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 .
Response to Arguments
With respect to the rejection of Claims 3-8 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite, as understood the traversal relies on amendments. Claims 3, 4, and 7 have been amended to explicitly require a mass ratio and Claims 5, 6, and 8 have been amended to explicitly require a wt. %. Applicant argues that mass based measurements are standard in the art and cites US 12515988 B2, US 12145103 B1, US 12077457 B2, US 11916206 B2, US 11664542 B2, and US 10967017 B2, all of which similarly explicitly use mass based measurements in their respective solid to liquid ratios [see Remarks, Page 5, Paragraph 5 – Page 6, Paragraph 1]. This is unpersuasive. Although the listed documents do, in fact, use a mass ratio other documents within the art use molar ratios such as CN 113501536 A (“the mixed material of hydroxyl aluminium fluoride powder and the reaction agent, the mol ratio of F and Al is 2.5-20”) and US 20210276866 A1 (“hydrogen yield was defined as the ratio between actual mols of hydrogen generated to the theoretical maximum predicted.”). In other words, just because the art uses both mass based and mol based ratios it would not have been clear to one of ordinary skill in the art which unit was intended.
Furthermore Applicant argues against alternative interpretations such as a mol ratios “mole percentage is inapplicable, since secondary aluminum ash is a mixture, it does not possess a defined "molecular weight" as a whole” and volume ratios “volume percentage is also inapplicable, since the volume of a solid powder is highly dependent on its packing density and is not an intrinsic property” [Remarks, Page 6, Paragraph 4]. This is unpersuasive. It is noted that a molecular weight is not necessary as long as the reactive functional groups (such as atomic % of Al atoms) are known. The amount of functional groups in a mixture could be determined by titration on a small representative portion of the aluminum ash, one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to perform such a calculation. The rejections have been MAINTAINED.
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.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 3-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a)/1st par. as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. In the amendment submitted on 1/20/2026 Claims 3-8 were amended to include the phrase “by mass” or “wt%”. This is new matter not supported by the specification as originally filled. As argued above one of ordinary skill in the art would know that both measuring by mass and moles in known in the field and therefore a bare ratio or percentage does not clearly indicate that the ratio or percentage is mass based.
Claims 3-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b)/2nd par. 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 3, 4, and 7 recite a “solid-to-liquid ratio of the secondary aluminium ash to the water”, however it is unclear if this ratio is based on mass, moles, or volume. Furthermore the examples in the specification list a solid-to-liquid ratio of the secondary aluminium ash to the water but also fail to clarify if this ratio is by mass, moles, or volume.
Claims 5 and 8 recite adding an amount of an ingredient (calcium hydroxide and sodium hydroxide in Claim 5 and a catalyst in Claim 8) based on a % of the secondary aluminium ash, however it is unclear if this percentage is based on the mass, moles, or volume of the secondary aluminum ash.
Potentially Allowable/Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-2 and 9-10 are allowed. Claims 3-8 are potentially allowable. Claims 3-8 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action. The closest prior art to Claim 1 is given by KR 2019084437 A Gyu et al., by virtue of similarly teaching a method of generating hydrogen from secondary aluminum ash. Claim 1 requires “A method for preparing hydrogen from secondary aluminum ash”. Gyu et al. discloses “The present invention was invented to solve the above-mentioned problem, and its purpose is to provide a method for processing aluminum dross, which enables efficient hydrolysis of aluminum dross and utilization of hydrogen gas and ammonia gas generated therefrom as fuel and fertilizer.” [0010].
Claim 1 further requires “S1. preparing secondary aluminum ash, and subjecting a reaction device to an oxygen replacement treatment”. Gyu et al. does not disclose removing oxygen prior to hydrolysis.
Claim 1 further requires “S2. feeding the secondary aluminum ash into the reaction device, adding water, conducting a first hydrolysis reaction to obtain a first gas, and introducing the first gas into a gas collection cabinet”. Gyu et al. discloses “a first step of mixing 100 parts by weight of aluminum dross powder and 20 to 80 parts by weight of water to form a mixture; a second step of heating the mixture until it reaches 40°C and then stopping the heating so that the mixture rapidly rises to 100 to 110°C and hydrolyzes the mixture to generate gas; a third step of cooling the gas to form coagulated water and then collecting it” [0011].
Claim 1 further requires “S3. adding calcium hydroxide and sodium hydroxide subsequently to the reaction device, conducting a second hydrolysis reaction to obtain a second gas, and introducing the second gas into the gas collection cabinet”. Gyu et al. does not disclose a second hydrolysis reaction, however they do disclose using calcium hydroxide “Preferably, in the first step, 5 to 15 parts by weight of slaked lime (Ca(OH)2), which is a hydrolysis accelerator, is further mixed with 100 parts by weight of aluminum dross powder.” [0012].
Claim 1 further requires “S4. subjecting a gas mixture in the gas collection cabinet to separation and purification to obtain hydrogen”. Gyu et al. discloses “a fourth step of obtaining hydrogen gas and ammonia gas by separating them from the collected coagulated water.” [0011].
Claim 1 further requires “a reaction time of the second hydrolysis reaction is longer than a reaction time of the first hydrolysis reaction.”. Gyu et al. does not disclose a second hydrolysis reaction.
Regarding the second hydrolysis step, Gyu et al. fails teach, suggest or motivate a second hydrolysis step. Further supporting the non-obviousness of a second hydrolysis step, the present inventors report the surprising result that more product hydrogen was produced along with fewer by-products when a two-step method (Examples 1-3) was used instead of a one-step method (Comparative Examples 1-2), see the present specification, Table 1, Page 12.
Claims 2and 9-10 depend from Claim 1 and are allowed for similar reasons. Claims 3-8 depend upon Claim 1 and are potentially allowable for similar reasons.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the/any 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 JOSHUA MAXWELL SPEER whose telephone number is (703)756-5471. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm EST. 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.
/JOSHUA MAXWELL SPEER/
Examiner
Art Unit 1736
/DANIEL BERNS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1736