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 1-7 and newly added 14-19) in the reply filed on 08/26/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that Kaboord et al. makes no mention of ammonia produced in the ammonia synthesis is transferred in liquid form. This is not found persuasive because Kaboord et al. expressly teaches desorbed ammonia in the ammonia synthesis can be stored as a compressed gas or liquid (para. [0026]). In response to applicants’ arguments about Kaboord et al not teaching removing ammonia from the storage device and supplying it to a second hydrogen/nitrogen source, Kaboord et al. already teaches removing ammonia from the storage device (item 204 recirculator Fig. 7) and supplying the recirculated gas as second hydrogen/nitrogen sources (Fig. 7). As for splitting stored ammonia as second hydrogen/nitrogen sources, splitting or decomposing stored ammonia as hydrogen/nitrogen sources is well known in the art (for example, see CN113594526 Fig 1).
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 8-10 and 20 are thus withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 08/26/2026.
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.
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 “at higher temperature and under pressure”, such term “higher temperature” and “under pressure” are relative terms which renders the claim indefinite. The term “higher temperature” and “under pressure” are not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, which temperature range can be considered as “higher temperature”, what pressure range can be considered as “under pressure”. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 16 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 16 recites “the hydrogen fraction”, such term appears lack sufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art is uncertain what “the hydrogen fraction” exacting referring to, the first hydrogen/nitrogen fraction, or the second hydrogen/nitrogen fraction? Therefore, such limitation renders claim indefiniteness.
Claim 18 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 18 recites “after compression in a compressor”, but none of claim 1 or its parent claim 1 requires the ammonia synthesis gas being compressed, therefore, such limitation renders claim indefiniteness. If compressing the ammonia synthesis is included in the instant process, the applicant is kindly reminded to include such step in the method.
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.
Claims 1-5, 7 and 14, 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Zhang et al. (CN113451612) (for applicant’s convenience, Machine translation has been sued for citations) in view of Rizzi (WO2022/089820) (for applicant’s convenience, Equivalent document US2023/0331569 has been used for citations).
Zhang et al. teaches a process of producing ammonia using a system comprising an ammonia production section and an ammonia utilization section (para. [n0005]) and such process comprising: providing a hydrogen and nitrogen source (i.e. a first hydrogen/nitrogen fraction) to an ammonia synthesis device 1 (item 4-1, Fig. 1) for synthesizing ammonia, such produced ammonia going through separation in separation device 1 (item 5-1, Fig. 1) and flowing into an ammonia storage tank storing as liquid ammonia (item 12, Fig 1, para. [n0032]), such ammonia can be taken and supplied into an ammonia decomposition device (item 13) to decompose ammonia into nitrogen and hydrogen (para. [n0025]) wherein its nitrogen outlet connected to the ammonia synthesis device 2 (item 4-2), hydrogen connected to hydrogen storage tank and then supplied to ammonia synthesis device 2 as well (Fig. 1, example 1-3, claims 1-8). Zhang et al further teaches using an electronic control device to control the supply of ammonia gas into the solid oxide fuel cell, detect the composition and content of emissions in the exhaust gas and the amount of gas required by the ammonia synthesis unit and the ammonia decomposition unit (para. [n0011], Fig 1).
Regarding claim 1, Zhang et al. does not expressly teach providing a first hydrogen/nitrogen fraction at a time varying flow rate, or the first hydrogen/nitrogen fraction being supplied by a second hydrogen/nitrogen fraction.
Rizzi teaches a synthesis ammonia including a make-up ammonia synthesis gas in ammonia synthesis plant or in green ammonia plant using renewable sources for hydrogen (para.[0005]- [0011]) because such ammonia synthesis expected to experience hydrogen source fluctuation (Fig 1) comprising using a mark-up ammonia synthesis gas feed to an ammonia converter (item 7) , which is then condensed to liquid ammonia (item 13, Fig. 1, para. [0077]-[0091], claim 17-34).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to adopt such make-up ammonia synthesis gas look as shown by Rizzi to modify the ammonia synthesis process of Zhang et al. because by doing so can help provide ammonia synthesis system being operating in response to the load thus help the ammonia reactor in response to the load changes without getting unstable etc. as suggested by Rizzi et al. (para. [0026]-[0032], example 1-2). Since Zhang et al. teaches in the ammonia utilization section, ammonia can be splitting for ammonia synthesis, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to adopt such ammonia splitting obtained hydrogen and nitrogen source as make-up ammonia synthesis to supplement the hydrogen/nitrogen source in the ammonia production section because by using stored ammonia for providing additional hydrogen/nitrogen source is readily available and can help the ammonia system in response to the load changes without getting the system unstable as suggested by Rizzi.
