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 Objections
Claims 1-14 objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1 recites both “means for maintaining” and “maintenance means” and while they are understood to be the same limitation should be recited in the same way for the sake of clarity. Claims 5-6 are objected to for the same reason.
Claim 6, line 3 the word “catalytic” should be placed before reactor.
Claims 2-4, 7-14 are objected to as being dependent upon an objected to claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
Information Disclosure Statement
The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
The listing of references in the PCT international search report is not considered to be an information disclosure statement (IDS) complying with 37 CFR 1.98. 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2) requires a legible copy of: (1) each foreign patent; (2) each publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; (3) for each cited pending U.S. application, the application specification including claims, and any drawing of the application, or that portion of the application which caused it to be listed including any claims directed to that portion, unless the cited pending U.S. application is stored in the Image File Wrapper (IFW) system; and (4) all other information, or that portion which caused it to be listed. In addition, each IDS must include a list of all patents, publications, applications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office (see 37 CFR 1.98(a)(1) and (b)), and MPEP § 609.04(a), subsection I. states, “the list ... must be submitted on a separate paper.” Therefore, the references cited in the international search report have not been considered. Applicant is advised that the date of submission of any item of information in the international search report will be the date of submission of the IDS for purposes of determining compliance with the requirements for the IDS with 37 CFR 1.97, including all timing statement requirements of 37 CFR 1.97(e). See MPEP § 609.05(a).
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 1-15 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 1 recites “means for maintaining an internal composition of the dihydrogen refrigerant at a ratio of parahydrogen to orthohydrogen that is lower or higher than the ratio corresponding to a natural equilibrium composition” which is considered indefinite. A reactor as claimed would provide a conversion at the point of the reactor as well as downstream of the reactor to change the ratio present; however, as it is a loop with heating and cooling it is unclear if this means that the catalytic reactor is required to somehow maintain the entire loop in a non-natural configuration and how it would do so. Further, there is no single equilibrium composition in the loop, as the equilibrium composition is constantly changing during heating and cooling. For the purpose of examination, as long as the catalytic reactor is present to provide the conversion the limitation is met as it would change the ratio to some of the hydrogen.
Claim 13 recites “a storage tank for the liquid dihydrogen refrigerant” which is considered indefinite as there is no previously recited or claimed “liquid dihydrogen refrigerant” and as such lacks antecedent basis in the claims. For the purpose of examination, this limitation is interpreted that there is a storage tank for liquid dihydrogen refrigerant on the circuit.
The term “ambient” in claim 13 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “ambient” 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. For the purpose of examination, as long as the stream being compressed is on the warm side of the heat exchange system the limitation is met.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 14 recites the broad recitation iron oxides family, and the claim also recites preferably Fe2O3 which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. For the purpose of examination, only the broader limitation is considered limiting.
Claim 15 recites in line 6 “the conveying step”; however, claim 15 has already recited two steps of conveying so it is unclear which recitation it refers to. For the purpose of examination, this limitation is understood to refer to the second recitation of “step of conveying”
Claim 15 recites “this maintenance means” which is indefinite as it lacks antecedent basis in the claims and no maintenance means is previously recited. For the purpose of examination, this limitation is understood to refer to the step of maintaining.
Claim 15 recites “a step of maintaining an internal composition of the dihydrogen refrigerant at a ratio of parahydrogen to orthohydrogen that is lower or higher than the ratio corresponding to a natural equilibrium composition” which is considered indefinite. A catalytic reaction step as claimed would provide a conversion at the point of the reactor as well as downstream of the reactor to change the ratio present; however, as it is a loop with heating and cooling it is unclear if this means that the catalytic reactor is required to somehow maintain the entire loop in a non-natural configuration and how it would do so. Further, there is no single equilibrium composition in the loop, as the equilibrium composition is constantly changing during heating and cooling. For the purpose of examination, as long as the catalytic reactor is present to provide the conversion the limitation is met as it would change the ratio to some of the hydrogen.
Claim 15 recites “it” in line 1 which is indefinite as it is unclear what “it” refers to. The limitation is understood in that the method comprises the steps listed.
Claims 2-12 are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected claim.
Claim Interpretation
“Hot branch” in claim 3 is understood to refer to a portion of the circuit in which the fluid is being heated.
