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 .
Status of Application
Claims 20-42 are pending and presented for examination. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 31 December 2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s remarks dated 31 December 2025 (hereinafter, “Remarks at __”) are acknowledged and entered.
Applicant’s remarks dated 31 December 2025 (hereinafter, “Remarks at __”) are acknowledged and entered.
The rejection of claims 37 and 38 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) over Schmidt is MAINTAINED and updated below to reflect the instant amendment.
The traversal is that “in amended claims 37 and 39[sic] reactions between water vapor and liquid aluminum using water vapor as the sole oxidant have ben cancelled.” (Remarks at 7). Claim 37 states “a compound containing nitrogen and hydrogen and carbon dioxide and/or water vapor”. From review of the Instant Specification it appears that the compound is nitrogen and hydrogen (Instant Specification at [0100]) but does not detail examples of nitrogen with carbon dioxide or water. It is thusly unclear (as discussed infra) what the metes and bounds of this compound is, water vapor is a compound containing water vapor so it meets the broadest reasonable interpretation of this compound, one that “contains nitrogen and hydrogen and carbon dioxide and/or water vapor” (note the “or”). If Applicants want to claim something like in claim 38 (which does not require ammonia as water vapor is a viable selection) then the claim should be “a compound comprising nitrogen with at least one selected from the group consisting of hydrogen, carbon dioxide, and water vapor”.
The rejection of claims 37 and 38 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) over Yampolsky is MAINTAINED and updated below to reflect the instant amendment.
The traversal is the same as that against Schmidt (at the temperature of Yampolsky the water would be in vapor form).
The rejection of claims 36 and 40 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) over Windhab is MAINTAINED and updated below to reflect the instant amendment. That of claim 40 is WITHDRAWN over the instant amendment requiring water and carbon dioxide.
The traversal is that Windhab “does not disclose the use of liquid aluminum as required by the instant claims. Rather it is made clear that the aluminum is in solid form” (Remarks at 8). This is not persuasive as in Windhab the aluminum is heated to a temperature of 1080-1250 C which is above the melting point of aluminum such that a liquid aluminum does indeed exist in Windhab. However, as Windhab uses carbon dioxide which is not part of the Markush Group for claim 39, it is WITHDRAWN as claim 39 requires both carbon dioxide and water.
The rejection of claims 37 and 38 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) over Shmelev is MAINTAINED and updated below to reflect the instant amendment.
The traversal is the same as that against Schmidt and also against Yampolsky and is maintained for the same reasons.
The rejection of claims 20-24, 27-29 and 31-35 under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Windhab in view of Cassayre is WITHDRAWN over the instant amendment requiring the liquid aluminum is contacted while in the fused-salt electrolysis plant or in a separate reactor without the introduction of a separate heat source as Windhab requires heating the aluminum to beyond the melting point of aluminum to make it molten and Cassayre achieves the molten aluminum through a wholly different process, aluminum electrolysis via a fused-salt method. As Windhab does not utilize electrolysis at all, these are two separate modes of operation and one of ordinary skill in the art would not have a reasonable expectation of success substituting Cassayre into Windhab which Applicants argue in the first paragraph of Remarks at 9.
The rejection of claims 20-26, 28-32 and 34 under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Shmelev in view of Davidson is WITHDRAWN over the instant amendment setting forth the location of the fused-salt electrolysis and not allowing for heat addition from outside of the process.
Initially, the traversal is that Schmelev does not disclose the compound of nitrogen and hydrogen and carbon dioxide and/or water vapor but this was covered in the traversal against Shmelev over claim 37 and that rebuttal is hereby referred to.
The traversal continues in that Shmelev does not disclose alumina recycling which is persuasive (But Davidson does, [0011]) and that Shmelev does not disclose a fused-salt electrolysis process (Remarks at 9). Like in Windhab, there would be no reasonable expectation of success and there is a serious design mode change as Shmelev does not disclose electrolysis process of aluminum at all and must add heat.
The rejection of claims 20-23, 29 and 37 under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Yampolsky in view of Cassayre is WITHDRAWN over the instant amendment over the instant amendment setting forth the location of the fused-salt electrolysis and not allowing for heat addition from outside of the process and the instant traversal as Yampolsky does not disclose electrolysis and like in Windhab and Shmelev there would be a serious change in the mode of operation and lack of reasonable expectation of success to combine this with Cassayre
The rejection of claims 20-23 and 34 under 35 U.S.C> 103 over Boukari in view of Davidson and Schmidt is WITHDRAWN over the instant amendment setting forth the location of the fused-salt electrolysis and not allowing for heat addition from outside of the process and the instant traversal.
The traversal is that in Davidson “the aluminum used in the reference is exclusively solid state . . . Otherwise, the use of an agent to depassivate the aluminum surface would make little sense.” (Remarks at 11). Boukari actually does disclose broadly the recycling of alumina (Boukari at “Claim 32”) to the electrolysis process but the Examiner does agree that combining with Davidson is persuasive.
