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 .
Election/Restrictions
The argument that non-elected claims would not be expected to require a separate search or raise issues distinct from those addressed in examination of the elected claims is not persuasive because the composition as claimed can be made from different method such as a method which is operated at high pressure and temperature. Also, the technical feature common to all the independent claim is rendered obvious by Ziebarth. According, the special technical feature liking the three inventions does not provide a contribution over the prior art, and no single general inventive concepts exist. The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 45 is 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 45 depends from claim 7 and recites that “aluminum includes particles having an average size from about 5 nm to about 30 nm diameter dispersed in gallium.” However, claim 7 requires applying pressure to a mixture of gallium and aluminum until the aluminum has dispersed, thereby forming an alloy. Claim 45 does not specify whether the recited aluminum particles having an average size of 5–30 nm are present prior to the pressure-applying step of claim 7 or are formed as a result of the pressure-applying step. Thus, it is unclear whether the nanoscale dispersion is an initial condition of the method or an outcome of the claimed process.
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.
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 discloses Ga-rich compositions having ratios within 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 teach the use a nanoscale aluminum as claimed.
Giri teaches that aluminum-based compositions for hydrogen generation benefit from nanometer-scale aluminum features, expressly defining nano-scale aluminum as having particle diameters less than 100 nm and even less than 10 nm, and explains that reducing aluminum feature size disrupts aluminum passivation and increases reaction kinetics. (See abstract; col. 6, lines 11-13)
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 employing nanoscale aluminum as suggested by Giri, rather than larger-scale aluminum particles, in the gallium-based aluminum dispersion system of Ziebarth in order to further enhance oxide-layer disruption, increase exposed reactive surface area, and improve aluminum utilization during hydrogen generation. The selection of aluminum particle sizes within the claimed 5–30 nm range represents a result-effective variable and constitutes a predictable optimization of aluminum size within the system taught by Ziebarth.
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