, such as one hour (see e.g. paragraph [0114]). Although Mulder does not specify how much of the nominal storage capacity this amount represents, it would have been obvious to have the hydrogen storage tank capable of storing somewhat more than the required amount. Further, it would have been obvious to limit the nominal storage capacity to avoid the need for oversized storage structures. As such, it would have been obvious to have the set hydrogen storage amount to be somewhere between 10-90% of the nominal storage capacity.
Claim 40 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mulder as applied to claim 24 above, and further in view of US 20200141637 (“Turney”).
Regarding claim 40, Mulder teaches the limitations of claim 24 as set out above. Although Mulder does not explicitly describe the method by which nitrogen is obtained, Mulder recognizes that nitrogen for ammonia synthesis is generally provided using an air separation unit (ASU) (see e.g. paragraph [0002]). Mulder is silent as to an ASU operating with a dissipative method wherein excess nitrogen is vented to the atmosphere. However, Turney teaches a similar system generating ammonia from nitrogen and hydrogen (see e.g. paragraph [0002]). Turney teaches that the nitrogen is obtained using an ASU (Id.). Turney further teaches that excess nitrogen is vented to the atmosphere and is thus operated in a dissipative manner (see e.g. paragraph [0104]). Accordingly, prior to the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use an ASU in a dissipative method to obtain the nitrogen necessary for the method of Mulder because Mulder teaches that an ASU can be used and Turney teaches that the ASU vents excess nitrogen to the atmosphere.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC S SHERMAN whose telephone number is (703)756-4784. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30-5:00 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, Anthony Zimmer can be reached at (571)270-3591. 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.
/E.S.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1736
/ANTHONY J ZIMMER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1736
Prosecution Insights