The rejection of claims 20-24 under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Ji in view of Caassayre and Schmidt is WITHDRAWN as Ji discloses soldi aluminum without electrolysis and again like in Windhab et al., there is a serious change in mode of operation and one of ordinary skill in the art would not have a reasonable expectation of success adding in electrolysis from a process of just melting aluminum.
The rejection of claims 20-24, 27-29 and 31-35 under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Windhab n vie wof Cassayre and Schmidt is WITHDRAWN for the same reason as Windhab in view of Cassayre.
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 20-42 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.
As to claims 20, 37 and 39 (and those dependent thereon), the metes and bounds of “compound containing nitrogen and hydrogen and carbon dioxide and/or water vapor” cannot be construed. For purposes of compact prosecution it is being treated as a compound comprising nitrogen and hydrogen, carbon dioxide, and/or water vapor (stated differently, water vapor by itself meets the claim still).
Claim Objections
Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities:
As to claim 20, line 6 “from the group” should read --from the group consisting of carbon monoxide or hydrogen--. Appropriate correction is required. Applicants are requested to review the claims for any other errors.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 36 and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by “Understanding of Interactions Between Pyrolysis Gases and Liquid Aluminum and Their Impact on Dross Formation” to Dittrich et al. (hereinafter, “Dittrich at __”).
Regarding claim 36, Dittrich discloses a method for generating thermal energy (as reduction of carbon dioxide to monoxide is an exothermic reaction, 1458 R col) and carbon monoxide (Dittrich at “Fig. 6”) in which liquid aluminum is reacted with carbon dioxide and converting the carbon dioxide to carbon monoxide and the liquid aluminum metal to alumina (1459 R col).
As to claim 40, the CO content of at least 30% by volume is formed over the long length of the reaction of carbon dioxide with the liquid aluminum (“Fig. 6”) especially given the same method though the Office cannot exactly calculate the true percentage from the information provided in Dittrich and absent evidence to the contrary it would inherently follow that such is present. See MPEP 2112 V, "[T]he PTO can require an applicant to prove that the prior art products do not necessarily or inherently possess the characteristics of his [or her] claimed product. Whether the rejection is based on inherency' under 35 U.S.C. 102, on prima facie obviousness' under 35 U.S.C. 103, jointly or alternatively, the burden of proof is the same." The burden of proof is similar to that required with respect to product-by-process claims. In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 70, 205 USPQ 594, 596 (CCPA 1980) (quoting In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430,433-34 (CCPA 1977))".
Claims 37 and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Schmidt.
Regarding claims 37 and 38, Schmidt discloses a process for the production of thermal energy (heat and power, Schmidt at “Abstract”) and hydrogen (Schmidt at [0040]) by an aluminothermic reaction between a gaseous mixture comprising water vapor and air (which contains nitrogen, methane (covering hydrogen), “Claim 4”) and molten aluminum to generate hydrogen (Id. & [0044]).
Claim 38 does not particularly limit the claim to just the compound containing nitrogen and hydrogen being ammonia so this claim need not disclose such to be rejected.
Claims 37 and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yampolsky.
With respect to claim 37, Yampolsky discloses a method for the production of thermal energy ([0052] & [0041]) and hydrogen (Id.) by an aluminothermic reaction of a gaseous mixture comprising water vapor with a liquid aluminum metal ([0043]) until such a time that hydrogen is formed (Id.).
Claim 38 does not particularly limit the claim to just the compound containing nitrogen and hydrogen being ammonia so this claim need not disclose such to be rejected.
Claims 37 and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shmelev.
Regarding claim 37, Shmelev disclose a process for the production of thermal energy and hydrogen by aluminothermic reaction of water vapor with aluminum metal which is in a molten state such that 40% yield of hydrogen is formed (Id.).
As to claim 38, as these limitations do not further limit the water vapor due to the “and/or” presence, there need not be anything other than the water vapor be present to meet this claim, the yield is 40% (supra).
Claims 36 and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Windhab
Regarding claims 36 and 40, Windhab discloses a process for generating thermal energy and carbon monoxide (Windhab at “Abstract”) comprising an aluminothermic reaction of carbon dioxide and aluminum (Id.) which comprises the aluminum being heated to above its melting temperature (>660.3 C, Windhab at 7, paragraph 3) and the CO is produced at 35% (Windhab at 7, last full paragraph). The aluminum is converted into alumina via the reaction (7, paragraph 2).
Citation of Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
CN107758613 to Xu (citations to the attached English machine translation), Xu discloses a process for generating thermal energy and hydrogen (Xu at “Abstract”) by the electrolysis of cyrolite and alumina to produce aluminum which is not in a liquid state which is at the same time subjected to hydrogen and forms aluminum hydroxide which is converted to alumina (not conversion of the liquid aluminum to alumina as claimed) and the liquid metal used for the reaction is rhodium such that an aluminothermic reaction would not occur.
Conclusion
Claims 20-42 are rejected.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICHARD M RUMP whose telephone number is (571)270-5848. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 06:45 AM to 04:45 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, Duane Smith can be reached at 571-272-1166. 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.
RICHARD M. RUMP
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1759
/RICHARD M RUMP/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759