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 Amendment
The rejection of claim 45 under 35 USC § 112 is withdrawn by the examiner in view of the amendment filed on 4/24/2026.
Since a new Non-Final Office Action is follows, Applicants’ arguments will not be addressed.
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.
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.
Claims 7–20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Ziebarth et al. (International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, Vol. 36, pp. 5271–5279, 2011)
Ziebarth discloses Al–Ga binary and Al–Ga–In–Sn alloys in which a gallium-based liquid phase exists at near-ambient temperatures and enables aluminum transport/dispersion through the liquid phase, with reaction onset for Al–Ga binaries at ~26–27 °C corresponding to eutectic melting (see pp. 5274–5275; Figs. 1–2; discussion at pp. 5275–5276). Ziebarth teaches combining gallium and aluminum to form Ga-rich Al–Ga alloys (e.g., 28 wt.% Al–72 wt.% Ga; 50 wt.% Al–50 wt.% Ga) (Table 1; p. 5272) and teaches that at ~26–27 °C a liquid gallium phase exists which solvates aluminum and enables its transport/dispersion through the liquid phase (pp. 5274–5276; Figs. 1–2; Section 4.2).
While Ziebarth does not expressly recite “applying pressure.” However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the process of Ziebarth by applying pressure as claimed to promote intimate contact between a solid aluminum phase and a liquid gallium phase to accelerate dispersion is a routine process optimization.
Although Ziebarth’s expressly exemplified compositions do not identically correspond to the presently claimed gallium-to-aluminum atomic ratio of about 2:1 to about 5:1, Ziebarth nevertheless teaches gallium-rich aluminum systems in which gallium disrupts aluminum passivation and promotes hydrogen generation through aluminum dispersion within a gallium-containing phase (pp. 5271–5276). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to optimize the relative gallium and aluminum concentrations within the known Ziebarth gallium-aluminum system, including selecting gallium-to-aluminum ratios within the presently claimed range, in order to balance aluminum availability and gallium-mediated passivation disruption for hydrogen generation. The claimed atomic-ratio range therefore represents optimization of a result-effective variable.
Claim 8 Ziebarth teaches cooling molten Al–Ga alloys to room temperature and handling alloys that solidify upon cooling (pp. 5272–5273; Section 2.1)
Claims 9–10 Ziebarth teaches aluminum present as solid regions/grains supplying aluminum to a Ga-rich liquid phase (pp. 5275–5276; SEM/EDX discussion, Section 3.2.4). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the process of Ziebarth by using thin aluminum feed forms (foil) as claimed to facilitate contact and dispersion is an obvious design choice.
Claims 11–12 Ziebarth discloses aluminum present as solid grains that enter a liquid gallium phase and are transported to reaction sites (pp. 5275–5276; Section 4.2). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the process of Ziebarth by selecting particle size to facilitate dispersion is routine optimization.
Claims 13–14 Ziebarth teaches that aluminum metal is the reactive constituent and that gallium enables its transport irrespective of aluminum source (pp. 5275–5276; Section 4.2). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the process of Ziebarth by using scrap aluminum (e.g., cans or wrappers) is an obvious source selection motivated by availability and cost.
Claims 15–16 Ziebarth do not expressly disclose gallium-to-aluminum atomic ratios from about 2.5:1 to about 4:1 or from about 2.5:1 to about 3.5:1. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further optimize the relative concentrations of gallium and aluminum within the known Ziebarth gallium-aluminum system because the claimed narrower ratio ranges merely represent further optimization of the same result-effective variable discussed above for claim 7. Applicant has not demonstrated criticality or unexpected results associated specifically with the narrower claimed ranges. (Table 1; pp. 5272–5273)
Claims 17–20 Ziebarth teaches that gallium does not participate in hydrogen formation and functions as a transport medium for aluminum (pp. 5275–5276; Section 4.2), thereby motivating recovery and reuse of gallium.
Claim 45 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ziebarth as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Giri et al. (US 11,198,923 B2)
The process of Ziebarth is as discussed above.
Ziebarth does not expressly disclose particles having an average size from about 5 nm to about 30 nm diameter dispersed in gallium.
Giri et al. teach aluminum-based hydrogen-generating nanogalvanic systems containing dispersed nanoscale particles and expressly disclose particle dimensions including “2–100 nm,” “less than 100 nm,” “less than 50 nm,” and “even less than 10 nm,” which overlap the presently claimed range of about 5 nm to about 30 nm (col. 27, ll. 1-5; col. 38, ll. 1-25). Giri further teach that smaller dispersed particle dimensions increase galvanic reactivity, disrupt oxide passivation, expose fresh aluminum surface, and improve hydrogen-generation kinetics (col. 35, ll. 10-40). Giri additionally identify gallium as a suitable dispersed/cathodic phase material in hydrogen-generating aluminum systems (col. 10, ll. 34-44).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to optimize the dispersed particle dimensions within the gallium-containing aluminum system taught by Ziebarth to nanoscale dimensions overlapping the claimed 5–30 nm range in order to improve galvanic reactivity, oxide-layer disruption, and hydrogen-generation kinetics, as expressly taught by Giri. The claimed particle-size range therefore represents optimization of a result-effective variable within a known gallium-aluminum hydrogen-generating system.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAM M NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1452. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Frid.
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, Prem C Singh can be reached at 571-273-6381. 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.
/TAM M NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771
Prosecution Insights