DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 01 June 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-11 remain pending in the application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 1 and 3-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HUANG et al., “Improving the hydrogenation properties of AZ31-Mg alloys with different carbonaceous additives by high energy ball milling (HEBM) and equal channel angular pressing (ECAP),” International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, ELSEVIER, 13 November 2019, Pages 22291-22301, Volume 45, No. 42. In view of US6103024 of Sapru, further in view of JP2005054243 (machine translation) of Morita.
Claim 1 claims a magnesium-based composite material, comprising: a magnesium-based solid solution, comprising: magnesium; at least one first catalytic metal selected from the group consisting of aluminum, zinc, zirconium, nickel, titanium, vanadium, chromium, cobalt, iron, copper, molybdenum, niobium, palladium, and yttrium; and at least one first carbon allotrope; and an amorphous additive mixed with the magnesium-based solid solution, wherein the amorphous additive comprises: at least one second catalytic metal selected from the group consisting of zirconium, nickel, titanium, vanadium, chromium, cobalt, iron, copper, molybdenum, niobium, palladium, and yttrium, wherein a weight percentage of the at least one second catalytic metal in the amorphous additive is from 35 wt% to 45 wt%; and at least one second carbon allotrope.
Huang teaches improving the hydrogenation properties of AZ31-Mg alloys with different carbonaceous additives by high energy ball milling (HEBM) and equal channel angular pressing (ECAP) in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Huang discloses a material containing magnesium, aluminum, zinc, and various carbon allotropes (activated carbon, carbon black, and graphene), see introduction and abstract. Huang does not teach that one of the additives is amorphous or a weight percentage of the second catalytic metal. Huang also does not teach an at least one second catalytic metal selected from the group consisting of zirconium, nickel, titanium, vanadium, chromium, cobalt, iron, copper, molybdenum, niobium, palladium, and yttrium.
Sapru teaches magnesium mechanical alloys for thermal hydrogen storage in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Sapru discloses amorphous structure and teaches that the amorphous structure is needed to overcome the problem of the unfavorably high desorption temperature characteristic of most crystalline systems, para[0022]. Sapru also teaches that nickel, vanadium, titanium, iron, and copper hydrides have been used as a method of storing hydrogen, Para[0006]. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to produce the magnesium-based composite disclosed in Huang with nickel, vanadium, titanium, iron, or copper and the amorphous structure taught by Sapru in order to overcome the problem of unfavorably high desorption temperature.
Morita teaches hydrogen storage material, its production method, and hydrogen generator in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Morita teaches a metal structure having a composition represented by the formula: (MgXV1-X) CY (0.2 ≦ X ≦ 0.9, 0 <Y ≦ 0.4), Para[0010], and amorphous carbon, Para[0033]. This covers the claimed composition of the amorphous additive, including the weight percentage of the second catalytic metal as a value for X of 0.7 and value of Y of 0.4 would result in a wt% for V of 41.2%. This overlaps with the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP 2144.05. Morita teaches that the present invention is a hydrogen storage material that has a high reaction rate and a low hysteresis while taking advantage of the high hydrogen storage capacity that is characteristic of Mg metal and the excellent plateau flatness in the PCT diagram, for example, a single-stage plateau. The present invention also provides a hydrogen generator using such a hydrogen storage material, Para[0006]. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the amorphous additive with the second catalytic metal in the range disclosed by Morita in the composite material taught by Huang in order to make a hydrogen storage material with high reaction rate and low hysteresis.
Therefore, Huang in view of Sapru and Morita cover all limitations of claim 1.
Claim 3 further limits claim 1 by claiming that a weight percentage of each one of the at least one first catalytic metal in the magnesium-based solid solution is smaller than or equal to 9 wt%.
Huang discloses several versions of the AZ31 alloy with different carbon allotropes. Huang teaches a composition with 3.08 wt% Al, 0.91 wt% Zn, 0.39 wt% Mn, and balance Mg, see materials and processes. Al, Zn, and Mn are all present with less than 9 wt %. Thus, Huang in view of Sapru and Morita covers all limitations of claim 3.
Claim 4 further limits claim 1 by claiming that when the at least one first catalytic metal comprises aluminum, a weight percentage of aluminum among the at least one first catalytic metal is the largest.