“Cold branch” in claim 12 is understood to refer to a portion of the circuit in which the refrigerant is being heated.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: means for maintaining and maintenance means in claim 1 are not considered to invoke 35 USC 112(f) as the structure of catalytic reactor is provided.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4, 7-9, 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Skinner (US PG Pub 20230332833), hereinafter referred to as Skinner and further in view of Beddome (US Patent No. 3992167), hereinafter referred to as Beddome.
With respect to claim 1, Skinner (Drawing 3/3) teaches a device for liquefying a gas, which device comprises: a circuit for conveying gas to be liquefied (hydrogen feed gas enters at 1 and leaves as liquid hydrogen at 7 via multiple heat exchangers paragraphs 21-29), the circuit comprising at least one heat exchanger for exchanging heat between the gas to be liquefied and a refrigerant flow comprising at least dihydrogen refrigerant (the circuit is the pathway from 1 to 7 and includes multiple heat exchangers including C which exchanges heat between the feed gas in 4 and a hydrogen refrigerant, paragraph 26 which is against a refrigerant in a circuit which can be hydrogen, paragraphs 57 and 65, which one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a hydrogen refrigerant would be dihydrogen as that is the normal form that hydrogen is present in as a gas or liquid);
a closed refrigeration circuit configured to convey the refrigerant flow, the closed refrigeration circuit (the second refrigerant is in a cycle that is closed, paragraph 57).
Skinner does not teach comprising a means for maintaining an internal composition of the dihydrogen refrigerant at a ratio of parahydrogen to orthohydrogen that is lower or higher than the ratio corresponding to a natural equilibrium composition in the closed refrigerant flow circuit, this maintenance means configured to convert some of the orthohydrogen from the dihydrogen refrigerant flow into parahydrogen or vice versa.
Skinner teaches that in the case of a second refrigerant there is no ortho-para conversion without the use of a catalyst in the second refrigeration circuit (paragraph 65). This is a teaching that it is known that a catalyst could be used in the second refrigeration circuit to cause conversion.
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have provided a conversion catalyst on the refrigerant line of Skinner which would change the natural equilibrium ratio of ortho to para hydrogen since it has been shown that combining prior art elements to yield predictable results whereby providing a conversion catalyst on the refrigeration circuit would provide the predictable result of controlling the ratio of ortho to para which would provide what would be common knowledge in the art of controlling the ratio of ortho and para hydrogen during cooing and heating of the refrigerant in the cycle which can provide more optimal control of the hydrogen by controlling when the exothermic and endothermic changes happen because of the conversion.
Skinner as modified does not teach comprising the maintenance means comprising a catalytic reactor, only that a catalyst is used.
Beddome teaches that a catalyst can be provided as a catalyst in a reactor where the reactor is in a vessel filled with liquid nitrogen which has a heat exchange passage for the fluid being cooled which allows the heat from the conversion to be removed (Column 5, lines 48 – Column 6, line 20).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have provided the catalyst of Skinner as modified as a catalytic reactor in a vessel with liquid nitrogen that has a heat exchange passage for the refrigerant based on the teaching of Beddome since it has been shown that combining prior art elements to yield predictable providing the catalyst in a catalytic reactor allows it to be immersed in a vessel which contains liquid nitrogen along with a heat exchange passage so that while the reaction happens the heat of conversion can be removed.
With respect to claim 2, Skinner does not teach wherein the closed refrigeration circuit is configured such that the dihydrogen refrigerant has, on input to the catalytic reactor, a temperature essentially equal to the average temperature of the dihydrogen refrigerant in the closed circuit.
Beddome teaches the use of multiple catalysts (23, 28, 30, 36) all at different temperatures within the system and the amount converted is different at the temperature levels (Column 6, lines 1-66, Column 7, lines 15-24). Thus the input temperature for conversion is result effective variable, based on the amount of conversion desired or where in the system the conversion is placed, including where if multiple were placed. Further, it appears one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying Skinner as modified as it only involves adjusting the dimension of a component disclosed to require adjustment. Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed for the input temperature to the catalytic reactor of Skinner as modified to have been a temperature essentially equal to the average temperature of the dihydrogen refrigerant in the closed circuit as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
With respect to claim 4, Skinner as modified does not teach wherein the catalytic reactor is configured to operate according to a temperature between 31 K and 184 K.