Since Rizzi teaches hydrogen sources can be varied significantly from renewable sources, it is obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to measure the changing hydrogen/nitrogen flow rate in time for understanding the variable flow rate of the hydrogen/nitrogen source for ammonia production thus can help monitor and provide needed make-up flow of ammonia synthesis gas as suggested by Rizzi. Apparently, when the hydrogen/nitrogen fraction being supplemented by a second hydrogen/nitrogen fraction, a make-up ammonia synthesis gas as suggested by Rizzi, the ammonia synthesis need be always supplied to a flow rate which exceeds a predetermined minimum value, so the system can produce desired load of ammonia or at full load.
Regarding claim 2, Zhang et al. does not expressly teach storing liquid ammonia under atmospheric pressure below -33 °C or at higher temperature and under pressure. However, Zhang et al. already teaches storing liquid ammonia, since liquid ammonia having a boiling point of -33.34 ° C under normal (atmospheric) pressure, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to store liquid ammonia under normal pressure below -33.34 ° C to keep it as liquid.
Regarding claim 3, Zhang et al. in view of Rizzi such limitation has been met as discussed above.
Regarding claim 4, Zheng et al. in view of Rizzi does not expressly teaches separating storing the ammonia for formation of second hydrogen/nitrogen as other ammonia being released as product. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to use a buffer tank (different vessel) to store such ammonia for decomposition forming hydrogen and nitrogen stream as compared to ammonia for other usage, such as being transported to other locations for other intended application because storing liquid ammonia in two different tank or vessel only involves routine choices for one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 5, Zhang et al. already teaches decomposing (i.e. cracking) ammonia into cracking gas containing hydrogen and nitrogen and such reaction is an endothermic reaction (Fig. 1, example 1-3). Zhang does not expressly require any catalytic support in the cracking reactor (item 13, Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 7, Zhang et al. further teaches the hydrogen being obtained from water electrolysis in an electrolysis device (item 3, Fig. 1, claim 1-8, example 1-3).
Regarding claim 14, Zhang et al. also teaches nitrogen in the hydrogen/nitrogen fraction for ammonia production section being obtained via air separation (item 2, Fig. 1, claim 2, para. [n0008]). As for the claimed “obtained from a cryogenic air separator”, this is just a product by process limitation, Zhang et al. already teaches a same or substantially the same nitrogen used in the first hydrogen/nitrogen fraction as that of instantly claimed.
Regarding claim 18, Zhang et al does not expressly teach compress the ammonia synthesis gas at a pressure between 100 and 200 bars.
Rizzi further teaches a make-up ammonia synthesis can be compressed in a compressor (item 3) before being fed into ammonia converter (Fig. 1, para. [0077]), ammonia converter pressure can be 138.5 and 226 bar (example 1-2, para[0089]). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to compressor the ammonia synthesis gas into such pressure range between 138.5 and 226 bar as shown by Rizzi for desired ammonia synthesis. Furthermore, adopting such well-known compressor to compress ammonia synthesis to such well-known pressure range to modify the ammonia synthesis for improvement would have predictable results (see MPEP §2143 KSR).
Claims 6 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Zhang et al. (CN113451612) (for applicant’s convenience, Machine translation has been sued for citations) in view of Rizzi (WO2022/089820) (for applicant’s convenience, Equivalent document US2023/0331569 has been used for citations) as applied above, and further in view of Russell (US2023/0174375).
Regarding claim 6 and 17, Zhang et al in view of Rizzi does not expressly teach using ammonia cracked gas to preheat the ammonia supplied to the cracking reactor or cracking reaction temperature being between 500 and 1000 °C.
Russell teaches ammonia decomposed into nitrogen and hydrogen in a cracking zone (i.e. a cracking reactor) (item 110, Fig. 1) and the effluent stream (item 120, Fig. 1) from the cracking reactor comprising a mixture of nitrogen and hydrogen, wherein such effluent stream usually has a temperature of 700-1000 °C is heat exchanged with ammonia feed stream (item 105, Fig. 1, para. [0025]-[0027]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to adopt such high temperature ammonia cracking gas to preheat the ammonia feed stream for preserving energy.
Since Russell teaches the cracking gas from the cracking reactor having temperature 700-1000 °, which means the cracking reaction happening around such temperature range, therefore Russell disclosed cracking temperature overlapping with that of instantly claimed thus renders a prima facie case of obviousness (see MPEP §2144. 05 I). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to adopt such well-known cracking temperature as shown by Russell to practice the ammonia decomposition/cracking process of Zhang et al in view of Rizzi because adopting such well-known technique of cracking temperature range to modify a well-known ammonia cracking process for improvement would have predictable results (see MPEP §2143 KSR).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Zhang et al. (CN113451612) (for applicant’s convenience, Machine translation has been sued for citations) in view of Rizzi (WO2022/089820) (for applicant’s convenience, Equivalent document US2023/0331569 has been used for citations) as applied above, and further in view of Li (CN216837136U) (for applicant’s convenience, Machine translation has been sued for citations).
Regarding claim 16, Zhang et al in view of Rizzi does not expressly teach using a dryer station to remove the water from the cracked gas.
Li teaches after ammonia decomposition, hydrogen containing gas stream can be passed through a drying and purifying unit (item 10, Fig. 1-3) to remove water contained in the decomposed gas stream (claim 1-4, para. [n0005], [n0010], [n0014],[n0019]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to adopt such well-known dryer station to dry the cracked gas ( i.e. drying the cracked gas) as shown by Li to modify the ammonia producing process of Zhang et al in view of Rizzi because adopting such well-known dryer station to remove water from the cracked ammonia gas stream comprising hydrogen to modify an ammonia feed stream in a well-known ammonia producing process for improvement would have predictable results (see MPEP §2143 KSR).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Zhang et al. (CN113451612) (for applicant’s convenience, Machine translation has been sued for citations) in view of Rizzi (WO2022/089820) (for applicant’s convenience, Equivalent document US2023/0331569 has been used for citations) and Russell (US2023/0174375) as applied above, and further in view of Li (CN216837136U) (for applicant’s convenience, Machine translation has been sued for citations).
Regarding claim 15, Zhang et al in view of Rizzi and Russell does not expressly teach using a dryer station to remove the water from the cracked gas.
Li has been described as above.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to adopt such well-known dryer station to dry the cracked gas ( i.e. drying the cracked gas) as shown by Li to modify the ammonia producing process of Zhang et al in view of Rizzi and Russell because adopting such well-known dryer station to remove water from the cracked ammonia gas stream comprising hydrogen to modify an ammonia feed stream in a well-known ammonia producing process for improvement would have predictable results (see MPEP §2143 KSR).
Claim 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Zhang et al. (CN113451612) (for applicant’s convenience, Machine translation has been sued for citations) in view of Rizzi (WO2022/089820) (for applicant’s convenience, Equivalent document US2023/0331569 has been used for citations) as applied above, and further in view of Reinertsen (US2023/0119784).
Regarding claim 19, Zhang in view of Rizzi does not expressly teach synthesis gas being converted into a gas mixture containing ammonia under temperature of 400-450 °C with catalytic support.
Reinertsen teaches the ammonia synthesis loop is also known as Haber-Bosch synthesis (using nitrogen and hydrogen gas producing ammonia gas), and the reaction is run over a catalyst, wherein the reaction pressure is in the range 60-200 bar depending on process design, while reaction temperature is 450 °C (para. [0094]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to adopt such reaction temperature and pressure with catalytic support as shown by Reinertsen to modify the ammonia synthesis process of Zhang in view of Rizzi because adopting such well-known reaction temperature, pressure with catalytic support for modifying a well-known ammonia synthesis process for improvement would have predictable results (see MPEP §2143 KSR).
Regarding claim 18, in arguendo about Zhang in view of Rizzi not expressly teach the ammonia synthesis being compressed to 100 to 200 bar pressure range. Reinertsen already teaches ammonia synthesis being performed under pressure of 60-200 bar, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to compress the ammonia synthesis gas for such desired ammonia conversion pressure.
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