DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1 and 3 have been amended. New claims 4-8 are added. Claims 1-8 are pending in the instant application.
Priority
This application is a divisional of U.S. Pat. App. 17/730,475, filed April 27, 2022, issued as U.S. Patent No. 11,840,451; which is a continuation of U.S. Pat. App. No. 17/351,079, filed June 17, 2021, issued as U.S. Patent No. 11,332,366; which claims priority to U.S. Provisional Pat. App. No. 63/063,406, filed August 9, 2020, to U.S. Provisional Pat. App. No. 63/070,242, filed August 25, 2020, and to U.S. Provisional Pat. App. No. 63/080,866, filed September 21, 2020.
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-8 are under examination on the merits.
Specification
The priority data in the first paragraph of the specification does not contain updated information. Specifically, the first paragraph of the specification should include that this application is a divisional of U.S. Pat. App. 17/730,475, filed April 27, 2022, issued as U.S. Patent No. 11,840,451; which is a continuation of U.S. Pat. App. No. 17/351,079, filed June 17, 2021, issued as U.S. Patent No. 11,332,366. An appropriate amendment is required.
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 obviousness-type 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claims 1-8 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-13 of U.S. Patent No. 11,332,366 (“the `366 patent”) in view of US2016/0355918 (“the `918 publication”).
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Applicant’s claim 1 is drawn to a kit comprising: a moisture-stabilized material including a bulk volume, an activation metal, and a salt in crystalline form, the bulk volume including aluminum, the activation metal including gallium, the activation metal distributed within the aluminum of the bulk volume, and the salt in crystalline from on an outer surface of the bulk volume and dissolvable in water to form a first aqueous solution; and a container defining a volume, wherein the moisture-stabilized material is disposed in the volume of the container, and the container forms a gas-tight seal about the moisture-stabilized material in the volume of the container. Applicant’s specification (FIG. 1C) illustrates the moisture-stabilized material; and specification (FIGs. 2A-2C) illustrates the kit.
Claim 1 of the `366 patent are drawn to a method of producing hydrogen from water-reactive aluminum, the method comprising: providing a material in a container, the material including a bulk volume including aluminum and at least one activation metal, the at least one activation metal disposed along the aluminum within the bulk volume, and the at least one activation metal includes gallium; exposing a first aqueous solution to an additive to form a second aqueous solution, the aluminum of the bulk volume having a first hydrogen yield in the first aqueous solution, the additive including dietary flavonoids, and the aluminum of the bulk volume having a second hydrogen yield in the second aqueous solution, the second hydrogen yield greater than the first hydrogen yield; and in the container, reacting the second aqueous solution with the aluminum of the bulk volume to produce reaction products including hydrogen.
Since the present application is a coninuation applicantion of the `366 patent, they share the same disclosure including the drawings of FIG. 1C and FIGs. 2A-2C.
In addition, the `918 publication (FIGs. 8A-C) teach a reaction system 81 (kit) is capable of reacting activated aluminum fuel with water to produce hydrogen, wherein the activated aluminum is an aluminum object to a eutectic alloy including indium and gallium.
Therefore, the difference between the claimed kit and a method of applied the claimed kit for producing hydrogen is further taught and/or suggested by the `918 publication (FIGs. 8A-C).
In terms of claims 2 and 7-8, the `366 patent disclosed the same kit of FIGs. 2A-2C, and FIG. 1C discloses the moisture-stabilized material including a bulk volume, an activation metal, and a salt in crystalline form, the bulk volume including aluminum, the activation metal including gallium, the activation metal distributed within the aluminum of the bulk volume, and the salt in crystalline from on an outer surface of the bulk volume and dissolvable in water to form a first aqueous solution.
In terms of claim 3, the `366 patent (claim 4) discloses within the container, the first aqueous solution is exposed to the additive to form the second aqueous solution in the presence of the bulk volume including aluminum and the at least one activation metal, wherein the at least one activation metal suggests the additive may include one or more metals.
In terms of claims 4-6, the `366 patent (claims 5-13) discloses the additive includes one or more acids; one or more food grade consumables; and the additive are reactive with water in the volume of the container to form a hydrogen-containing gas.
Conclusions
Claims 1-8 are rejected.
Specification is objected to.
Telephone Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Yong L. Chu, whose telephone number is (571)272-5759. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30am-5:00pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Amber R. Orlando can be reached on 571-270-3149. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
/YONG L CHU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1731
Prosecution Insights