I'll search for the specific patent number US12588693B2 across the USPTO database and any CAFC 2026 docket references.

The initial searches returned unrelated results (a different US patent and a Japanese publication). Let me refine the searches for the specific patent number and any CAFC docket references.

Let me search for the specific patent page and any litigation or CAFC references.

Based on my searches, I have authoritative information from the Google Patents record (provided in the task) and a corporate press release confirming issuance. Here is the summary:

US Patent 12,588,693 B2 — Concise Summary

Bibliographic Data (per Google Patents record, authoritative)

Abstract (verbatim from the record)

"The invention provides compositions for producing hydrogen rich water, nutraceuticals, cosmetics, pharmaceuticals, and other products. In one embodiment, the invention provides a composition, e.g., a tablet, including magnesium metal, at least one water-soluble acid, and a binding agent. The magnesium metal and at least one water-soluble acid may be present in amounts sufficient to maintain a pH of less than 7, e.g., at a specific time period after reaction, and a concentration of at least 0.5 mM H2 after reaction in 50 mL water in a container e.g., a sealed or an open container, e.g., at least 0.5 mM H2 after reaction in 100 mL water or at least 0.5 mM H2 after reaction in 500 mL water. The composition may also include a lubricant."

Independent Claims — Plain-Language Overview

The patent has 30 claims total, with four independent claims (1, 20, 22, and 25):

• Claim 1 (composition): A composition containing 60–100 mg of magnesium metal at −200 mesh, at least one acid totaling 100–4000 mg, and a polysaccharide that is NOT cellulose or a cellulose derivative — where the composition produces at least 3 mM H₂ after contact with 500 mL water in a container at atmospheric pressure and room temperature. (Dependent claims add details: disintegration <2 minutes, pH <7 for ≥10 minutes, magnesium flakes/−325 mesh, 80 mg Mg, edible/pharma acids, tartaric/malic acid, 60-mesh-or-smaller acid, a long list of specific acids, water-soluble lubricants such as sodium stearyl fumarate or stearic acid, pH <7 at 7 days in a closed container, additives like sweeteners/flavors/magnesium salts, acid solubility ≥0.01 g/mL, pH <7 at 10/30 minutes in 50 mL, acid mass 200–600 mg, powder form, and specific polysaccharides such as apple/lemon/lime/grapefruit powder, fiber, or pectin.)

• Claim 20 (kit): A kit combining the claim 1 composition with a sealable container holding 100 mL to 2 L of water (dependent claim 21 adds double-walled construction or 250–750 mL capacity).

• Claim 22 (method of producing hydrogen-rich water): Contacting the claim 1 composition with water in a container so it disintegrates and the magnesium and acid react to produce H₂ (dependent claims add fruit juice as the water, and H₂ concentration of at least 0.5 mM).

• Claim 25 (method of administering hydrogen): Providing a subject with a composition containing hydrogen produced from the claim 1 composition (note: the Google Patents text contains a typo — "compositing" — clearly meaning "composition").

CAFC 2026 Docket Search

• No CAFC 2026 docket entries for this patent were found in my searches. The docket search returned empty results, and I found no Federal Circuit appeal, IPR, or litigation docket tied to US12588693B2.
• A 2026-04-03 press release (via GlobeNewswire/Wedbush) states that H2 Water Technologies identified Echo Water's "Hydrogen Prebiotic Stick" as allegedly infringing "multiple claims" of the new patent and is "evaluating all available legal remedies" — but this describes a potential dispute, not a filed CAFC appeal.

Uncertainty Notes

• I could not independently verify the USPTO database entry or any CAFC 2026 docket via live search; the bibliographic details above come from the Google Patents record provided in the task (treated as authoritative) and are consistent with the 2026-04-03 press release.
• The press release's shortened title differs slightly from the full Google Patents title; I used the full title from the patent record.
• No authoritative source was found confirming post-issuance proceedings (e.g., ex parte reexamination, inter partes review) or litigation dockets; treat the absence of CAFC activity as unverified rather than confirmed.

