CTNF 18/555,976 CTNF 70465 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Priority 02-26 AIA Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Specification 06-16 AIA Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details. The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided. The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because of the inclusion of legal phraseology such as “comprises” on lines 1 and 3 of the abstract. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA 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. 07-34-01 Claims 1-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, 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. Claim 1 is indefinite since it is not clear when the defined amount of the indicator material is added to the hydrogen carrier material during each storage cycle of the cyclic storage process. Is the indicator material added prior to or after charging the hydrogen carrier material with hydrogen? Is the indicator material added prior to or after releasing hydrogen from the hydrogen carrier material? Claim 1 is also indefinite since it is not clear whether the “proportion of the indicator material in the mixture” determined in the method refers to a cumulative proportion or amount of all of the indicator material added to the hydrogen carrier material over a defined period of time covering each storage cycle of the cyclic storage process. Claim 1 is also indefinite since it is not clear whether the “degradation of the hydrogen carrier material” refers to how long the hydrogen carrier material has been in use to charge and release hydrogen therefrom, or how many storage cycles of storing and releasing hydrogen that the hydrogen carrier material has been used in. Claim 1 is also indefinite since it is not clear how the proportion of the indicator material in the mixture is used to determine a state of the hydrogen carrier material. Does the indicator material added to the hydrogen carrier material during each storage cycle of the cyclic storage process in a defined amount remain unchanged so that it accumulates in the hydrogen carrier material over time so that the determined accumulated proportion of the indicator material in the hydrogen carrier represents a number of storage cycles for the carrier material? And does a degradation of the carrier refer to how many storage cycles the carrier material has been processed through? See all of the same problems in independent claim 17. On lines 2-3 of claim 2, the phrase “added during and after releasing the hydrogen carrier material” should be changed to –during and after releasing hydrogen from the hydrogen carrier material—since it is hydrogen which is released from the hydrogen carrier material. Claim 6 is indefinite since it recites that “the indicator material is formed during a storage cycle”. However, independent claim 1, from which claim 6 depends, recites that an indicator material is added to the hydrogen carrier material. If the indicator material is “formed during a storage cycle”, as recited in claim 6, no indicator material is “added” to the hydrogen carrier material as recited in claim 1. Therefore, claim 6 is inconsistent with what is recited in claim 1. On line 2 of claim 8, the phrase “the use of a heterogeneous catalyst” is indefinite since it is not clear whether this refers to a heterogeneous catalyst being used in the “selective conversion of the hydrogen carrier material” recited in claim 7. Claim 10 is indefinite since it is not clear what constitutes a “by-product” in the mixture. Is the by-product produced as a result of the hydrogenation or dehydrogenation of the hydrogen carrier material? Or is the by-product produced from the indicator material added to the hydrogen carrier material during hydrogenation or dehydrogenation? On lines 2-3 of claim 11, the phrase “for determining the degradation of the hydrogen carrier material on the basis of the determined proportion of the by-product” is indefinite since the claims do not positively recite determining the degradation of the hydrogen carrier material on the basis of the determined proportion of the by-product. Rather, the claims positively recite determining the degradation of the hydrogen carrier material on the basis of the determined proportion of the indicator material. On lines 3-4 of claim 12, the phrase “prior to release and prior to loading of the hydrogen carrier material” should be changed to -- prior to release and prior to charging of the hydrogen carrier material with hydrogen—so as to use the same terminology as recited in claim 1. Claim 14 is indefinite since it does not positively recite any method steps for how a hydrogen carrier material is “utilized” to determine a state of a number of storage cycles and a degradation of the “further hydrogen carrier material”. Without knowing what specific steps to perform in order to determine a state of a number of storage cycles and a degradation of the “further hydrogen carrier material”, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to perform the method and would not know whether they are infringing on the method. It is not clear how the method recited in claim 14 is performed since no positive method steps are recited. Claim 14 is also indefinite since it is not clear how a hydrogen carrier material as indicator material is used for determining a state of a further hydrogen carrier material. Is the hydrogen carrier