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 Interpretation
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.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “hydrogen purification unit” in claim 6, 7, 13.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend 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 avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 2, 7 and 12 are objected to because of the following informalities: Regarding each of claims 1, 2 7 and 12, each claim is an independent claim reciting a series of limitations without line break indentation, however this is required to avoid being a single run-on paragraph, see MPEP 608.01(i) “(i) Where a claim sets forth a plurality of elements or steps, each element or step of the claim should be separated by a line indentation.”. 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 7-11 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.
Regarding claims 7-11, in claim 7, the ranges claimed are attempting to claim multiple varying ranges with unclear language, including the language "such as" which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention, and even before the “such as” there are multiple different ranges so that the range cannot be fairly ascertained. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). The range must be claimed in a single range that clearly sets forth the metes and bounds of the claimed protection sought, the claim will be examined with broadest reasonable interpretation.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 5 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Belassaoui et al ("Vapour reactive distillation process for hydrogen production by HI decomposition from Hl-I"2-H"2O solutions", CHEMICAL ENGINEERING AND PROCESSING: PROCESS INTENSIFICATION, ELSEVIER SEQUOIA, LAUSANNE, CH, vol. 47, no. 3, 7 January 2008 (2008-01-07), pages 396-407, XP022411485).
Regarding claim 1, Belassaoui teaches vapour reactive distillation methods and systems for production of hydrogen from HI decomposition (title, abstract), Belassaoui teaches the system utilizes reactive distillation of a mixture of HI and H2O provided to a reactive distillation column via an inlet (shown in Figs 3 and 18, FEED), the column comprises bottom reboiler with column recirculation, thereby providing a moving vapor phase to the distillation column along with a liquid phase outlet comprising HI and water (RESIDUE, Fig 18), as well as top vapor condenser with reflux return thereby providing descending liquid phase and distillate outlet comprising water and H2 (DISTILLATE, Fig 18) (see Figs 3, 18, p. 398-399, 405-406).
Regarding claim 5, in Belassaoui Fig 18 the column is a staged tray distillation column (see Fig 18).
Regarding claim 2, Belassaoui teaches vapour reactive distillation methods and systems for production of hydrogen from HI decomposition (title, abstract), Belassaoui teaches the system utilizes reactive distillation of a mixture of HI and H2O provided to a reactive distillation column via an inlet (shown in Figs 3 and 18, FEED), the column comprises bottom reboiler with column recirculation, thereby providing a moving vapor phase to the distillation column along with a liquid phase outlet comprising HI and water (RESIDUE, Fig 18), as well as top vapor condenser with reflux return thereby providing descending liquid phase and distillate outlet comprising water and H2 (DISTILLATE, Fig 18) (see Figs 3, 18, p. 398-399, 405-406).
Regarding claim 12, Belassaoui teaches vapour reactive distillation methods and systems for production of hydrogen from HI decomposition (title, abstract), Belassaoui teaches the system utilizes reactive distillation of a mixture of HI and H2O provided to a reactive distillation column via an inlet (shown in Figs 3 and 18, FEED), the column comprises bottom reboiler with column recirculation, thereby providing a moving vapor phase to the distillation column along with a liquid phase outlet comprising HI and water (RESIDUE, Fig 18), as well as top vapor condenser with reflux return thereby providing descending liquid phase and distillate outlet comprising water and H2 (DISTILLATE, Fig 18) (see Figs 3, 18, p. 398-399, 405-406).
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.
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(s) 3-4, 14-15 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Belassaoui et al ("Vapour reactive distillation process for hydrogen production by HI decomposition from Hl-I"2-H"2O solutions", CHEMICAL ENGINEERING AND PROCESSING: PROCESS INTENSIFICATION, ELSEVIER SEQUOIA, LAUSANNE, CH, vol. 47, no. 3, 7 January 2008 (2008-01-07), pages 396-407, XP022411485) taken in combination with Gadewar (US 2014/0012037).
Regarding claim 3-4, 14-15 and 20, Belassaoui teaches all limitations as set forth above, however Belassaoui does not teach the design of the reboiler or reflux condensers as claimed.