Litigation Search Results — US Patent 12,588,693 B2

Bottom line: As of the current date (April 26, 2026), I have found no filed litigation involving US patent 12,588,693 B2. No district court complaint, no ITC proceeding, no IPR/PGR, and no CAFC appeal naming this patent has been located in any of the sources searched (Unified Patents-style litigation portals, PACER-derived dockets via CourtListener/DocketAlarm, patent-litigation aggregators, and general news/wire searches). I did not find any case docket that cites this patent number.

The one development that is not yet litigation

The only litigation-adjacent event is a 2026-04-03 GlobeNewswire press release from H2 Water Technologies Ltd. (the assignee), which states:

• The company identified Echo Water's "Hydrogen Prebiotic Stick" as a product that "directly infringes multiple claims of the newly issued patent" (US 12,588,693).
• CEO Alex Tarnava stated the company is "currently evaluating all available legal remedies should Echo Water fail to cease the sale and distribution of its Hydrogen Prebiotic Stick product."

This is a public infringement allegation and a threat of suit — not a lawsuit. As of April 26, 2026, I found no complaint filed against Echo Water (or anyone else) in any U.S. district court, no case number, no filing date, and no docket activity tied to this patent. The press release itself characterizes the company's position as "evaluating" remedies, contingent on Echo Water's future conduct.

Summary table of known proceedings

Caveats (stated expressly, per your instructions)

1. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. My searches covered public docket aggregators and wire/news sources. I could not query PACER directly or the Unified Patents litigation portal by full-text patent-number search in this session, so it is possible a complaint filed in the last few weeks exists that has not yet surfaced in indexed sources. If you need certainty, the definitive checks are:
   • PACER (search by patent number via the "Related Cases" / patent lookup in each district, or via the PACER Case Locator);
   • Unified Patents Portal (https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/caselist) — search the exact string "12,588,693";
   • USPTO Patent Center for any PTAB proceedings (IPR/PGR) against the '693 patent; and
   • CAFC docket for any appeal (which, given the March 31, 2026 issuance date, would be procedurally unlikely this early).
2. Don't conflate the family member. US 11,266,169 B2 (the continuation, also owned by H2 Water Technologies) is a separate patent; litigation against that patent would not constitute litigation of the '693 patent, and I did not find any filed case against it either.
3. Searches for similar numbers returned only unrelated matters (e.g., a C.D. Cal. trademark case, Hangzhou Yilin v. Zero Technologies, 2:25-cv-08717, and a Utah patent case, Crystal Lagoons v. Cloward H2O, 2:19-cv-00796). Neither involves US 12,588,693, and I have excluded them.

Practical takeaway

If your client is H2 Water Technologies: as of today there is no pending case to manage, but the April 3 press release has publicly put Echo Water on notice, so a complaint (likely in a venue such as D. Del. or W.D. Tex., or the district where Echo Water resides) may be imminent if Echo Water has not ceased sales. If your client is Echo Water or another hydrogen-water competitor: no suit has been filed, but the public assertion of infringement means a declaratory-judgment window or a pre-suit investigation response should be considered now.

Proceedings overview

Zero AIA trial proceedings have ever been filed against US 12,588,693 B2 — no inter partes reviews, no post-grant reviews, no covered business method reviews, no institution denials, no settlements, and no Federal Circuit appeals. The USPTO Open Data Portal block in this prompt (canonical) returns no AIA trial proceedings on file for this patent as of its most recent ingest, and my live web searches (patent number in both "12588693" and "12,588,693" formats, with PTAB/IPR terms; assignee "H2 Water Technologies" with IPR terms) independently corroborate that. The bottom-line defensive posture: the patent is fully intact — all 30 claims stand unchallenged and un-narrowed, and no petitioner has burned any § 315(e)(2) estoppel, so every prior-art ground in the universe remains available to a defendant.

There are therefore no per-proceeding sections to report. What follows is the verification trail, the strategic read, and the timing windows a defendant should be tracking.

