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 .
Status of the Application
This Office action is in response to the amendment of which April 24, 2025 which canceled claims 1-11 and added new claims 12-31.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
In the IDS of December 16, 2024 the US Patent to Maryellen Lavin has been crossed through since the pat. No. was misrepresented. The examiner has provided the reference on a PTO-892.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the Abstract should be a single paragraph and should not include legal phraseology, such as “comprising”. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claim 24 is objected to because of the following informalities: in lines 1 and 2 “kaolin claim” should be “kaolin clay”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 30 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 10 “kaolin claim” should be “kaolin clay”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 17 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In claim 17 the comparison “between 5 ppm by volume and 2% by volume” is unclear. It particular it is unclear that the variables clearly describe a set range since different variables are being compared (ppm by volume and % by volume). Because a specific make-up of the wet portion of the gas is not defined it is unclear if this apples to oranges comparison defines a clear range. Claim 31 is similarly confusing at line 4.
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) 12-14, 17, 18 and 24-29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brandt et al (USPAP 2011/0104494) in view of Seymour et al (USPAP 2021/0020975).
With regards to claim 12, Brandt discloses a process for drying a wet gas (see [0001] comprising contacting the wet gas with a solid desiccant comprising at least one kaolin compound (see [0019] & [0023]). Brandt does not disclose that the wet gas comprises traces of alkaline hydroxide. Seymour et al discloses a system having a wet gas containing traces of alkaline hydroxide (see [0091]) that is dried with a solid desiccant (see [0349]).
At the time of the effective filing date it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to provide the wet gas drying process of Brandt with a wet gas containing traces of alkaline hydroxide since as taught by Seymour et al it is well-known to utilize a desiccant to dry gasses having trace amounts of alkaline hydroxide.
With regards to claims 13 and 14, Brandt teaches that the wet gas may contain a molecular hydrogen (see claim 12 of Brandt which teaches a purified hydrogen).
With regards to claim 17, as understood, Brandt teaches the invention substantially as claimed but does not teach the particular moisture content of the wet gas. At the time of the effective filing date of the application it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize a desiccant to dry a wet gas having a particular moisture content in order to obtain the predictable result of obtaining a dryer gas. It is noted that the disclosure does not set forth that a particular moisture content provides any criticality to the drying process. KSR Int' l Co. V. Teleflex Inc. 550 U.S.__, 82 USPQ 2d 1385 (Supreme Court 2007) (KSR). Further, “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 regards to claims 18 Brandt teaches in claim 4 that the desiccant comprises activated alumina’s.
With regards to claims 24-27 Brandt teaches in claims 1 and 4 that the desiccant comprises at least one of activated alumina’s, silica gels, or molecular sieves, see claims 1 and 4 of Brandt. With regards to claims 26 and 27 the examiner gives official notice that kaolines are well known zeolite binders.
With regards to claims 28 and 29, Brandt teaches the invention substantially as claimed but does not teach the particular pressures. Nevertheless the pressures claims are typical pressures for adsorption methods. At the time of the effective filing date of the application it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to operate the drying process at the noted pressures in order to obtain the predictable result of insuring flow through the system. It is noted that the disclosure does not set forth that a particular pressure provides any criticality to the drying process. KSR Int' l Co. V. Teleflex Inc. 550 U.S.__, 82 USPQ 2d 1385 (Supreme Court 2007) (KSR). Further, “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).
Claim(s) 15 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brandt in view of Seymour et al as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of WO 2021/195704 (hereafter WO ‘704, cited by applicant).
As set forth above Brandt in view of Seymour et al disclose the invention substantially as claimed but does not disclose that the wet molecular hydrogen is obtained by an electrolysis process using potassium hydroxide as an electrolyte. However, WO ‘704 teaches that wet molecular hydrogen can be obtained by an electrolysis process using potassium hydroxide as an electrolyte.
At the time of the effective filing date of the instant application it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize an electrolysis process using potassium hydroxide as an electrolyte, as taught by WO ‘704, as a well-known method providing the predictable result of generating a wet molecular hydrogen. KSR Int' l Co. V. Teleflex Inc. 550 U.S. ___, 82 USPQ 2d 1385 (Supreme Court 2007) (KSR).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 30 is allowed.
Claim 31 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 19-23 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art neither discloses nor makes obvious a process of drying a wet gas with a desiccant as claimed in claims 19 and 30 were the solid desiccant comprises a zeolite agglomerate comprising zeolite crystals.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLES G FREAY whose telephone number is (571)272-4827. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri: 8:00 - 5:00.
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, Essama Omgba can be reached at (469)295-9278. 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.
/CHARLES G FREAY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746
CGF
June 10, 2026
Prosecution Insights