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 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.
Claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 12, 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tatsumi (JP 2017024958) as applied above, and further in view of Boucher (WO 2007098271) and Miller (20090199937).
Regarding claims 1, 2, 6, 12, and 15, Tatsumi discloses a solid hydrogen generating material that includes 40-90 % (0044) of the hydrogen generating agent such as sodium borohydride (0042) with a resin (binder) at less than 40 % (0050). The material has a porosity from 0-80 % (0035 and 0079) with a specific example at 60 % (0079). The composition can include other catalyst (energizer) and filler (0061).
Boucher teaches that it is known to use energetic binders in a hydrogen generating composition with borohydrides (0004). Boucher further suggests that known binders that are used with energetic materials can be used.
Miller teaches the use of polyvinyl tetrazole as a known fuel/binder for energetic materials (0047). The identification of the polyvinyl tetrazole as a fuel and a binder indicates that it is an energetic compound.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made and/or filed to use the energetic binder particular the energetic fuel/binder as taught by both Boucher and Miller since Boucher indicates that it is known to use energetic binders in a hydrogen generating composition with borohydrides and that known binders that are used with energetic materials can be used. One of skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success since Miller identifies the polyvinyl tetrazole as a fuel and a binder thus indicating that it is energetic and since Boucher teaches that it is known to include energetic binders in hydrogen generating compositions.
Regarding claim 5, the composition can be only the hydrogen generating material and binder and thus would not include any water generating additives.
Claims 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable as applied above, and further in view of Ryu (20110020215).
Regarding claims 16 and 17, Ryu teaches a catalyst such as ammonium chloride for use with a hydrogen generating composition that includes sodium borohydride and a binder (0019).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made and/or filed to use the catalyst as taught by Ryu with the composition of Tatsumi since both compositions are used for hydrogen generating and include sodium borohydride and a binder. Further, Tatsumi discloses that the composition can include catalyst so one of skill would have a reasonable expectation of success in using a different catalyst that is taught for the same type of composition with the same ingredients.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Tatsumi does not disclose a solid. This is not correct, Tatsumi discloses a porous solid material. In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, it is obvious to use the energetic binder particular the energetic fuel/binder as taught by both Boucher and Miller since Boucher indicates that it is known to use energetic binders in a hydrogen generating composition with borohydrides and that known binders that are used with energetic materials can be used. One of skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success since Miller identifies the polyvinyl tetrazole as a fuel and a binder thus indicating that it is energetic and since Boucher teaches that it is known to include energetic binders in hydrogen generating compositions.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 AILEEN BAKER FELTON whose telephone number is (571)272-6875. The examiner can normally be reached Monday 9-5:30, Thursday 11-3, Friday 9-5:30.
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, Jonathan Johnson can be reached at 571-272-1177. 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.
/AILEEN B FELTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1734
Prosecution Insights