Huang discloses several versions of the AZ31 alloy with different carbon allotropes. Huang teaches a composition with 3.08 wt% Al, 0.91 wt% Zn, 0.39 wt% Mn, and balance Mg, see materials and processes. In these examples, the weight percentage of aluminum is the largest among the at least one first catalytic metals. Thus, Huang in view Sapru and Morita covers all limitations of claim 4.
Claim 5 further limits claim 1 by claiming that the at least one first carbon allotrope and the at least one second carbon allotrope are independently selected from the group consisting of graphite, graphene, fullerene, single-walled carbon nanotubes, multi-walled carbon nanotubes, activated carbon, and carbon black.
Huang discloses several versions of the AZ31 alloy with different carbon allotropes. Huang teaches versions with graphene, activated carbon, and carbon black, see materials and processes. Thus, Huang in view of Sapru and Morita covers all limitations of claim 5.
Claim 6 further limits claim 1 by claiming that a weight percentage of the at least one first carbon allotrope in the magnesium-based solid solution is smaller than or equal to 3 wt%.
Huang discloses several versions of the AZ31 alloy with different carbon allotropes. Huang teaches versions with graphene, activated carbon, and carbon black all with a range of 1-3 wt% carbon, see materials and processes. This overlaps with the claimed range of less than or equal to 3 wt%. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP 2144.05. Thus, Huang in view of Sapru and Morita covers all limitations of claim 6.
Claim 7 further limits claim 1 by claiming that in the amorphous additive, a weight percentage of the at least one second carbon allotrope is larger than a weight percentage of the at least one second catalytic metal.
Huang discloses several versions of the AZ31 alloy with different carbon allotropes. Huang teaches versions with graphene, activated carbon, and carbon black all with a range of 1-3 wt% carbon, and 3.08 wt% Al, 0.91 wt% Zn, 0.39 wt% Mn, and balance Mg, see materials and processes. In this example, carbon is present in a greater amount than the second catalytic metals. Therefore, Huang teaches this limitation. Thus, Huang in view of Sapru and Morita covers all limitations of claim 7.
Claim 8 further limits claim 1 by claiming that an average particle size of the magnesium-based composite material is from 20 µm to 80µm.
Huang teaches a particle size distribution of 39.18 µm to 74.74 µm, see Table 2. This overlaps with the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP 2144.05. Therefore, Huang in view of Supra and Morita covers all limitations of claim 8.
Claim 9 further limits claim 1 by claiming that an average grain size within the magnesium-based solid solution is from 4 µm to 34 µm.
Huang teaches average grain sizes of the AZ/carbon alloys ranging from 3.65 µm to 18.34 µm, see Table 1. This overlaps with the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP 2144.05. Therefore, Huang in view of Supra and Morita covers all limitations of claim 9.
Claim 10 further limits claim 1 by claiming that a maximum reversible hydrogen storage capacity of the magnesium-based composite material is from 6 wt% to 7 wt%.
Huang teaches a maximum capacity of 6.72 ± 0.05 wt% for absorption and desorption for the whole amount of hydrogen, see hydrogenation kinetics. This overlaps with the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP 2144.05. Therefore, Huang in view of Supra and Morita covers all limitations of claim 10.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HUANG et al., “Improving the hydrogenation properties of AZ31-Mg alloys with different carbonaceous additives by high energy ball milling (HEBM) and equal channel angular pressing (ECAP),” International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, ELSEVIER, 13 November 2019, Pages 22291-22301, Volume 45, No. 42. In view of US6103024 of Sapru and JP2005054243 of Morita, as cited above, further in view of US9533884 of El-Eskandarany.
Claim 2 further limits claim 1 by claiming that a weight percentage of the amorphous additive in the magnesium-based composite material is from 1 wt% to 15 wt%.
Sapru discloses amorphous structure and teaches that the amorphous structure is needed to overcome the problem of the unfavorably high desorption temperature characteristic of most crystalline systems, para[0022]. Sapru does not specifically disclose the numerical limitation of 1 wt% to 15 wt%.