Beddome teaches the use of multiple catalysts (23, 28, 30, 36) all at different temperatures within the system and the amount converted is different at the temperature levels (Column 6, lines 1-66, Column 7, lines 15-24). Thus, the input temperature for conversion is result effective variable, based on the amount of conversion desired or where in the system the conversion is placed, including where if multiple were placed. Further, it appears one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying Skinner as modified as it only involves adjusting the dimension of a component disclosed to require adjustment, specifically choosing the input temperature for the catalytic converter. Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed for the input temperature to the catalytic reactor of Skinner as modified to have been where the catalytic reactor is configured to operate according a temperature between 31 K and 184 K as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
With respect to claim 7, Skinner as modified does not teach wherein the closed dihydrogen refrigerant circuit is configured to maintain an average temperature of the dihydrogen refrigerant between 31 K and 184 K.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified Skinner so that the average temperature of the dihydrogen refrigerant was between 31 K and 184 K since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the device of Skinner as modified would not operate differently with the average temperature as those temperatures lie within the range that the temperature of the refrigerant passes through such that the refrigerant would function appropriately with that claimed temperature average. Further it appears that the applicant places no criticality on the range claimed indicating that the temperature is set in only optional embodiments (page 3, lines 35-36).
With respect to claim 8, Skinner as modified teaches a circuit for pre-cooling the gas to be liquefied, this pre-cooling circuit comprising a heat exchanger for exchanging heat between a pre-cooling fluid flow and the dihydrogen refrigerant flow (the first refrigerant gas circuit which includes compressor M and heat exchanger B, paragraphs 76-77, as seen in the figure has heat exchange paths for both the feed gas from 3 to 4 to 5 as well as the refrigerant from 11 to 12 to 13 (paragraphs 24-25, 59).
With respect to claim 9, Skinner as modified teaches wherein the gas to be liquefied is a flow comprised essentially of dihydrogen (the feed gas being liquefied is also hydrogen, paragraph 21, which would be recognized to be dihydrogen by one having ordinary skill in the art).
With respect to claim 10, Skinner as modified teaches wherein at least one catalytic reactor is integrated into a heat exchanger (as modified the vessel which contains the catalytic reactor is a heat exchanger).
With respect to claim 14, Skinner as modified does not teach wherein the catalytic reactor utilizes a catalyzer comprising a member of the iron oxides family, preferably Fe203.
Beddome teaches that ferric oxide gel is a known catalyst in a conversion catalyst Column 6, lines 20-21).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed for the catalyst of Skinner to have been ferric oxide gel (which is an iron oxide) since it has been shown that combining prior art elements to yield predictable results is obvious whereby it would be common knowledge in the art that when choosing a specific catalyst for a conversion in a hydrogen system that choosing from a known catalyst such as ferric oxide gel would provide the predictable result of a known way to ensure the desired conversion.
Claim(s) 3, 5-6, 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Skinner/Beddome and further in view of Bracha et al. (US PG Pub 20040112083), hereinafter referred to as Bracha.
With respect to claim 3, Skinner as modified does not teach wherein the catalytic reactor is positioned on a hot branch of the closed refrigeration circuit.
Bracha teaches (Figure 3) that a catalyst (K) can be positioned on the cooling line of a stream (paragraphs 22-23).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have based on the teaching of Bracha to have when providing a catalytic reactor in Skinner as modified to have provided it on the cooling line of the refrigerant (hot branch as understood in view of the instant specification) since it has been shown that combining prior art elements to yield predictable results is obvious whereby providing it on the hot line would provide the predictable result that would be common knowledge in the art of converting the ortho hydrogen to para hydrogen during cooling which result in the cooling refrigerant being more stable at lower temperatures preventing ortho to hydrogen conversion happening naturally at the lower temperatures which would result in unaccounted for exothermic reaction, causing to increase in temperature in an undesired way.
With respect to claim 5, Skinner as modified does not teach wherein the maintenance means is configured to maintain the proportion of parahydrogen in the internal composition of the dihydrogen refrigerant between 27% and 96%.
