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 § 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) 12, 14 and 16-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Modisha et al., "Evaluation of catalyst activity for release of hydrogen from liquid organic hydrogen carriers", as previously discussed.
Regarding claims, 12, 14, 20 and 23, Modisha et al. ( see Experiments, Results and discussion section) discloses a process for producing hydrogen by partial catalytic dehydrogenation, starting from perhydro-dibenzyltoluene (99% hydrogenation), followed by a step of recovering gaseous hydrogen after 1 hour and 40 minutes of dehydrogenation, said DBT having a dehydrogenation of 40%, in other words hydrogen at 60% and with a degree of hydrogenation DHminus of 0.6. From the above, DHplus/DHminus in Modisha is 1.65, and thus between 1 and 25.
Regarding claim 14, The dibenzyltoluene material of the reference is liquid at STP.
Regarding claim 16, The DBT compound of the reference contains an aromatic ring and is partially dehydrogenated.
Regarding claims 17 and 18, the DBT compound of the reference would read on the claimed formula (1) where A is benzene, X is single bond and n is 2. B would be toluene.
Regarding claim 19, DBT with 99% hydrogenation, i.e. DHplus of 0.99; (See Modisha, section "Results and Discussion - Catalyst Evaluation" on Pg. #21929).
Regarding claim 21, Modisha discloses a process for producing hydrogen by partial catalytic dehydrogenation, starting from perhydrodibenzylbenzene (99%hydrogenation), after partial dehydrogenation thereof, a step of recovering gaseous hydrogen after 1 hour and 40 minutes of dehydrogenation, said DBT having a dehydrogenation of 40%. See Modisha, section "Results and Discussion - Catalyst Evaluation" on Pg. #21929. The reference discloses a process as claimed in any of claims 1 to 9 for producing hydrogen by partial dehydrogenation of an organic liquid and at least one hydrogenation reaction (See Pg. 2192, right column, first full para) of said organic liquid.
Regarding claim 22, the Modisha reference teaches partial dehydrogenation of the DBT prior to hydrogenation (See Example on Pg. 21929, left column, 3rd para).
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) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Modisha et al., "Evaluation of catalyst activity for release of hydrogen from liquid organic hydrogen carriers" in view of Kang et al. US2019152775, as previously discussed.
Regarding claim 15 the difference between the method of Modisha and that of claim 15 is that claim 15 requires the admixing of two or more organic liquids.
Kang et al. (see Para [0023]) discloses that eutectic mixtures of 2-phenyltoluene and 3-phenyltoluene in binary eutectic mixtures have a molar ratio of 2-phenyltoluene: 3-phenyltoluene = 0.001 to 0.999: 0.999 to 0.001 in liquid hydrogen storage materials.
At the time of filing it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary level of skill in the art to select two or more organic liquids having the same or different degree of hydrogenation in the method of Modisha. One would be motivated to do so because it is prima facie obvious to combine equivalents known in the art for the same purpose (MPEP §2144.06).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 13 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: Regarding clam 13, Modisha et al. teaches a step of supplying said perhydro-dibenzyltoluene, allowed to be hydrogenated to 99% (See Modisha, section "Results and Discussion - Catalyst Evaluation" on Pg. #21929). The dehydrogenation is thus interrupted before obtaining a yield of 100%. The reference teaches dehydrogenation at a temperature of 290-320°C and at atmospheric pressure (Pg. #21929, left column, 3rd para). However, there is no teaching or suggestion from the prior art regarding “…-reaction pressure between 0.01 Pa and 3 Pa for the dehydrogenation reaction,” Nor would it have been obvious to do so. The dehydrogenation in the reference starts with atmospheric pressure (~101325 Pa) and would be expected to increase as more hydrogen is generated.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/13/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the Modisha et al. reference teaches complete hydrogenation and does not teach partial or incomplete dehydrogenation. However, the reference provides several embodiments where the degree of dehydrogenation does not reach 100% (See Pg. #21929 Fig. 2 and left column, 4th para 80% dehydrogenation at 1wt% Pt). Anything below 100% is considered as incomplete or partial dehydrogenation.
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 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