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 Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1, 3-6 and 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis (US 20110052487) and further in view of Wang et al. "Magnesium borohydride hydrolysis with kinetics controlled by ammoniate formation" International Journal of Hydrogen Energy Publisher: Pergamon Volume: 44 Issue: 14 Page: 7392-7401 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2019.01, which will be further referred to as Wang.
Regarding claim 1, Davis discloses a method of producing hydrogen gas where sodium borohydride is metered in at a controlled rate into a reaction chamber containing steam (water) (Davis [0026]). The prior art then teaches that the hydrolysis reaction will occur in the chamber releasing hydrogen gas (Davis [0024]).
While Davis does not mention the addition of magnesium chloride in the reaction, Wang discloses that the addition of magnesium chloride into the hydrolysis process will result in a high hydrogen yield and a faster reaction rate (Wang [Sample Prep. ¶1, Table 1]). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to apply the teachings of Wang to Davis in order to optimize the hydrogen yield as well as accelerate the reaction rate.
Regarding claim 3, Davis discloses a reactor that functions as a chemical converter that is stationary in the farm of a pressurized screw conveyor (Davis [0025]) . This disclosure fulfills the limitations set in the instant claim requiring the reaction chamber to be a stationary chemical converter.
Regarding claim 4, Davis discloses that a reaction chemical, sodium borohydride is in the form of a powder (Davis [0015]) . This disclosure fulfills the limitations set in the instant claim requiring the reaction chemical to be a dry powder.
Regarding claim 5, Davis discloses the method of removing a spent chemical mixture from the reaction chamber in the form of scraping (Davis [0024]) . This disclosure fulfills the limitations set in the instant claim requiring the removal of a resulting spent chemical mixture from the reaction chamber.
Regarding claims 6 and 12, Davis discloses a system in which any remaining spent mixture would be collected in another section of the system to be disposed of or regenerated (Davis [0027, Fig.1]) . This disclosure fulfills the limitations set in the instant claim requiring the depositing of the spent chemical mixture in an empty fuel supply hopper for return and regeneration.
Regarding claim 10, Davis does not disclose the use of an alternative chemical component being placed into the reaction chamber. However, under Wang they add an alternative chemical to the reaction in the solid form, magnesium borohydride (Wang [Sample Preparation ¶1]) . While the addition of the alternative chemical is added in the beginning of the reaction process, a change in order or form of adding in ingredients is not considered novel. In re Gibson, 39 F. 2d 975, 5 USPQ 230 (CCPA 1930).
Regarding claim 11, Davis discloses a system where water, in the form of steam, stays within the reactor as the spent chemical mixture is removed (Davis [0024]) . This disclosure fulfills the limitations set in the instant claim requiring the spent chemical mixture to be removed or extracted from the reaction chamber while the water is held in the reaction chamber.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis (US 20110052487 A1), in view of Wang, and further in view of OSHA “Hazardous Waste-Decontamination”.
Regarding claim 7, Davis discloses that the reaction chamber can undergo cleaning, however, the prior art does not specify how it can be cleaned (‘487[0028]). While the cleaning method is not specified, cleaning an apparatus or container of which a reaction is meant to take place is essential to good laboratory practice- see reference from OSHA attached which discloses the importance of avoiding contamination via buildup within a system. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to apply a wash and surface water cycle to a reactor in order to ensure there is no contamination between batches.
Claim(s) 8 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis (US 20110052487 A1) in view of Wang, and further in view of Minkina, Valentina G., et al. “Stability of Alkaline Aqueous Solutions of Sodium Borohydride.” International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, vol. 37, no. 4, Feb. 2012, pp. 3313-3318.
Regarding claim 8, Davis does not discuss changes in the pH of the reaction solution. However, Minkina, teaches how water and sodium borohydride would be combined and cause the reaction rate to slow down. This leads to the spent chemical mixture having a salt content due to the amount of sodium hydroxide in the resulting solution (Introduction, Paragraph 6). According to scientific theory, the excess of sodium hydroxide, would indicate a low salt solution, similar to that in the claim.
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to determine the pH of the resulting solution as having low salt content due to the excess of a base within a solution. In re Soli, 317 F.2d 941, 137 USPQ 797 (CCPA 1963)
Regarding claim 9, Davis does not disclose adding a reaction chemical into the solution to balance the pH. However, Minkina, teaches how water and sodium borohydride would be combined and cause the reaction rate to slow down (Introduction, Paragraph 6).
From this it is apparent that the pH balance has an impact on the reaction rate of the conversion from sodium borohydride to hydrogen. As such without, showing unexpected results, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to add a pH balancing chemical, to optimize the reaction rate.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed September 25, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The arguments are not found to be persuasive because while the applicant alleges that Wang teaches away by quoting “The hydrogen production rate of the as-prepared Mg(BH4)2 at room temperature may be too fast to be controllable in some cases, especially when one considers the active hydrogen release speed of 1700 mLg-1 in 1 min and meanwhile the tremendous heat released which need to be well managed for safety concerns”, the sentence read in context of the entirety of Want, is not a teaching away and merely establishes the need to control the reaction. Wang itself performs a process using both Mg(BH4)2 and MgCl2. See Experimental Section of Wang. Furthermore, since the prior art uses a combination of the chemicals discussed in its method, it is clear that the reference as a whole would not dissuade one of ordinary skill in the art from reacting Mg(BH4)2 and MgCl2 and recognizing that need for controlling the hydrolysis rate in the reaction. In a similar vein Davis teaches the need to control the hydrolysis reaction and also expresses a desire to increase the reaction rate (Davis [¶20]). Therefore, the modification of reacting Mg(BH4)2 and MgCl2 would appear both possible and desirable from the point of view of someone of ordinary skill in the art when reading the references.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ANNETTE H PHAN whose telephone number is (703)756-4520. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-6:30 EST.
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, Anthony Zimmer can be reached at 5712703591. 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.
/ANNETTE PHAN/ Examiner, Art Unit 1736
/ANTHONY J ZIMMER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1736