DETAILED ACTION
This is in response to the Patent Application filed 8/15/2025 wherein claims 1-10 are presented for examination.
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 .
Drawings
In accordance with 37CFR 1.83(a) and 1.84(o), the drawings (Figures 1-5) are also objected to because:
the numerals associated with the graphical drawing symbols (boxes, rectangles, circles, etc) are not indicative as to what said symbol represents and so the functionality of the element cannot be determined.
The unlabeled rectangular box(es) shown in the drawing should be provided with descriptive text labels. See MPEP 608.02(b) II.
In summary, elements in the drawing must be labeled in words to facilitate the expeditious understanding of the drawing by members of the public (refer to example 1 below). When the boxes are too small to accommodate the labeling, external labeling as indicated by the arrows in the example 2 below is acceptable.
Example 1: elements in the drawings are labeled; fluid lines are solid; control signal lines are dashed lines; arrows show the direction of the fluid and control lines.
PNG
media_image1.png
565
945
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Example 2: when boxes are too small to accommodate the labeling, external labeling as indicated by the arrows in the example 2 below is acceptable.
PNG
media_image2.png
378
655
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claims 1-2 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gaiffi et al. (US 2011/0120138).
Regarding Independent Claim 1, Gaiffi teaches (Figures 1-4) an electrical power generation system (see Figure 3), comprising:
a heater (18);
a reactor (24);
an exhaust gas heat exchanger (12); and
a gas turbine (122), wherein
the heater (18) is configured to supply heat (see dashed lines in Figure 3) to the reactor (24),
the reactor (24) is configured to produce hydrogen (36) by thermally decomposing a hydrocarbon gas (22) into hydrogen and carbon (Paragraph 0018), and
the gas turbine (122) is fueled by the hydrogen (see Figure 3 and Paragraph 0037) produced by the reactor (24).
Although Gaiffi’s Figure 3 embodiment does not teach that the exhaust gas heat exchanger is configured to transfer heat of exhaust gas discharged from the heater to a fuel gas in the electrical power generation system, Gaiffi’s Figure 2 embodiment teaches that the exhaust gas heat exchanger (12) is configured to transfer heat of exhaust gas (see dashed lines in Figure 2) discharged from the heater (18) to a fuel gas (10) in the electrical power generation system (see Figure 2).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Gaiffi’s Figure 3 embodiment to have the exhaust gas heat exchanger be configured to transfer heat of exhaust gas discharged from the heater to a fuel gas in the electrical power generation system, as taught by Gaiffi’s Figure 2 embodiment, in order to have the excess heat be used to preheat the feedstock (Paragraph 0017 of Gaiffi).
Regarding Claim 2, Gaiffi teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Gaiffi further teaches (Figures 1-4) wherein the exhaust gas heat exchanger (12) is configured to transfer the heat of the exhaust gas discharged from the heater (18) to the hydrocarbon gas (gas 10 to 22) supplied to the reactor (24).
Regarding Claim 10, Gaiffi teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Gaiffi further teaches (Figures 1-4) wherein the hydrocarbon gas is methane (Paragraphs 0017-0018).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-9 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 of record does not teach in combination with the other limitations of the independent claim: “a produced gas heat exchanger, wherein: the produced gas heat exchanger is configured to transfer heat of a gas mixture of the hydrogen and the hydrocarbon gas produced by the reactor to the hydrocarbon gas supplied to the reactor; and the exhaust gas heat exchanger is configured to transfer the heat of the exhaust gas discharged from the heater to the hydrocarbon gas supplied to the produced gas heat generator” (Claim3, lines 1-8); “the exhaust gas heat exchanger is configured to transfer the heat of the exhaust gas discharged from the heater to the hydrogen produced by the reactor in order to transfer heat to fuel gas supplied to the gas turbine” (Claim 4, lines 1-4); “a fuel gas of the gas turbine is a gas mixture of hydrocarbon gas and hydrogen; and the exhaust gas heat exchanger is configured to transfer the heat of the exhaust gas discharged from the heater to the hydrocarbon gas included in the gas mixture in order to transfer heat to the fuel gas supplied to the gas turbine” (Claim 5, lines 2-5); and “the heater is configured to heat the reactor by burning fuel; and the fuel includes at last one of hydrocarbon gas and hydrogen” (Claim 8, lines 2-3).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892 for additional references teaching the production of hydrogen using heaters and reactors.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS P BURKE whose telephone number is (571)270-5407. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:00 PM.
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, Phutthiwat Wongwian can be reached at (571) 270-5426. 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.
/THOMAS P BURKE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3741
Prosecution Insights