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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 11 May 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Claims 22 and 24-36 have been canceled. Claims 37-55 are new.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that claim 37 is directed to a method, so the step of delivering, by the purification equipment, an effluent as the hydrogen gas product, the effluent comprising a gas stream including both hydrogen and helium must be performed, and prior reasoning based upon MPEP 2114(II) is inapplicable. (Remarks, p. 6/9, bottom).
In response, the examiner agrees.
Applicant argues that Brandt fails to disclose or even suggest delivering an effluent including both hydrogen and helium as the hydrogen gas product, and even if it were argued that an intermediate stream in the purification process of Fig. 1 of Brandt includes both hydrogen and helium, Brandt does not disclose or even suggest delivering such intermediate stream as the hydrogen gas product since Brandt discloses delivering a hydrogen gas product with at least 99% H2 mol% with no helium, which is a purity that is greater than the claimed hydrogen gas product the methods of Brandt, which removes helium along with other inert components in order to reach a purity of 99% H2 mol% (Remarks, p. 7/9).
In response, the examiner respectfully disagrees because (1) a hydrogen gas product with at least 99% H2 does not preclude the presence of trace helium, and Brandt does not explicitly state that a product with “no helium” is produced, stating instead that “slip of He into the PSA H2 product stream is likely” (p. 9, “Some”), (2) it is unclear why an “intermediate” product would be patentably distinct from the claimed “hydrogen gas product”; and (3) Brandt states that an assessment of H2/He separation options is beyond the scope of that reference (p. 9, “Some”), and no H2/He separation step is proposed (Fig. 1), so Brandt does not disclose a H2/He separation. As Applicant’s argument is directed toward a new claim, the claim is addressed in detail below.
Applicant argues that Brandt fails to disclose or even suggest the use of a PSA device utilizing silica, alumina, zeolites, and/or activated carbon (Remarks, p. 7/9, bottom).
In response, the examiner agrees. As Applicant’s argument is directed toward a new claim limitation, this limitation is addressed in detail below.
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 55 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.
Claim 55: The claim recites, “wherein, of the feedstock: the hydrogen has a hydrogen molar fraction of at least about 50 mol%; the helium has a helium molar fraction greater than 0.1 mol%; and the nitrogen has a nitrogen molar fraction less than about 20 mol%.” It is unclear what is meant by, for example, the hydrogen having a hydrogen molar fraction of at least about 50 mol%, since (1) it is unclear what the antecedent for “the hydrogen” is, since hydrogen is a component of the feedstock and the gas product, so it is unclear which “hydrogen” is being referenced, and (2) it is unclear how “the hydrogen” can have less than 100 mol % hydrogen, raising uncertainty about what is meant by “the hydrogen.” The claim language relating to helium and nitrogen is unclear for similar reasons. For the purposes of examination only, the claim will be interpreted as reciting molar fractions of the feedstock.
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.
Claims 37 and 47-50 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 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) and Du et al. (2021. A review of hydrogen purification technologies for fuel cell vehicles. Catalysts, 11(3), 393.), and 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 37, Brandt discloses a geologic H2 production process (p. 4, line 3) (i.e., a method of producing a hydrogen gas product) comprising:
receiving 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) from a well (Fig. 1) (i.e., receiving feedstock from a geologic hydrogen source configured to provide the feedstock, wherein the feedstock comprises hydrogen, nitrogen, methane, argon, and helium);
processing the mixed gas using equipment including a separator, a dehydration unit, and a PSA separation unit (Fig. 1) (i.e., processing the feedstock using purification equipment fluidically coupled to the geologic hydrogen source) comprising (i.e., wherein the purification equipment comprises):
a standard silica gel process for the dehydration (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., a guard bed); and
the PSA separation unit (Fig. 1; p. 9, top) (i.e., a pressure swing adsorption (PSA) device fluidically coupled to the guard bed); and
delivering nearly pure H2 from the PSA separation unit (p. 9, top) to Net H2 sales (Fig. 1) (i.e., delivering, by the purification equipment, an effluent as the hydrogen gas product, the effluent comprising a gas stream including hydrogen),
wherein the GHG intensity of the process 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).