Bracha teaches that the amount of conversion that is needed from ortho to para hydrogen depends on the application (paragraph 11). Thus the specific composition caused by the maintenance means is disclosed to be a result effective variable, where the specific ratio produced is based upon the application. Further it appears that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying Skinner based on the teaching of Bracha as it involves only adjusting the dimension of a component disclosed to require adjustment. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the device of Skinner to have the proportion of parahydrogen in the internal composition of the dihydrogen refrigerant caused by the maintenance means be between 27% and 6% as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
With respect to claim 6, Skinner as modified does not teach wherein the maintenance means comprises a bypass of the catalytic reactor configured to operate a predefined throughput ratio between the flow passing through the reactor and the flow passing through the bypass.
Bracha teaches that when operating a catalyst for ortho-para conversion of hydrogen, a bypass can be provided allowing the catalyst to be bypassed by the stream to vary the normal hydrogen to para hydrogen degree so that for cases where there is no need for long storage it is not necessary to totally convert to para hydrogen (paragraphs 11-16).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have based on the teaching of Bracha to have provided a bypass of the catalytic reactor of Skinner as modified since it has been shown that combining prior art elements to yield predictable results is obvious whereby providing the bypass would allow for setting a specific ratio of para to ortho hydrogen such that only the amount that needs to be converted is converted which would provide what would be common knowledge in an energy savings by not reducing the amount of cooling required to counter the exothermic reaction of conversion to maintain the desired temperature. The presence of the bypass would result in the system being configured to provide ap redefined ratio between the bypass and the reactor.
With respect to claim 12, Skinner as modified does not teach wherein the catalytic reactor is positioned on a cold branch of the closed refrigeration circuit.
Bracha teaches that a para-ortho conversion of hydrogen can be provided on a line which is being warmed in a heat exchanger to recover low temperature because the para-ortho conversion is endothermic (paragraph 28).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have based on the teaching of Bracha to have when providing a catalytic reactor in Skinner as modified to have provided it on the heating line of the refrigerant (cold branch as understood in view of the instant specification) since it has been shown that combining prior art elements to yield predictable results is obvious whereby providing it on the cold line would provide the predictable result that would be common knowledge in the art of converting the para hydrogen to ortho during the heating of the refrigerant which would provide the predictable result that is common knowledge in the art of taking advantage of the endothermic reaction from the conversion to recover cold from the hydrogen during the heating of the hydrogen as a refrigerant.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Skinner/Beddome and further in view of Cardella et al. (US PG Pub 20180313604), hereinafter referred to as Cardella.
With respect to claim 11, Skinner as modified does not teach Skinner as modified does not teach wherein the closed refrigeration circuit comprises a stage of intercooling compression and at least one stage of compression at a temperature below -40C for the dihydrogen refrigerant.
Cardella teaches that the refrigerant as claimed can be compressed in either ambient compressors or in cold compressors in a range of 80 to 120 K, and that the refrigerant compressors can be multi-stage compressors with intercooling (paragraph 87) and that cold compression reduces compressor volumetric suction flow (frame size) and the number of required stages for compression and is an alternate to near ambient compression (paragraph 155).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art the time the invention was filed to have instead of provided near ambient compression of the hydrogen refrigerant of Skinner as modified to have provided cold compression in the range of 80 to 120 K (which is well below -40C) with intercooling based on the teaching of Cardella which would provide for a reduction in the frame size and number of compression stages as compared to warm compression at near ambient temperature.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 7, 9-10, 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakamoto Sakamoto (JP65911832B2) and further in view of Skinner and Beddome.
With respect to claim 1, Sakamoto (Figure 1) teaches a device for liquefying a gas, which device comprises: a circuit for conveying gas to be liquefied (raw material gas enters at 110, paragraph 16 and leaves as liquid after 116, paragraph 28), the circuit comprising at least one heat exchanger for exchanging heat between the gas to be liquefied and a refrigerant flow comprising at least dihydrogen refrigerant (the circuit includes multiple heat exchangers including 181 which exchanger heat between the raw material gas and liquid hydrogen in storage tank 140 in 181, paragraph 31, hydrogen refrigerant would be understood by one having ordinary skill in the art to be dihydrogen);
a closed refrigeration circuit configured to convey the refrigerant flow, the closed refrigeration circuit (the hydrogen in the refrigerant loop is in a closed loop, paragraph 18).