material as indicator material added to the further hydrogen carrier material during individual storage cycles of the hydrogen carrier material in a defined amount that remains unchanged so that it accumulates in the hydrogen carrier material over time? Is a determined amount of the indicator material in the hydrogen carrier material determined to represent a number of storage cycles for the carrier material? And does a degradation of the carrier refer to how many storage cycles the carrier material has been processed through? Claim 15 is indefinite since it does not positively recite any method steps for how a selectively converted hydrogen carrier material is “utilized” to determine a state of a number of storage cycles and a degradation of the hydrogen carrier material. Without knowing what specific steps to perform in order to determine a state of a number of storage cycles and a degradation of the hydrogen carrier material, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to perform the method and would not know whether they are infringing on the method. It is not clear how the method recited in claim 15 is performed since no positive method steps are recited. Claim 15 is also indefinite since it is not clear how a selectively converted hydrogen carrier material as indicator material is used for determining a state of the hydrogen carrier material. Is the selectively converted hydrogen carrier material as indicator material formed during individual storage cycles of the hydrogen carrier material in a defined amount that remains unchanged so that it accumulates in the hydrogen carrier material over time? Is a determined amount of the indicator material in the hydrogen carrier material determined to represent a number of storage cycles for the carrier material? And does a degradation of the carrier refer to how many storage cycles the carrier material has been processed through? Claim 16 is indefinite since it does not positively recite any method steps for how a by-product of a dehydrogenation reaction of a hydrogen carrier material is “utilized” to determine a state of a number of storage cycles and a degradation of the hydrogen carrier material. Without knowing what specific steps to perform in order to determine a state of a number of storage cycles and a degradation of the hydrogen carrier material, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to perform the method and would not know whether they are infringing on the method. It is not clear how the method recited in claim 16 is performed since no positive method steps are recited. Claim 16 is also indefinite since it is not clear how a by-product of a dehydrogenation reaction of a hydrogen carrier material as indicator material is used for determining a state of the hydrogen carrier material. Is the by-product of a dehydrogenation reaction of a hydrogen carrier material as indicator material formed during individual storage cycles of the hydrogen carrier material in a defined amount that remains unchanged so that it accumulates in the hydrogen carrier material over time? Is a determined amount of the indicator material in the hydrogen carrier material determined to represent a number of storage cycles for the carrier material? And does a degradation of the carrier refer to how many storage cycles the carrier material has been processed through? Clam 17 is indefinite for all of the same reasons for claim 1 set forth above. In addition, claim 17 is indefinite since is not clear where the charging unit, the discharging unit and the mixing unit are located in relation to one another and to a location where the hydrogen carrier material is located. Are each of the charging unit, the discharging unit mixing unit and the mixing unit connected to a location where the hydrogen carrier material is held? Claim 17 is also indefinite since it is not clear whether the proportion of indicator material in the mixture determined by the determination unit represents a cumulative proportion of the indicator material that has been added in a defined amount over several storage cycles of a cyclic storage process comprising both the charging and discharging of hydrogen from the hydrogen carrier material. Claim 21 is indefinite since it is not clear how a hydrogen carrier material can be “a dehydrogenation of benzyltoluene to methylfluorene”. It is suggested to amend claim 21 to recite that the selective conversion of the hydrogen carrier material comprises a dehydrogenation of benzyltoluene to methylfluorene. It is suggested to amend claim 23 to read as follows in order to define the measuring method recited in claim 13: --The method according to claim 13, wherein the measuring method used to determine a proportion of the indicator material in the mixture comprises one of nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy, gas chromatography, liquid chromatography, UV-visible spectroscopy, infrared spectroscopy, Raman spectroscopy, FTIR spectroscopy, refractometry and/or density measurement.