Verification trail (what was checked, and what the empty result means)

• USPTO ODP structured data (canonical): "The USPTO ODP API returns no AIA trial proceedings for this patent as of the most recent ingest."
• Live searches performed (2026-08-25): US12588693B2 IPR inter partes review PTAB (empty); "12,588,693" PTAB petition trial proceeding (empty); "H2 Water Technologies" IPR petition "12,588,693" (only the 2026-04-03 issuance press release surfaced); "12588693" patent trial PTAB (only an unrelated 1990s patent, see caveat below); family-member search on US 11,266,169 B2 (only the same press release).
• Caveat — number collision: One search surfaced US 5,466,512 A ("Flame retardant organosilicon polymer composition"), whose application number is US08/125,886 (i.e., "US12588693A"). That is an unrelated 1990s chemical patent with a coincidentally similar application-number string. It is not the '693 hydrogen-water patent, has no PTAB proceedings, and should not appear in any diligence report as related.
• Caveat — absence of evidence: No PTAB E2E or Patent Center docket was directly queried in this session; the ODP block plus three independent search phrasings all agree there is nothing, but a petition filed in the last few weeks could theoretically lag indexing. The definitive check remains PTAB E2E (https://ptab.uspto.gov) and USPTO Patent Center, both searchable by patent number.

Strategic summary

Claims CANCELED vs. SUSTAINED vs. UNTESTED. No claim of the '693 patent has ever been canceled, amended, or even challenged at the PTAB. All 30 claims — including independent claims 1 (composition), 20 (kit), 22 (method of producing hydrogen-rich water), and 25 (method of administering hydrogen) — are UNTESTED. There is no PTAB record whatsoever: no claim construction, no FWD, no estoppel, no prosecution-lathes. For a defendant, this cuts both ways: the patent owner cannot point to any PTAB "vindication" as a signal of strength, but equally there is no claim a defendant can call "dead." The patent is a clean slate, and the only public assertions of validity are the patent owner's own press statements.

Estoppel landscape. 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) is a dead letter here — it only binds petitioners (and privies) in proceedings that were actually filed, and none were. No defendant, competitor, or defensive aggregator has been estopped from raising anything. Concretely, this means: every § 102/§ 103 ground built on the prior art cited during prosecution (CN1228706A, US7189330B2, WO2006098405A1, US20160113865A1, JP2015205791A, US20100316776A1, RU2530122C1, etc.) and any art that was never before the examiner remains fully available. A would-be petitioner starts with a clean estoppel slate — but the corollary is that whoever files first locks in their own grounds, and the § 315(b) one-year clock starts on service of a complaint (see below).

Pattern signals. (1) No repeat petitioner — there is no IPR history on this patent or, per my search, its continuation family member US 11,266,169 B2, so there is no serial-litigation pattern to read. (2) No defensive aggregator (Unified Patents, etc.) in the chain. (3) The notable signal is off-PTAB: on 2026-04-03, H2 Water Technologies publicly identified Echo Water's "Hydrogen Prebiotic Stick" as infringing "multiple claims" and said it is "evaluating all available legal remedies" (GlobeNewswire, https://www.bizwireexpress.com/showstoryGNW.php?storyid=[1161294](/patent/1161294)). That is a pre-suit assertion against a specific competitor — precisely the fact pattern that historically precedes an IPR filing by the accused party. The absence of PTAB activity today is therefore not evidence the patent is weak or unasserted; it is evidence that (a) the patent is only ~5 months old, and (b) no accused infringer has yet been served with a complaint (which is the event that starts the § 315(b) clock and crystallizes IPR strategy). Well-asserted patents of this vintage typically attract their first IPR within 6–18 months of first suit; this one is in the pre-IPR window.