Brandt does not explicitly disclose (i) a feedstock comprising carbon dioxide and neon; (ii) a PSA device that includes one or more of silica, alumina, zeolites, and activated carbon; (iii) an effluent comprising a gas stream including both hydrogen and helium; (iv) an effluent that comprises a combined hydrogen and helium molar fraction of the hydrogen gas product that is greater than about 98 mol%; (v) an effluent that comprises a nitrogen molar fraction of the hydrogen gas product that is less than about 2 mol%; (vi) an effluent that comprises a combined carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide concentration of the hydrogen gas product that is less than about 50 ppm; or (vii) an effluent that comprises a methane concentration of the hydrogen gas product that is less than about 50 ppm.
Regarding (i), 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 (ii), Du teaches H2 purification technologies such as PSA (p. 3/17, top). Du teaches that a known method of purifying a feed including H2, CH4, CO2, and N2 to a purity of up to 99.5% is a four-bed PSA including activated carbon and zeolite 5A adsorbents (p. 8/17, Table 5).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Brandt by providing (ii) a PSA device that includes one or more of silica, alumina, zeolites, and activated carbon as taught by Du because (1) Brandt teaches that Du teaches PSA systems for separating H2 from N2 and CH4 (Brandt, p. 9, top, citation 37); and (2) a PSA including activated carbon and zeolite 5A adsorbents can produce up to 99.5% purity H2 from a stream including H2, CH4, CO2, and N2 (Du, p. 8/17, Table 5)
Regarding (iii) and (iv), since Brandt discloses the same process for producing hydrogen gas as claimed, it is asserted that, absent evidence to the contrary, one would reasonably expect that the process as taught by Brandt functions the same as the method recited in claim 37. Specifically, it is asserted that one would reasonably expect the process of Brandt in view of Du would result in an effluent comprising a gas stream including both hydrogen and helium, wherein the effluent comprises a combined hydrogen and helium molar fraction of the hydrogen gas product that is greater than about 98 mol%, since Brandt teaches that that geologic H2 samples may contain helium, and that, because of the similarity of these gases, slip of He into the PSA H2 product stream is likely (p. 9, “Some”). Brandt further states that future study should be done of slippage of helium into the product gas stream (p. 9, “Some”). In addition, the process of Brandt does not include a step for removing helium (Fig. 1), or a unit operation capable of removing helium (p. 9, “Some . . . beyond the scope of this work”), so the skilled practitioner would have expected the process of Brandt in view of Du to produce an effluent from a PSA separation that comprises both hydrogen and helium where the source includes helium. It is noted that although Brandt assumes “complete” separation of waste gas products from H2, (1) “complete” separation is defined as a product gas that is >99% H2 (p. 9, “After”), so this teaching does not preclude the presence of helium in the product gas, as Brandt does not suggest a 100% hydrogen product, and (2) this teaching by Brandt is an assumption used as a parameter for a computer modeling exercise (e.g., Abstract: “tool to model”; p. 4, “We examine . . . We compute”; p. 5, top: “data inputs used”), so the skilled practitioner would have found it obvious that a tangible product obtained from a geologic hydrogen source using the actual purification equipment described would have been likely to include helium in the case in which the source includes helium, depending upon the quality of the geologic hydrogen source (e.g., p. 9: “Some literature-reported”; p. 10, “In our”: Ar/He; p. 16, bottom: “A major driver is the quality of the resource”).
Regarding (v) and (vii), Brandt teaches a PSA separation to remove nitrogen and methane (p. 9, top), and the practitioner of the process of Brandt in view of Du would have known that a combined hydrogen, methane, and nitrogen stream could be purified to up to 99.5% purity (Du, Table 5), so it would have been obvious for the skilled practitioner to optimize the concentration of nitrogen to provide an effluent that comprises a nitrogen molar fraction of the hydrogen gas product that is less than about 2 mol%, and a methane concentration that is less than about 50 ppm., knowing that the nitrogen and methane concentrations are result-effective variables (Brandt, p. 9, top; Du, p. 7/17, top: “N2 as a major impurity”; Table 5). A result-effective variable is one which the skilled practitioner would desire to optimize, and is considered prima facie obvious and without patentable weight. See MPEP 2144.05 (II)(A).
Regarding (vi), because Brandt teaches a hydrogen source that does not include carbon monoxide or carbon dioxide (p. 11, Table 1), and because CO2 was known to not be prevalent in some hydrogen sources (Brandt, p. 6, “A mix”), and because it was known that PSA adsorption could be used to remove CO2 and CO from a feed gas to obtain a 99.5% pure hydrogen product (Du, Table 5), which were regarded as impurities that can be removed (Du, p. 8/17: “Many”), the practitioner of Brandt in view of Du would have found it obvious to obtain an effluent that comprises a combined carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide concentration of the hydrogen gas product is less than about 50 ppm. It is noted that when the prior art teaches the general conditions of a claim, it is not inventive to find optimum or workable ranges. See MPEP 2144.05 (II) (A).