— Inventorship 07-20-02-aia AIA This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pez et al (US 2004/0223907, submitted in the IDS filed on October 18, 2023) . With regards to claims 14-16 , Pez et al teach of using a pyrene hydrogen carrier material in a cyclic storage process where each cycle of the storage process comprises contacting hydrogen gas with a pyrene hydrogen carrier material in the presence of a hydrogenation catalyst under hydrogenation conditions to at least partially hydrogenate the pyrene material and then releasing the hydrogen from the pyrene carrier material in a dehydrogenation step (see paragraphs 0086-0091 in Pez et al). Pez et al teach that during the reversible hydrogenation and dehydrogenation of the pyrene hydrogen carrier material, the pyrene material undergoes a selective conversion to form other hydrogen carrier by-products comprising dihydropyrene, tetrahydropyrene, hexahydropyrene and decahydropyrene. See Tables 1 and 2 and paragraphs 0090-0091 in Pez et al. These additional hydrogen carrier materials formed as by-products during the selective hydrogenation and dehydrogenation of pyrene comprise indicators of the reversible hydrogenation and dehydrogenation reactions. Pez et al teach that amounts of each of these indicator materials are detected using a measuring method comprising one of gas-chromatography/mass spectroscopy and proton nuclear magnetic resonance. The amounts of the individual indicator materials differ between the hydrogenated and the dehydrogenated states of pyrene. See Tables 1 and 2 and paragraphs 0090-0091 in Pez et al. Pez et al fail to teach of using the indicator materials formed as by-products during the selective hydrogenation and dehydrogenation of pyrene to determine a state of the pyrene hydrogen carrier material, which is at least one of a number of storage cycles and a degradation of the pyrene hydrogen carrier material. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the indicator materials formed as by-products during the selective hydrogenation and dehydrogenation of pyrene taught by Pez et al to determine a state of the pyrene hydrogen carrier material, which is at least one of a number of storage cycles and a degradation of the pyrene hydrogen carrier material, because Pez et al teach the indicator materials are formed in certain defined amounts in each cycle of hydrogenation and dehydrogenation (see Tables 1 and 2 in Pez et al), thus allowing a cumulative amount of the indicator materials accumulated over multiple hydrogen storage cycles to be determined, which represents a total number of storage cycles that the pyrene carrier material has been subjected to and in turn, a degradation of the pyrene carrier material due to use of the carrier material over the multiple hydrogen storage cycles . Allowable Subject Matter Claims 1 and 17 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action since the closest prior art to Pez et al (US 2004/0223907, submitted in the IDS filed on October 18, 2023 and described above) fails to teach or fairly suggest a method and a system for determining a state of a hydrogen carrier material comprising performing multiple storage cycles of a cyclic storage process, wherein each storage cycle comprises charging a hydrogen carrier material with hydrogen, releasing hydrogen from the hydrogen carrier material, and adding a defined amount of an indicator material to the hydrogen carrier material during some point of each storage cycle to form a mixture, wherein the indicator material remains unchanged during each storage cycle and accumulates over a time period when the storage cycles occur, determining a cumulative proportion or amount of the indicator in the mixture accumulated over the time period of the storage cycles, and determining one or both of a number of storage cycles and a degradation for the hydrogen carrier material on a basis of the determined proportion of the indicator material, wherein a degree of degradation of the hydrogen carrier material is dependent on the number of storage cycles experienced by the carrier material. 07-43-02 Claims 2-13 and 18-23 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims for the same reasons as set forth above. Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please make note of: Weib et al (US 2024/0190703) who teach of a method for providing purified hydrogen gas; Pfluger et al (US 2024/0217814) who teach of a process for providing hydrogen gas; Arlt et al (US 2017/0322192) who teach of a method for measuring a degree of hydrogenation on the basis of detected material properties of a liquid hydrogen carrier; O’Connor et al (US 2021/0207775) who teach of systems for removing hydrogen from regenerable liquid carriers; and Bosmann et al (US 2021/0276862) who teach of a method and apparatus for dehydrogenating a hydrogen carrier medium. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAUREEN M WALLENHORST whose telephone number is (571)272-1266. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday from 6:30 AM to 4:30 PM. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Lyle Alexander, can be reached at telephone number 571-272-1254. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/InterviewPractice. /MAUREEN WALLENHORST/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1797 March 17, 2026 Application/Control Number: 18/555,976 Page 2 Art Unit: 1797 Application/Control Number: 18/555,976 Page 3 Art Unit: 1797 Application/Control Number: 18/555,976 Page 4 Art Unit: 1797 Application/Control Number: 18/555,976 Page 5 Art Unit: 1797 Application/Control Number: 18/555,976 Page 6 Art Unit: 1797 Application/Control Number: 18/555,976 Page 7 Art Unit: 1797 Application/Control Number: 18/555,976 Page 8 Art Unit: 1797 Application/Control Number: 18/555,976 Page 9 Art Unit: 1797 Application/Control Number: 18/555,976 Page 10 Art Unit: 1797