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 .
This action is a response to the amendments and remarks filed on 19 November 2025.
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-21 and 23 have been canceled. Claim 22 has been amended. Claims 24-36 are new. Claims 22 and 24-36 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Regarding the rejection of claim 22 under 35 USC 102, Applicant argues that Brandt (Greenhouse gas intensity of geologic hydrogen produced from subsurface deposits; 22 March 2023, https://eartharxiv.org/repository/view/5185/, published 23 March 2023) does not anticipate the limitations of amended claim 22 and does not disclose the claimed purification equipment, and one would not have modified the purification equipment of Brandt to produce a mixed H2 and He product, because Brandt emphasizes achieving a high-purity hydrogen stream of about 99% H2 and describes routing inert components-including helium-to another stream or otherwise removing them in another downstream process. The system of Brandt fundamentally includes hydrogen/helium separation and notes that the assessment of such options is beyond the disclosure of Brandt. See Remarks, p. 6/8.
Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive because they are similar to those previously presented (Remarks of 5 August 2025, p. 10/14), which were addressed in the previous action (Non-Final Rejection filed on 19 August 2025, p. 3), wherein the Office advised Applicant that Applicant’s argument is based upon an assumed numerical value for a final product entered in Brandt for the use of a software program to model a process. However, Brandt H2/He separation is explicitly beyond the scope of Brandt, and the stream leaving the PSA of Brandt would be expected to contain H2 and He, as no H2/He separation is disclosed by Brandt, and this stream would correspond to the claimed product. See the previous action at p. 3. Applicant is respectfully advised that the stream leaving the PSA would be considered a “product” by those skilled in the art because resulting streams of a separation process or unit operation are known as a products, as evidenced by Schaschke (2014. Dictionary of Chemical Engineering - product. Oxford University Press. p. 301. Retrieved from https://app.knovel.com/hotlink/pdf/id:kt00TW6LY3/dictionary-chemical-engineering/product).
PNG
media_image1.png
346
542
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It is noted that Applicant’s claim does not preclude a downstream separation of H2 and He, as the preamble uses the open transition term “comprising.” See MPEP 2111.03(I). Therefore, even if Brandt disclosed a downstream H2/He separation, which it does not, Brandt would still anticipate the claim as written. Applicant’s assertion that Brandt fundamentally includes a hydrogen/helium separation does not correspond to the fact that Brandt discloses no such separation, but merely assumes that such a separation can be designed. To the contrary, Brandt states that “slip of He into the PSA H2 product stream is likely” (p. 9, middle).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 22 and 24-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Brandt (Greenhouse gas intensity of geologic hydrogen produced from subsurface deposits; 22 March 2023, https://eartharxiv.org/repository/view/5185/, published 23 March 2023 – see the NPL included in the file wrapper, attached on 22 January 2025), as evidenced by Benkmann (US 4,326,858) and Prinzhofer et al. (2018. Discovery of a large accumulation of natural hydrogen in Bourakebougou (Mali). International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 43(42), 19315-19326).
Regarding claim 22, Brandt discloses a system (p. 5, Fig. 1) comprising:
a well (Fig. 1) for geologic hydrogen (p. 3, “Geologic”) that provides H2 and a mix of non-H2 gases that include N2, CH4, with non-trivial fractions of He in some cases, as well as Ar (p. 6, top; p. 11, Table 1) (i.e., a geologic hydrogen source configured to provide a feedstock comprising hydrogen, nitrogen, methane, argon, and helium); and
a separator, a dehydration process, and a PSA separation unit in series downstream of the well to produce an output of H2 sales gas (Fig. 5), wherein the dehydration process may be a standard silica gel process that will not have a large impact on process CI (p. 8, bottom), noting that a mass of silica gel used for drying a gas can be regarded as a bed, as evidenced by Benkmann (claim 7) (i.e., purification equipment fluidically coupled to the geologic hydrogen source, the purification equipment comprising a pressure swing adsorption (PSA) device; and one
Regarding “wherein the purification equipment does not include a component configured to remove helium,” and “wherein the purification equipment is configured to deliver an effluent as a hydrogen gas product, the effluent comprising a gas stream including both hydrogen and helium,” Brandt does not disclose a unit operation in which a helium/hydrogen separation occurs, stating that “assessment of H2/He separation options is beyond the scope of this work” (p. 9, “Some”), so the system disclosed by Brandt (Fig. 1) does not include a component configured to remove helium, and the stream departing the PSA separation step in Fig. 1 can be regarded as an effluent that is a hydrogen gas product comprising a gas stream including both hydrogen and helium. Since Brandt does not disclose a separator for separating He from H2, the system of Brandt is interpreted as being capable of producing an effluent comprising a gas stream including both hydrogen and helium. It is noted that apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does. See MPEP 2114(II).
Regarding a feedstock comprising carbon dioxide and neon, Brandt teaches the accessing of a geologic hydrogen deposit (Abstract), and it was known that carbon dioxide and neon exist in natural hydrogen bodies, as evidenced by Prinzhofer (Abstract; p. 19319, Table 1: “CO2”; p. 19320, Table 2: “Ne”), so the skilled practitioner would have expected that the “other noble gases” of Brandt (p. 6, “A mix”) include neon.
Regarding claims 24-26, since Brandt does not teach equipment for separating H2 and He (Fig. 1; p. 9, middle), since Brandt teaches the same separation unit operations as those claimed, Brandt is interpreted as teaching a system capable of producing a hydrogen gas product comprising a helium molar fraction greater than 0.1 mol% (claim 24), or a helium molar fraction greater than 1.0 mol% (claim 25), or a helium molar fraction greater than 2.0 mol% (claim 26). It is noted that the claimed product compositions are interpreted as limiting the system of claim 22 by the capabilities they imply. See MPEP 2173.05(p)(II). It is noted that apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does. See MPEP 2114(II).
Regarding claims 27-29 and 31, since the system of Brandt may be applied to a hydrogen source having greater than 90 mol% hydrogen H2 (Brandt, p. 6, top), and since Brandt teaches the same separation unit operations as those claimed, the system of Brandt is interpreted as being capable of providing a hydrogen gas product comprising a hydrogen molar fraction greater than 90 mol% (claim 27), or a hydrogen molar fraction greater than 95 mol% (claim 28); or a hydrogen molar fraction greater than 97 mol% (claim 29) or is capable of providing a combined hydrogen and helium molar fraction of the hydrogen gas product is greater than 99 mol% (claim 31). It is noted that the claimed product compositions are interpreted as limiting the system of claim 22 by the capabilities they imply. See MPEP 2173.05(p)(II). It is noted that apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does. See MPEP 2114(II).
Regarding claim 30, since Brandt teaches a PSA unit for removing N2 to produce nearly pure H2 (p. 9, top), since the slip of He into the H2 product is likely (p. 9, middle), and since Brandt teaches the same separation unit operations as those claimed, the system of Brandt is interpreted as capable of producing a combined hydrogen and helium molar fraction of the hydrogen gas product that is greater than 98 mol% and a nitrogen molar fraction of the hydrogen gas product is less than 2 mol%. It is noted that the claimed product compositions are interpreted as limiting the system of claim 22 by the capabilities they imply. See MPEP 2173.05(p)(II). It is noted that apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does. See MPEP 2114(II).
Regarding claim 32, since Brandt does not state that there is an expected presence of carbon monoxide in the hydrogen source and since CO2 is generally not present in such sources (p. 6, top; p. 11, Table 1), and since Brandt teaches the same separation unit operations as those claimed, the system of Brandt is interpreted as capable of producing a combined carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide concentration of the hydrogen gas product is less than 50 ppm. Since Brandt teaches a PSA separation of CH4 (p. 9, top), the system of Brandt is interpreted as capable of producing a methane concentration of the hydrogen gas product that is less than 50 ppm. It is noted that the claimed product compositions are interpreted as limiting the system of claim 22 by the capabilities they imply. See MPEP 2173.05(p)(II). It is noted that apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does. See MPEP 2114(II).
Regarding claim 33, Brandt discloses a boosting compressor fluidically coupled to a well to produce hydrogen located upstream of dehydration and PSA separation unit operations (Fig. 1) (i.e., further comprising a compressor fluidically coupled to the geologic hydrogen source and to the purification equipment).
Regarding claims 34-36, Brandt teaches that the GHG intensity of the system may be a mean value of 0.37 kg CO2eq/kg H2 in a baseline case (p. 13, Fig. 2) (i.e., wherein production of the hydrogen gas product exhibits a carbon intensity score less than 4.0 kg CO2eq/kg H2 (claim 34), or a carbon intensity score less than 3.0 kg CO2eq/kg H2 (claim 35), or a carbon intensity score less than 0.45 kg CO2eq/kg H2 (claim 36).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GABRIEL E GITMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-7934. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:15-5:45pm.
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 571-272-3471. 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.
/GABRIEL E GITMAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1772