Regarding claims 47-49, Brandt teaches that the GHG intensity of the process may be a mean value of 0.37 kg CO2eq/kg H2 in a baseline case (p. 13, Fig. 2) (i.e., wherein the production of the hydrogen gas product exhibits a carbon intensity score of less than 3.0 kg CO2eq/kg H2; wherein the production of the hydrogen gas product exhibits a carbon intensity score of less than 1.5 kg CO2eq/kg H2; wherein the production of the hydrogen gas product exhibits a carbon intensity score less than 0.45 kg CO2eq/kg H2). Furthermore, since Brandt discloses the same process for producing hydrogen gas as claimed, it is asserted that, absent evidence to the contrary, one would reasonably expect that the process as taught by Brandt functions the same as the method recited in claims 47-49. Specifically, it is asserted that one would reasonably expect the process of Brandt in view of Du would result in a carbon intensity score in the same ranges as claimed. If it is Applicant’s position that this would not be the case: (1) evidence would need to be provided to support Applicant’s position; and (2) it would be the Office’s position that the application contains inadequate disclosure as to how to obtain the claimed carbon intensity scores with only the claimed steps.
Regarding claim 50, Brandt teaches that the GHG intensity of the process may reach a minimum value of 0.16 kg CO2eq/kg H2 in a baseline case (p. 13, Fig. 2) (i.e., wherein the production of the hydrogen gas product exhibits a carbon intensity score of less than 0.37 kg CO2eq/kg H2). Furthermore, since Brandt discloses the same process for producing hydrogen gas as claimed, it is asserted that, absent evidence to the contrary, one would reasonably expect that the process as taught by Brandt functions the same as the method recited in claim 50. Specifically, it is asserted that one would reasonably expect the process of Brandt in view of Du would result in a carbon intensity score in the same ranges as claimed. If it is Applicant’s position that this would not be the case: (1) evidence would need to be provided to support Applicant’s position; and (2) it would be the Office’s position that the application contains inadequate disclosure as to how to obtain the claimed carbon intensity scores with only the claimed steps.
Claims 38 and 55 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brandt in view of Du, as applied to claim 37 above, and as evidenced by Guélard et al. (2017. Natural H2 in Kansas: Deep or shallow origin?. Geochemistry, Geophysics, Geosystems, 18(5), 1841-1865.).
Regarding claim 38, Brandt in view of Du does not explicitly disclose an effluent that further comprises a helium molar fraction of at least 1 mol%.
However, Brandt teaches that a geologic hydrogen source may comprise helium (e.g., p. 11, Table 1), and it was known that wells may provide sources of geologic hydrogen that are 17.2% hydrogen, 1.5% helium, and 0.6% argon, as evidenced by Guélard (p. 5, bottom), or a helium to helium + hydrogen + argon ratio of about 0.08, so it would have been obvious that, using the process of Brandt in view of Du, an effluent of a PSA separation on a source that includes helium could comprise a helium molar fraction of at least 1 mol%, since resource quality may vary (Brandt, p. 16, bottom).
Regarding claim 55, Brandt teaches baseline H2 field parameters wherein the gas composition (i.e., the feedstock) is 85.0 mol % H2 and 12.0 mol % N2 (p. 11, Table 1) (i.e., wherein, of the feedstock, the hydrogen has a hydrogen molar fraction of at least about 50 mol%; and the nitrogen has a nitrogen molar fraction less than about 20 mol%).
Brandt in view of Du does not explicitly disclose a feedstock with a helium molar fraction greater than 0.1 mol%.
However, Brandt teaches that argon, helium, and other impurities can total 1.5 mol % of the gas (Table 1; p. 10, “In our”), and it was known that sources of geologic hydrogen can comprise helium in varying amounts which may be over 0.1 mol%, as evidenced by Guélard (p. 11, top, Sue Duroche #2 well samplings of 2012), so it would have been obvious to the practitioner of Brandt in view of Du that a geologic hydrogen source can comprise up to 1.5 mol % helium (Brandt, Table 1), including more than 0.1 mol% helium, based upon the natural composition of the geologic hydrogen source.