Gadewar teaches reactive distillation methods and systems [0029], Gadewar exemplifies suitable heat exchanger for reboiler and condenser of known designs to use in the system (see [0067], “suitable heat exchangers 30 include, but are not limited to, shell and tube heat exchangers, double pipe heat exchangers, plate fin heat exchangers, bayonet heat exchangers, reboilers, condensers, evaporators, and air coolers”).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use notoriously well known reboiler and condenser designs for the unspecified designs of Belassaoui, including but not limited to known designs taught by Gadewar such as shell and tube heat exchangers, double pipe heat exchangers, plate fin heat exchangers, bayonet heat exchangers without unexpected results.
Claim(s) 6-11, 13 and 16-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Belassaoui et al ("Vapour reactive distillation process for hydrogen production by HI decomposition from Hl-I"2-H"2O solutions", CHEMICAL ENGINEERING AND PROCESSING: PROCESS INTENSIFICATION, ELSEVIER SEQUOIA, LAUSANNE, CH, vol. 47, no. 3, 7 January 2008 (2008-01-07), pages 396-407, XP022411485) taken in combination with Parker et al (US 11,167,242) and/or Obata et al (US 2020/0368667).
Regarding claim 6, 13 and 16-19, Belassaoui teaches all limitations as set forth above, however Belassaoui does not teach the at least one hydrogen purification unit as claimed.
Parker teaches a process and system for hydrogen recovery (title, abstract), Parker teaches the hydrogen recovery system comprises first and second absorber columns 70/80 scrubbing out contaminants from gas streams with water to recovery and separate hydrogen vent gas 16/17 (Fig 1, C52:L6-C53:L15).
Obata teaches a system and method for PSA to absorb impurity from hydrogen gas (title, abstract) Obata teaches the system comprises hydrogen purification step in a hydrogen production process by employing PSA packed bed columns 10a-d in PSA system 100, with absorbent beds filled with activated carbon and zeolite to purify the hydrogen (title, abstract, Fig 1, [0052]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use commercially known hydrogen purification steps in the methods and system of Belassaoui as taught by both Parker and/or Obata to arrive at the instantly claimed configurations with the expected result of purifying the hydrogen produced by the system of Belassaoui.
Regarding claim 7, Belassaoui teaches vapour reactive distillation methods and systems for production of hydrogen from HI decomposition (title, abstract), Belassaoui teaches the system utilizes reactive distillation of a mixture of HI and H2O provided to a reactive distillation column via an inlet (shown in Figs 3 and 18, FEED), the column comprises bottom reboiler with column recirculation, thereby providing a moving vapor phase to the distillation column along with a liquid phase outlet comprising HI and water (RESIDUE, Fig 18), as well as top vapor condenser with reflux return thereby providing descending liquid phase and distillate outlet comprising water and H2 (DISTILLATE, Fig 18) (see Figs 3, 18, p. 398-399, 405-406).
However Belassaoui does not teach the at least one hydrogen purification unit as claimed.
Parker teaches a process and system for hydrogen recovery (title, abstract), Parker teaches the hydrogen recovery system comprises first and second absorber columns 70/80 scrubbing out contaminants from gas streams with water to recovery and separate hydrogen vent gas 16/17 (Fig 1, C52:L6-C53:L15).
Obata teaches a system and method for PSA to absorb impurity from hydrogen gas (title, abstract) Obata teaches the system comprises hydrogen purification step in a hydrogen production process by employing PSA packed bed columns 10a-d in PSA system 100, with absorbent beds filled with activated carbon and zeolite to purify the hydrogen (title, abstract, Fig 1, [0052]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use commercially known hydrogen purification steps in the methods and system of Belassaoui as taught by both Parker and/or Obata to arrive at the instantly claimed configurations with the expected result of purifying the hydrogen produced by the system of Belassaoui.
Regarding claims 8-11, in modified Belassoui as set forth above, the secondary hydrogen purification units as taught by Parker and/or Obata teaches all limitations of the hydrogen purification unit as claimed.
Pertinent Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. No et al (US 8,506,925) teaches methods for HI reaction with hydrogen production. Gildert (US 6,083,378) teaches hydrogen distillation systems with naphtha. Norman (US 4,127,644) teaches hydrogen production from water.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN MILLER whose telephone number is (571)270-1603. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9 - 5.
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, In Suk Bullock can be reached at (571) 272-5954. 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.
/JONATHAN MILLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1772