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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 4/29/2026 has been entered.
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, who also teaches a hydrolysis reaction, 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 (Davis[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 as it ensure that no outside contamination builds up in the apparatus- see reference from OSHA attached. 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 (Minkina [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 due the two changes in the pH of the solution (Minkina [Introduction, Paragraph 6]). With the pH being a result-effective variable, one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to measure and modify the pH through observing the sodium hydroxide content of the stream and modifying the pH in order to achieve an optimal reaction rate ( Mikina [Section 3.3, Paragraph 10]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 24 is 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.
Reasons for Indicating Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Davis teaches 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]). Wang, who also teaches a hydrolysis reaction, 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]). 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 (Minkina [Introduction, Paragraph 6]), and OSHA teaches the necessity of cleaning to prevent contamination.
Regarding claim 24, while Davis 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]). Davis nor do the other prior references teaches the hydrogen gas to exit at 35 to 65 psig. It is for this reason that the claim is considered novel and nonobvious.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/29/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The arguments are not found to be persuasive because while the applicant alleges that
" Davis describes steam-based release of a borohydride where no liquid water is presence such that the references are not properly combinable" pointing to Wang usage of liquid water during hydrolysis. This is not persuasive as hydrolysis is used to chemically react a compound with water to break bonds/form a new hydroxide/oxide compound, meaning that despite the state in which water is in, the process of hydrolysis will lead to a predicable reaction resulting in hydrogen production. Regarding Minkina, the article refers to the stability of an aqueous solution of sodium borohydride during hydrolysis, a process that both Davis, Wang, and Minkina share. Osha is compatible with Davis as it is a guideline to prevent contamination when working with chemicals.
Conclusion
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 /WAYNE A LANGEL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1736
Prosecution Insights