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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1 and 3-14 in the reply filed on 11/21/2025 is acknowledged.
Claim Objections
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities: the term “reacts” in line 3 seems to be a typographical error and should be changed to --reactants- - . Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1 and 7-14 are 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.
Claims 1 and 14 recite the term “dual promotor” which is not defined clearly. This component is defined by its function of promoting. However, is unclear what this component promotes. The boundaries of the claim cannot be determined since it is unclear what constitutes as a promoter. Under a broad interpretation of the claims it is still unclear if a component of a prior art composition would or would not be a promoter.
Claims 7-13 are rejected due to the virtue of their dependence on claim 1.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the first cycle" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The term “high value” in claim 14 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high value” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear what value of a product would read on this limitation.
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(s) 1, 3, 10, 11 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by JP2011026182 (translation attached).
Regarding claims 1, 3, 10, 11 and 13, JP’6182 discloses a method for producing hydrogen wherein water and aluminum are placed in a container and heated at a temperature of e.g. 180°C [claim 1 and Pg. 3, 3rd para]. A temperature of 180°C implies that water is in the form of steam. The term “granular” referring to aluminum (Pg. 26, 2nd para) is considered to read on the claimed powder form. Sodium hydroxide as well as sodium hydrogen carbonate or sodium carbonate are added to the reactor [claims 5 and 6]. Thus, at least two promoters are present during the reaction. The amount of sodium hydrogen carbonate or sodium carbonate is preferably an appropriate amount that prevents the aluminum from being oxidized. The pressure is taught to be at 10atm (Pg. 15 2nd para). The reference teaches using valves and barometer 70 (Pg. 13 and 2nd para). These are considered as a pressure system for maintaining a specific pressure. The pressure in the reference is considered to read on the claimed pressure of up to 2400Psi since the reference teaches a pressure that is not beyond 2400Psi.
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.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP2011026182.
Regarding claim 7, the JP’6182 reference teaches that hydrogen production efficiency is improved by limiting the rate of addition of H2O (Pg. 13, first para). The reference uses ceramics and metal (aluminum) together which would not dissolve in water (See Pg. 13, 6th para). Thus a co-slurry will be produced. However, the reference does not teach the efficiency is at least 95%.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been within the skill of a person of ordinary level of skill in the art to determine an optimal or suitable efficiency to achieve. The reference clearly teaches that limiting water improves efficiency. Thus making the hydrogen production efficiency a result effective variable which can be optimized without undue experimentation.
Regarding claim 8, the JP’6182 reference teaches a hydrogen purity of 99% (Pg. 21, 4th para).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP2011026182, in view of JP2004504243 (translation attached)..
Regarding claim 4, JP’6182 does not teach using a dual promoter comprising sodium aluminate and sodium hydroxide.
JP’4243 teaches hydrogen generation from hydrolysis (Para [0016]). Aluminum metal is used as a decomposition reactant for hydrolysis (Para [0015]). The hydrogen generation reaction of JP’4243 is the same as that of JP’6182 of hydrogen generation by water splitting using aluminum . The reference discloses dual promoter (immersion in solution with sodium hydroxide and sodium aluminate causes reaction to occur (Para [0021]). The reference uses bulk aluminum (Para [0023]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the dual promoters of JP’42434 in the process of JP’6182. One would be motivated to do so in an effort to promote the hydrolysis reaction of JP’6182. The promoters of JP’4243 remove the undesired oxide layer from the surface aluminum which would have limited the hydrolysis reaction (JP’4243 Para [0021]).
A further difference is that the ratio of the two promoters is not disclosed.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been within the skill of a person of ordinary level of skill in the art to determine an optimal or suitable amount of promoter to use based on the reaction rate of hydrogen generation since the reaction is limited by oxide formation on the aluminum and the promoters aid in removing that layer.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP2011026182, in view of Vlaskin et al. “Modelling of Aluminum-fueled power plant with gas turbine”
Regarding claim 9, JP’6182 does not teach generating thermal energy at a value greater than 122k Btu or 35kWh.
Vlaskin et al. teaches hydrogen and steam generation from reacting aluminum with water in a reactor (Abstract). The reference models the energy generation from a power plant with a gas turbine fueled form the aluminum-water reaction (Pg. #2, 4th para). The reference estimates that “about 50kW” of heat energy can be generated if the hydrogen output rate is 1g/s (See Pg. #5, last para).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary level of skill in the art to use the gas turbine power plant of Vlaskin to achieve thermal energy generation of 50kW using the hydrogen produced in JP’6182. One would be motivated to do so due to the generation of clean power.
Claim(s) 12 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP2011026182, in view of US2020131049.
Regarding claims 12 and 14, JP’6182 does not teach flow control for the reactants in response to a temperature and pressure inside the reactor.
US’1049 relates to hydrothermal oxidation of aluminum scraps with water, in a reactor, to produce hydrogen and energy (Para [0002]). The reference teaches that the reaction rate is controlled within the rector by controlling the flow of reactants (water and aluminum particles) with controller 220 in response to feedback from sensor 222. The sensors provide feedback regarding temperature and pressure of the reactor (See Para [0027] and Fig. 2).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary level of skill in the art to use the flow control feedback system of US’1049 in the process of JP’6182. One would be motivated to do so to properly control the reaction rate as taught by US’1049.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP2011026182, in view of JP2004504243 as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of RU167447 U1 (translation attached).
Regarding claim 6, the modified JP’6182 reference does not acknowledge that Boehmite or alumina is produced.
RU’7447 teaches a hydrolysis of aluminum powders in liquid water to produce steam and hydrogen (Abstract and Pg. 2, 2nd Para). The reference teaches carrying out the hydrolysis reaction at high pressure to yield hydrogen along with boehmite (Pg. 2, 2nd and 3rd paragraphs).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary level of skill in the art to operate the hydrolysis reaction of JP’6182 under a high pressure environment as descried by RU’7447. It would be obvious to apply a known technique to a known method to yield the predictable result of yielding boehmite. (See MPEP §2141.III D).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 5 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Claim 5 requires “the ratio of the sodium hydroxide to the sodium aluminate is between 1:2 to 1:3.”.
There is no teaching or suggestion from JP’4243 regarding the ratio of the sodium hydroxide to the sodium aluminate being between 1:2 to 1:3.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SYED TAHA IQBAL whose telephone number is (571)270-5857. The examiner can normally be reached M-F; 7-5.
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 (571) 270-3591. 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.
/SYED T IQBAL/Examiner, Art Unit 1736
/ANTHONY J ZIMMER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1736