Sakamoto does not teach comprising a means for maintaining an internal composition of the dihydrogen refrigerant at a ratio of parahydrogen to orthohydrogen that is lower or higher than the ratio corresponding to a natural equilibrium composition in the closed refrigerant flow circuit, this maintenance means configured to convert some of the orthohydrogen from the dihydrogen refrigerant flow into parahydrogen or vice versa.
Skinner teaches that in the case of a second refrigerant there is no ortho-para conversion without the use of a catalyst in the second refrigeration circuit (paragraph 65). This is a teaching that it is known that a catalyst could be used in the second refrigeration circuit to cause conversion.
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have provided a conversion catalyst on the hydrogen refrigerant line of Sakamoto based on the teaching of Skinner which would change the natural equilibrium ratio of ortho to para hydrogen since it has been shown that combining prior art elements to yield predictable results whereby providing a conversion catalyst on the refrigeration circuit would provide the predictable result of controlling the ratio of ortho to para which would provide what would be common knowledge in the art of controlling the ratio of ortho and para hydrogen during cooing and heating of the refrigerant in the cycle which can provide more optimal control of the hydrogen by controlling when the exothermic and endothermic changes happen because of the conversion.
Sakamoto as modified does not teach comprising the maintenance means comprising a catalytic reactor, only that a catalyst is used.
Beddome teaches that a catalyst can be provided as a catalyst in a reactor where the reactor is in a vessel filled with liquid nitrogen which has a heat exchange passage for the fluid being cooled which allows the heat from the conversion to be removed (Column 5, lines 48 – Column 6, line 20).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have provided the catalyst of Sakamoto as modified as a catalytic reactor in a vessel with liquid nitrogen that has a heat exchange passage for the refrigerant based on the teaching of Beddome since it has been shown that combining prior art elements to yield predictable providing the catalyst in a catalytic reactor allows it to be immersed in a vessel which contains liquid nitrogen along with a heat exchange passage so that while the reaction happens the heat of conversion can be removed.
With respect to claim 2, Sakamoto does not teach wherein the closed refrigeration circuit is configured such that the dihydrogen refrigerant has, on input to the catalytic reactor, a temperature essentially equal to the average temperature of the dihydrogen refrigerant in the closed circuit.
Beddome teaches the use of multiple catalysts (23, 28, 30, 36) all at different temperatures within the system and the amount converted is different at the temperature levels (Column 6, lines 1-66, Column 7, lines 15-24). Thus the input temperature for conversion is result effective variable, based on the amount of conversion desired or where in the system the conversion is placed, including where if multiple were placed. Further, it appears one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying Sakamoto as modified as it only involves adjusting the dimension of a component disclosed to require adjustment. Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed for the input temperature to the catalytic reactor of Skinner as modified to have been a temperature essentially equal to the average temperature of the dihydrogen refrigerant in the closed circuit as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
With respect to claim 4, Sakamoto as modified does not teach wherein the catalytic reactor is configured to operate according to a temperature between 31 K and 184 K.
Beddome teaches the use of multiple catalysts (23, 28, 30, 36) all at different temperatures within the system and the amount converted is different at the temperature levels (Column 6, lines 1-66, Column 7, lines 15-24). Thus the input temperature for conversion is result effective variable, based on the amount of conversion desired or where in the system the conversion is placed, including where if multiple were placed. Further, it appears one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying Sakamoto as modified as it only involves adjusting the dimension of a component disclosed to require adjustment, specifically choosing the input temperature for the catalytic converter. Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed for the input temperature to the catalytic reactor of Sakamoto as modified to have been where the catalytic reactor is configured to operate according a temperature between 31 K and 184 K as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
With respect to claim 7, Sakamoto as modified does not teach wherein the closed dihydrogen refrigerant circuit is configured to maintain an average temperature of the dihydrogen refrigerant between 31 K and 184 K.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified Sakamoto so that the average temperature of the dihydrogen refrigerant was between 31 K and 184 K since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the device of Sakamoto as modified would not operate differently with the average temperature as those temperatures lie within the range that the temperature of the refrigerant passes through such that the refrigerant would function appropriately with that claimed temperature average. Further it appears that the applicant places no criticality on the range claimed indicating that the temperature is set in only optional embodiments (page 3, lines 35-36).