Claims 39-41 and 43-45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brandt in view of Du, as applied to claim 37 above, and further in view of Karnik et al. (WO 2024/112793 A2).
Regarding claims 39 and 40, Brandt in view of Du does not explicitly disclose processing the effluent from the purification equipment using a separation membrane or a reactive membrane; wherein the effluent is processed using the reactive membrane, wherein the PSA device of the purification equipment is fluidically coupled to the reactive membrane.
Karnik discloses a membrane 100 (Fig. 1) that allows hydrogen gas ([0042]) to pass while greatly limiting the passage of helium (Fig. 1; [0076]) by dissociate hydrogen atoms to form protons and electrons, to transport the protons, and to recombine the protons and electrons to form hydrogen gas on an opposite side of the membrane ([0082]) (i.e., a reactive membrane).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Brandt in view of Du by processing the effluent from the purification equipment using a reactive membrane; wherein the effluent is processed using the reactive membrane, wherein the PSA device of the purification equipment is fluidically coupled to the reactive membrane as taught by Karnik because (1) Brandt teaches that the economic value of He makes it possible that this could be another revenue stream for producers, but does not suggest a means of separating hydrogen and helium (Brandt, p. 8, “Some”); (2) a membrane that dissociates and recombines hydrogen atoms may be used to separate hydrogen and helium (Karnik, [0076], [0082]); and (3) it would have been obvious to process the PSA effluent using the membrane of Karnik in the embodiment taught by Brandt in view of Du and Karnik since upstream processes would have removed other impurities, making this position the obvious position to address helium/hydrogen separation (Brandt, p. 9, “Some”: “H2/He separation”).
Regarding claim 41, Karnik teaches a membrane 100 that includes a porous support 130 (i.e., wherein the reactive membrane includes: a support layer); an atomically thin layer 120 ([0076]) that is hydrogen-selective ([0056]) and allows hydrogen protons to pass ([0060]) (i.e., a hydrogen-permeable membrane); and a conformal film 110 ([0075]) (i.e., a protective layer).
Regarding claims 43 and 44, Karnik teaches that the membrane 100 includes a conformal film 110 that is palladium-based ([0076]) (i.e., wherein the reactive membrane includes a metallic membrane; wherein the metallic membrane comprises palladium).
Regarding claim 45, Karnik teaches that the membrane 100 includes a porous support 130 ([0076]) that may be formed of ceramic ([0063]) (i.e., wherein the reactive membrane includes a ceramic material).
Claim 42 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brandt in view of Du and Karnik, as applied to claim 40 above, and further in view of Benicewicz et al. (US 2022/0258131 A1).
Brandt in view of Du and Karnik does not explicitly disclose that the reactive membrane includes a membrane within a reactor for separating hydrogen from a gas stream.
Benicewicz discloses a gas separation membrane (Abstract) loaded into a housing or pressure vessel (i.e., a membrane within a reactor) as is known and operated at a slight pressure drop as the gas being filtered flows through ([0085]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Brandt in view of Du and Karnik by providing a reactive membrane that includes a membrane within a reactor for separating hydrogen from a gas stream as taught by Benicewicz because a housing or pressure vessel can be used to provide the required pressure across a membrane drop as a gas being filtered flows through (Benicewicz, [0085]).
Claim 46 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brandt in view of Du, as applied to claim 37 above, and further in view of Peters et al. (US 2024/0019206 A1).
Brandt in view of Du and Karnik does not explicitly disclose that the purification equipment includes a cryogenic device downstream of the PSA device.
Peters discloses a cryogenic process (Abstract) for exploiting naturally occurring hydrogen ([0004]) in which a hydrogen-rich product containing helium is separated into helium and hydrogen after cooling in a hydrogen separation column T5 (i.e., a cryogenic device) (Fig. 1; [0042]). Peters teaches that the process separates gases as efficiently, cost-effectively and comprehensively as possible on an industrial scale ([0005]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Brandt in view of Du by providing purification equipment that includes a cryogenic device downstream of the PSA device as taught by Peters because (1) Brandt teaches that the economic value of He makes it possible that this could be another revenue stream for producers, but does not suggest a means of separating hydrogen and helium (Brandt, p. 8, “Some”); (2) a cryogenic process that includes hydrogen and helium separation can separate gases as efficiently, cost-effectively and comprehensively as possible on an industrial scale (Peters, [0005], [0042]); and (3) it would have been obvious to process the PSA effluent using the hydrogen separation column of Peters in the embodiment taught by Brandt in view of Du since upstream processes would have removed other impurities, making this position the obvious position to address helium/hydrogen separation (Brandt, p. 9, “Some”: “H2/He separation”).
Claim 51 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brandt in view of Du, as applied to claim 37 above, and further in view of Dolan et al. (US 2022/0403273 A1).
Brandt in view of Du and Karnik does not explicitly disclose compressing, by a compressor fluidically coupled to the geologic hydrogen source and to the purification equipment, the feedstock.
Dolan discloses a process for collecting gas from one or more wells ([0020]) for purification with a PSA adsorber ([0045]). Dolan teaches that, where gas collected from wells are gathered into a combined stream, if a stream from a certain well has a pressure that is lower than a targeted common pressure, a compressor may be introduced to increase the pressure in the stream having the lower pressure ([0020]) before treatment ([0021]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Brandt in view of Du by compressing, by a compressor fluidically coupled to the geologic hydrogen source and to the purification equipment, the feedstock as taught by Dolan because, if a stream from a certain well has a pressure that is lower than a targeted common pressure, a compressor may be introduced to increase the pressure in the stream having the lower pressure (Dolan, [0020]).
Claims 52 and 53 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brandt in view of Du, as applied to claim 37 above, and as evidenced by Mitaritenet al. (US 2011/0189746 A1), or alternatively, in view of Moore (US 2019/0048701 A1).
Regarding claim 52, Brandt teaches blowing down a waste gas (i.e., purge gas) including adsorbed methane (p. 9, “After”) and powering the process with the waste gas (p. 9, bottom; p. 12, bottom) by providing electrical energy inputs for the process (p. 9, “The Baseline”; p. 14: “electrically-driven”; p. 26: “Electricity consumed by motor”), wherein electricity was known to be produced from methane by an electrical generator (i.e., a power generation plant), as evidenced by (Mitariten, [0008]) (i.e., powering a power generation plant fluidically coupled to the geologic hydrogen source and to the purification equipment using purge gas from the purification equipment; and directing energy from the power generation plant to the purification equipment).
Alternatively, Brandt in view of Du does not explicitly disclose powering a power generation plant fluidically coupled to the geologic hydrogen source and to the purification equipment using the feedstock from the geologic hydrogen source; and directing energy from the power generation plant to the purification equipment.
Moore teaches a method for producing power from well gas ([0039]). Moore teaches that a turbine engine 18A or piston engine 18B can use well gas F and air G to produce power to drive generators 19A or 19B producing electrical power E (Figs. 3A,B; [0039]). Moore teaches that engines can be used to generate power where there is no electrical power available ([0011]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Brandt in view of Du by powering a power generation plant fluidically coupled to the geologic hydrogen source and to the purification equipment using the feedstock from the geologic hydrogen source; and directing energy from the power generation plant to the purification equipment as taught by Moore because (1) Brandt teaches that an H2 gas source may include significant quantities of methane (Brandt, p. 10, middle); and (2) it was known that well gas comprising methane can be used to provide for power generation where there is no electrical power available (Moore, [0011], [0039]).
Regarding claim 53, Moore teaches generating power using well gas where there is no electrical power available ([0011], [0039]), so it would have been obvious to the practitioner of Brandt in view of Du and Moore to use only well gas as a fuel for a generator (i.e., wherein the power generation plant is powered by the feedstock from the geologic hydrogen source only).
Claim 54 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brandt in view of Du, as applied to claim 37 above, and as evidenced by Dolan.
Brandt in view of Du does not explicitly disclose receiving the feedstock from a plurality of geologic hydrogen sources; and combining fluid from the plurality of geologic hydrogen sources into the feedstock.
However, Brandt teaches using 50 producing wells (i.e., geologic hydrogen sources) (p. 11, Table 1) in a baseline case (p. 10, top) used in the process (Fig. 1: “Baseline case”), and it was known in the art that gas from wells may be collected from one or more wells by a field gathering system into a combined stream (i.e., a feedstock) for processing, as evidenced by Dolan ([0020]), so it would have been obvious to the practitioner of Brandt in view of Du to combine the gas streams of the producing wells for treatment in the processing equipment (Brandt, Fig. 1) (i.e., receiving the feedstock from a plurality of geologic hydrogen sources; and combining fluid from the plurality of geologic hydrogen sources into the feedstock).
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights