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
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5, and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ozyagcilar (US4623532A).
In regards to claim 1, Ozyagcilar teaches an ammonia synthesis composite catalyst comprising a catalyst and a support that includes a hydrogen storage material selected from the claimed group where the hydrogen storage metal is substantially free of a Group 2 element, Group 3 element, and a lanthanoid (Col. 2 Lines 38-40, “This new catalyst is comprised of a hydride binary or bi-metallic alloy of iron and titanium”; Col. 7 Lines 48-55, “It is also possible to combine the titanium and iron intermetallic compounds with known catalytically active metals for this reaction such as ruthenium and osmium, either in the form of mixtures of multi-component (e.g. ternary, quarternary or higher) alloys, or to support those compounds on an inert carrier material or other substrate”).
In regards to claims 2 and 5, Ozyagcilar teaches that the hydrogen storage material is a hydrogen storage metal alloy (Col. 2 Lines 38-40, “This new catalyst is comprised of a hydride binary or bi-metallic alloy of iron and titanium”).
In regards to claim 3, Ozyagcilar teaches that the work function of the hydrogen storage metal is more than 3.5 eV. Ozyagcilar teaches that the molar ratio for the titanium iron alloy is 1.0, which would have a composition of TiFe (Col. 3 Lines 64-68, “Although not to be construed as a limitation, the alloy compositions preferred and considered to be the most active should contain as one of the alloy phases the bi-metallic compound having a titanium to iron mole ratio of 1.0”). As evidenced by Table 2 of Han (attached), TiFe would have a work function of 4.312, which fulfills the claim limitation.
PNG
media_image1.png
232
695
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In regards to claims 9 and 10, Ozyagcilar teaches that a catalyst includes a transition metal, such as titanium, iron, or ruthenium (Col. 2 Lines 38-40, “This new catalyst is comprised of a hydride binary or bi-metallic alloy of iron and titanium”; Col. 7 Lines 48-55, “It is also possible to combine the titanium and iron intermetallic compounds with known catalytically active metals for this reaction such as ruthenium and osmium, either in the form of mixtures of multi-component (e.g. ternary, quarternary or higher) alloys, or to support those compounds on an inert carrier material or other substrate”).
In regards to claim 11, Ozyagcilar teaches that Ruthenium can also be used in the catalyst as a transition metal support (Col. 7 Lines 48-55, “It is also possible to combine the titanium and iron intermetallic compounds with known catalytically active metals for this reaction such as ruthenium and osmium, either in the form of mixtures of multi-component (e.g. ternary, quarternary or higher) alloys, or to support those compounds on an inert carrier material or other substrate”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ozyagcilar (US4623532A) in view of Sandrock (“A panoramic overview of hydrogen storage alloys from a gas reaction point of view”, Journal of Alloys and Compounds, 1999).
In regards to claim 6, Ozyagcilar does not explicitly teach that the hydrogen storage metal is a solid solution.
Sandrock teaches that a hydrogen storage alloy can be in the form of a solid solution, depending on which metal is used, such as titanium (4.2.6, “Several solid solution alloys form reversible hydrides, in particular those based on the solvents Pd, Ti, Zr, Nb, and V”). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the hydrogen storage alloy in the form of a solid solution in the catalyst taught by Ozyagcilar as it is already well known in the art to do so. Substitution of equivalents known for the same purpose has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. See Smith v. Hayashi, 209 USPQ 754. See also MPEP § 2144.06.II.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ozyagcilar (US4623532A) in view of Lee (US5888317A).
In regards to claim 7, Ozyagcilar does not teach using a Ti-Mn alloy as the hydrogen storage alloy.
Lee teaches using a Ti-Mn alloy as a hydrogen storage material. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the Ti-Mn alloy taught by Lee in the catalyst taught by Ozyagcilar due to the high hydrogen storage capacity and proper plateau pressure of the Ti-Mn alloy (Col. 1 Lines 5-10, “The present invention relates to a hydrogen-storage material employing Ti-Mn alloy system, more specifically, to a material for hydrogen-storage constituted by Ti-Mn alloy system which has a high hydrogen-storage capacity, a proper plateau hydrogen dissociation equilibrium pressure, hypostoichiometric composition and crystal structure of C14”). Substitution of equivalents known for the same purpose has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. See Smith v. Hayashi, 209 USPQ 754. See also MPEP § 2144.06.II.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ozyagcilar (US4623532A) in view of Bernauer (US4457891A).
In regards to claim 8, Ozyagcilar does not teach or suggest using a Ti-Mn-V alloy as the hydrogen storage alloy in the catalyst.
Bernauer teaches a hydrogen storage alloy that comprises Ti-Mn-V (Col. 2 Lines 5-9, “The hydrogen storage material according to the invention comprises an alloy of the composition of 25 to 30.9% by weight of titanium, about 10 to about 42% by weight of vanadium and about 27.1 to about 65.1% by weight of manganese”). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the hydrogen storage metal taught by Bernauer in the catalyst taught by Ozyagcilar due to the Ti-Mn-V material having a high storage capacity at low pressure and temperature (Col 1 Lines 62-66, “It is, therefore, the object of the present invention to disclose a hydrogen storage material which has a large storage capacity for hydrogen and from which at least 90% of the hydrogen content is liberated under a pressure of one bar at a temperature of up to 100°C”). Substitution of equivalents known for the same purpose has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. See Smith v. Hayashi, 209 USPQ 754. See also MPEP § 2144.06.II.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 4-6 of remarks, filed 12/26/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-3, 5, and 9-11 under 35 U.S.C. §102(a)(1) have been fully considered and are persuasive due to the amendment of claim 1. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Ozyagcilar (US46235532A), Bernauer (US4457891A), Sandrock ("A panoramic overview of hydrogen storage alloys from a gas reaction point of view", Journal of Alloys and Compounds, Pages 877-888, 1999) and Lee (US5888317A) as discussed above.
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 JAANZEB RAJA whose telephone number is (703)756-4531. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 8:30-6.
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.
/JAANZEB C RAJA/ Examiner, Art Unit 1736
/ANTHONY J ZIMMER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1736