With respect to claim 9, Sakamoto as modified teaches wherein the gas to be liquefied is a flow comprised essentially of dihydrogen (the raw material gas can be hydrogen, paragraph 15, which would be recognized to be dihydrogen by one having ordinary skill in the art).
With respect to claim 10, Sakamoto as modified teaches wherein at least one catalytic reactor is integrated into a heat exchanger (as modified the vessel which contains the catalytic reactor is a heat exchanger).
With respect to claim 13, Sakamoto as modified teaches wherein the closed refrigeration circuit comprises at least one compressor of the dihydrogen refrigerant at ambient temperature (the refrigerant is compressed in 132, paragraph 18, which is on the warm side of the refrigeration system and thus meets the limitation as best understood in view of 35 USC 112(b)) and a storage tank for the liquid dihydrogen refrigerant (140 is a storage tank which has liquid hydrogen refrigerant, paragraph 18).
With respect to claim 14, Sakamoto as modified does not teach wherein the catalytic reactor utilizes a catalyzer comprising a member of the iron oxides family, preferably Fe203.
Beddome teaches that ferric oxide gel is a known catalyst in a conversion catalyst Column 6, lines 20-21).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed for the catalyst of Skinner to have been ferric oxide gel (which is an iron oxide) since it has been shown that combining prior art elements to yield predictable results is obvious whereby it would be common knowledge in the art that when choosing a specific catalyst for a conversion in a hydrogen system that choosing from a known catalyst such as ferric oxide gel would provide the predictable result of a known way to ensure the desired conversion.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Skinner.
With respect to claim 15, Skinner as modified teaches (Drawing 3/3) a method for liquefying a gas, characterized in that it comprises: a step of conveying gas to be liquefied (hydrogen feed gas enters at 1 and leaves as liquid hydrogen at 7 via multiple heat exchangers paragraphs 21-29), the step comprising at least one step of exchanging heat between the gas to be liquefied and a refrigerant flow comprising at least dihydrogen refrigerant (the circuit is the pathway from 1 to 7 and includes multiple heat exchangers including C which exchanges heat between the feed gas in 4 and a hydrogen refrigerant, paragraph 26 which is against a refrigerant in a circuit which can be hydrogen, paragraphs 57 and 65, which one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a hydrogen refrigerant would be dihydrogen), a step of conveying, in a closed refrigeration circuit, the refrigerant flow (the second refrigerant is in a cycle that is closed, paragraph 57).
Skinner as modified does not teach the conveying step comprising a step of maintaining an internal composition of the dihydrogen refrigerant at a ratio of parahydrogen to orthohydrogen that is lower or higher than the ratio corresponding to a natural equilibrium composition in the closed refrigerant flow circuit, this maintenance means comprising a catalytic reaction step to convert some of the orthohydrogen from the dihydrogen refrigerant into parahydrogen or vice versa.
Skinner teaches that in the case of a second refrigerant there is no ortho-para conversion without the use of a catalyst in the second refrigeration circuit (paragraph 65). This is a teaching that it is known that a catalyst could be used in the second refrigeration circuit to cause conversion.
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have provided a conversion catalyst on the refrigerant line of Skinner which would change the natural equilibrium ratio of ortho to para hydrogen since it has been shown that combining prior art elements to yield predictable results whereby providing a conversion catalyst on the refrigeration circuit would provide the predictable result of controlling the ratio of ortho to para which would provide what would be common knowledge in the art of controlling the ratio of ortho and para hydrogen during cooing and heating of the refrigerant in the cycle which can provide more optimal control of the hydrogen by controlling when the exothermic and endothermic changes happen because of the conversion. This would result in a catalytic reaction step which would provide either ortho to para conversion or para ortho conversion.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Schwartz (US PG Pub 20230147955) which teaches of multiple stages of catalytic conversion.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN M KING whose telephone number is (571)272-2816. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 0800-1700.
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, Frantz Jules can be reached at 5712726681. 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.
/BRIAN M KING/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights