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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-6 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-6 of U.S. Patent No. 12,319,583 (hereinafter ‘583) in view of Ibrahim et al. (Macromixing study for various designs of impellers in a stirred vessel; Chemical Engineering & Processing: Process Intensification 148; 107794; 2020).
Both the pending application and ‘583 claim “A sodium borohydride production method comprising: mixing a sodium borate, aluminum powder and powder of a fluoride together in a hermetic vessel filled with hydrogen gas, and reacting the mixture at not less than 410° C. and not more than 560° C”. ‘583 does not teach carrying out stirring using a stirrer in the tightly sealed vessel, wherein a stirring height ratio (X) expressed by a following formula (I) is 75% or more, in which (a) is a minimum clearance between the stirrer and a lowest part of the tightly sealed vessel in a gravity direction, and(b) is a raw material charged height when a raw material is charged into the tightly sealed vessel: X = [(b - a)/b] x 100 Formula (I).
Ibrahim et al. teaches mechanical agitation is widely employed in chemical process industries for heat and mass transfer applications or chemical reactions applications (page 1, paragraph 1). Ibrahim et al. teaches the efficiency of the mixing process is dependent on different internal parameters such as agitation speed, impeller type, tank geometry, geometrical ratios such as impeller to tank diameter (D/T), off-bottom clearance to tank diameter (C/T), liquid height to tank diameter (H/D), dispersed phase hold-up and fluid physical properties (page 1, paragraph 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use an impeller at an optimized height to stir the raw materials in the hermetic tank taught by ‘583 to efficiently mix the raw material because mixing increases the efficiency of the chemical reaction.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugita et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 20220274832) in view of Ibrahim et al. (Macromixing study for various designs of impellers in a stirred vessel; Chemical Engineering & Processing: Process Intensification 148; 107794; 2020).
Regarding claim 1, Sugita et al. teaches a sodium borohydride production method according to the first embodiment, a sodium borate, aluminum powder and fluoride powder are mixed together in a hermetic vessel filled with hydrogen gas, and the mixture is reacted at not less than 410° C. and not more than 560° C which meets the limitation of method for producing sodium borohydride, the method comprising at a time when a sodium borate, an aluminum powder, and a fluoride powder are mixed and caused to react in a tightly sealed vessel filled with a hydrogen gas at a temperature of 560*C or lower (paragraph 42). Sugita et al. teaches a hard shell is stable even when stirring is performed using a medium, and thus the above reactions proceed toward the inside of the aluminum particles (paragraph 76). Sugita et al. teaches stirring with a medium offers a high degree of mixing of the offshore materials, and high reaction efficiency may be achieved (paragraph 91). Sugita et al. teaches stirring is performed using a stirring medium, the acceptable stirring rate may range from a low rotational speed where the stirrer's circumferential velocity is about 13 cm/sec to a high rotational speed where the stirrer has a circumferential velocity of 90 cm/sec or above and the medium gains a collision energy that can deform, and roll and mill the aluminum (paragraph 109). Sugita et al. teaches if, however, the circumferential velocity is 90 cm/sec or above, the aluminum is rolled and ground to thin and elongated shapes, which tend to stick to the vessel walls together with the ingredients and the products. As a result, less material is mixed and the reaction yield is lowered (paragraph 109). Sugita et al. teaches thus, the stirring rate is preferably such that the circumferential velocity of the stirrer is not more than 70 cm/sec, which does not cause a deformation of aluminum (paragraph 109). Sugita et al. does not wherein a stirring height ratio (X) expressed by a following formula (I) is 75% or more, in which (a) is a minimum clearance between the stirrer and a lowest part of the tightly sealed vessel in a gravity direction, and(b) is a raw material charged height when a raw material is charged into the tightly sealed vessel: X = [(b - a)/b] x 100 Formula (I).
Ibrahim et al. teaches mechanical agitation is widely employed in chemical process industries for heat and mass transfer applications or chemical reactions applications (page 1, paragraph 1). Ibrahim et al. teaches the efficiency of the mixing process is dependent on different internal parameters such as agitation speed, impeller type, tank geometry, geometrical ratios such as impeller to tank diameter (D/T), off-bottom clearance to tank diameter (C/T), liquid height to tank diameter (H/D), dispersed phase hold-up and fluid physical properties (page 1, paragraph 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use an impeller at an optimized height to stir the raw materials in the hermetic tank taught by ‘583 to efficiently mix the raw material because mixing increases the efficiency of the chemical reaction.
Regarding claim 2, Sugita et al. teaches sodium metaborate (paragraph 120).
Regarding claim 3, Sugita et al. teaches sodium fluoride (NaF) (paragraph 118).
Regarding claim 4, Sugita et al. teaches wherein a mole ratio of aluminum in the aluminum powder to boron in the sodium borate is 4/3 or more (paragraph 97).
Regarding claim 5, t Sugita et al. teaches the molar ratio of any alkali metal plus sodium in the sodium borate becomes 1 or more relative to boron in the sodium borate (hereinafter, the ratio will be referred to as Na/B (by mol)), and Na/B (by mol) is preferably in the range of more than 1 and not more than 4 which meets the limitation wherein an alkali metal oxide or an alkali earth metal oxide is further added, and a mole ratio of a total mole amount of an alkali metal and an alkaline earth metal, and an alkali metal and an alkali earth metal that are included in the sodium borate to a mole amount of boron included in the sodium borate is 1.0 or more and 1.4 or less (paragraphs 118 and 119).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GUINEVER S GREGORIO whose telephone number is (571)270-5827. The examiner can normally be reached M-W 11 am - 9 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, Coris Fung can be reached at 571-270-5713. 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.
/GUINEVER S GREGORIO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1732 01/06/2026