El-Eskandarany teaches a composition for hydrogen storage in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. El-Eskandarany discloses composite powder with 5 wt% of amorphous Zr70 Ni20 Pd10 powder, Para[0034]. This lies within the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP 2144.05. El-Eskandarany teaches that the present inventors have found that combining Zr70 Ni20 Pd10 powder with MgH2 powder as described herein improves the hydrogenation/dehydrogenation behavior of MgH2, Para[0023]. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to produce the magnesium based composite material disclosed in Huang in view of Sapru, with the amorphous additive in the range disclosed in El-Eskandarany to improve the hydrogenation/dehydrogenation behavior. Thus, Huang in view of Sapru and Morita further in view of El-Eskandarany covers all limitations of claim 2.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HUANG et al., “Improving the hydrogenation properties of AZ31-Mg alloys with different carbonaceous additives by high energy ball milling (HEBM) and equal channel angular pressing (ECAP),” International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, ELSEVIER, 13 November 2019, Pages 22291-22301, Volume 45, No. 42. In view of US6103024 of Sapru and JP2005054243 of Morita, as cited above, further in view of CN114959393 of Zhang further in view of CN1506482 of Leng.
Claim 11 further limits claim 1 by claiming that a hydrogen absorption rate of the magnesium-based composite material is from 2 wt% per minute to 4 wt% per minute, and a hydrogen desorption rate of the magnesium-based composite material is from 0.25 wt% per minute to 1.25 wt% per minute.
Huang discloses several versions of the AZ31 alloy with different carbon allotropes. Huang teaches absorption and desorption rates for the disclosed alloys, see Tables 3 and 4. While none of the absorption rates taught by Huang fall within the claimed range, some of the desorption rates do overlap with the claimed range. For example, AZ31-3G in Table 3 discloses a hydrogen desorption rate of 1.13-1.45 wt% per minute. This overlaps with the claimed range for desorption rate. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP 2144.05. Huang does not teach the numerical limitation specified for hydrogen absorption rate in claim 11.
Zhang teaches a method for improving hydrogen storage performance of Mg-Y-Zn alloy in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Zhang discloses a hydrogen desorption rate of 0.27 wt% per minute (6.31 wt% in 23 minutes), Para[0030]. This overlaps with the claimed range for desorption rate. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP 2144.05. Zhang also discloses that the purpose of the present invention is to provide a method for preparing nano-scale Mg-Y-Zn alloy by rotary forging technology, thereby improving its hydrogen storage performance, Para[0006].
Leng teaches nano composite amorphous magnesium base hydrogen storing material and its preparation in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Leng discloses a hydrogen absorption rate of 3.8wt.% in 1 minute, Para[0028]. This overlaps with the claimed invention. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP 2144.05. Leng also discloses that it is an object of the present invention to provide a Mg-based nano/amorphous composite hydrogen storage material which greatly improves the hydrogen absorption and desorption kinetics of Mg while maintaining a high hydrogen storage capacity of Mg, Para[0005].
Therefore, based on the teachings of Huang, Zhang, and Leng it would be obvious to produce the magnesium-based composite disclosed in Huang in view of Sapru and Morita with a hydrogen absorption rate in the range of 2 wt% to 4 wt% per minute and a hydrogen desorption rate in the range of 0.25 wt% to 1.25 wt% per minute, in order to improve the storage kinetics while maintaining a high hydrogen storage capacity. Thus, Huang in view of Sapru and Morita further in view of Zhang and Leng covers all limitations of claim 11.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01 June 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that (remarks, page 7 of 10) claim 1, as amended, patentably defines over the cited prior art because the cited prior art does not disclose a weight percentage of the at least one second catalytic metal in the amorphous additive of 35 to 45 wt%. This argument is moot as the new ground of rejection necessitated by amendment relies upon secondary reference Morita which teaches the claimed wt% for the second catalytic metal as described in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Applicant argues that (remarks, page 8 of 11) Sapru does not teach the amorphous additive of claim 1 because the amorphous structure of Sapru is derived from Japanese patent No. 55-167401 while the nickel, vanadium, titanium, iron, and copper taught by Sapru is derived from French patent No. 1,529,371. This argument is not persuasive as Sapru also teaches iron, copper, and nickel derived from Japanese patent No. 55-167401, column[4]. Therefore, Sapru does in fact teach the second catalytic metal. Additionally, one of ordinary skill in the art would considers the teachings of Sapru as a whole and would be able to apply the metal elements of the French patent to the amorphous structure of the Japanese patent.
Thus, the rejection is maintained.
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 JACOB BENJAMIN STILES whose telephone number is (571)272-0598. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30am - 5:00pm.
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, Keith Hendricks can be reached at (571) 272-1401. 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.
/Keith D. Hendricks/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1733
/JACOB BENJAMIN STILES/Examiner, Art Unit 1733
Prosecution Insights