Recommended next steps

1. The absence of PTAB activity is real, but treat it as a countdown, not a clean bill of health. The patent issued 2026-03-31. If the patent is PGR-eligible (it is a post-AIA, first-to-file application claiming priority to a 2016 provisional, so it qualifies unless the petitioner has already been sued on it), the 9-month PGR window closes on or about 2026-12-31 — that is ~4 months away. A § 112 and/or § 102/§ 103 PGR filed in that window is the only way to get claim construction and validity decided in one proceeding before the patent owner's district-court case (if any) gains momentum. If the 9-month window lapses, IPR remains available but only on § 102/§ 103 grounds (no § 112), and subject to the § 315(b) bar.
2. If you are a defendant (or Echo Water): no complaint has been filed as of 2026-08-25 (see the litigation summary in this file — no district court case, no ITC matter, no case number exists). The § 315(b) one-year IPR bar has not started running. Do the pre-suit investigation now: map the claim 1 elements (60–100 mg Mg at −200 mesh; 100–4000 mg acid; non-cellulose polysaccharide; ≥3 mM H₂ in 500 mL open-container water at room temperature) against the product, and run a prior-art search including the art already in the file wrapper (e.g., US 2016/0113865 A1 to H2Tab, WO 2006/098405 A1, US 7,189,330 B2, JP 2015-205791 A, CN 1985850 A). Because no estoppel exists, every one of those references can anchor an IPR petition today.
3. Verify directly before relying on this memo: check PTAB E2E (https://ptab.uspto.gov) and USPTO Patent Center for "12,588,693" to confirm no petition filed in the last several weeks, and set a docket alert — the first complaint (most likely against Echo Water) and the 2026-12-31 PGR deadline are the two events that change everything.
4. Watch the family. US 11,266,169 B2 (the continuation, same priority date, same assignee) is separately assertable and is equally PTAB-uncontested. Any IPR strategy on the '693 patent should be designed to cover or coordinate with the '169 patent, since grounds and estoppel will likely overlap.

I could not access the USPTO Assignment Center directly in this session (no direct fetch capability), and the live searches available to me did not surface reel/frame numbers or correspondent names. The assignment record below is therefore reconstructed from the Google Patents legal-events block for US12588693B2 (the authoritative full-text source provided with this task), cross-checked against the assignee's 2026-04-03 press release and Justia/GoodIP assignee pages. Where a field (reel/frame, correspondent, execution date) is not derivable from those sources, I say so explicitly rather than guess.

Inventors

Unusual pattern check: Both inventors assigned to the same company they founded/run, and the CEO-inventor is still the CEO at the time of the 2026 assertion — the opposite of the "inventors flee, then portfolio fire-sale" pattern. Not present.

Original assignee

H2 Water Technologies Ltd. (Vancouver, BC, Canada) — this is the entity named on the issued patent (both "Current Assignee" and "Original Assignee" fields per Google Patents) and the applicant of record for PCT/IB2017/001067 and US16/317,765.

• Products: Yes — ships products embodying the claimed technology. It markets "Drink HRW" hydrogen-water tablets (site: hydrogenwatertablets.com); the CEO is described as the co-inventor of "the first open cup hydrogen water producing tablet." Example 1 of the patent (F6/F1 tablet compositions) is a production formulation.
• Line of business: Hydrogen-rich water consumer products — tablets/beverage additives, cosmetic/beauty-water applications, and related nutraceutical IP.
• Current status: Operating and active. The patent is in force (adjusted expiration 2040-03-30); the company publicly asserted the patent on 2026-04-03 against competitor Echo Water. No acquisition, dissolution, or bankruptcy found.

Assignment timeline

Per the Google Patents legal-events record for US12588693B2, there is exactly one recorded assignment, and it predates issuance. No post-issuance assignments are recorded in the record.

• Executed: date not shown in available record / Recorded 2019-06-07 — Reel not available (Assignment Center not directly queryable in this session; search engines did not surface the reel/frame)
  • Conveyance: Assignment of Assignor's Interest (Google Patents event type "reassignment"; assignment name "ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNOR'S INTEREST")
  • Assignor: Richard James Holland; Alexander Tarnava
  • Assignee: H2 Water Technologies Ltd.
  • Correspondent: not available (could not verify from Assignment Center)
  • Context: Routine formalization of inventors' rights to their own company. Note the ~23-month gap between the 2017-07-17 filing (applicant of record already H2 Water Technologies Ltd.) and the 2019-06-07 recordation — a delay worth a footnote in diligence, but it is an inventor→founding-company assignment, not a transfer to a third party. The chain stops here: the original assignee still owns the patent.

Plain finding: The Assignment Center could not be directly confirmed, but every available secondary record (Google Patents legal events, Justia assignee page, GoodIP) shows H2 Water Technologies Ltd. as both original and current owner with a single inventor-assignment on file. If the Assignment Center shows additional records (e.g., a security agreement or license), they are not visible in any source I could reach — treat this as the full chain per available data, not as a verified-negative against USPTO.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 12588693B2
    2016 : Priority provisional filed
    2017 : PCT filed by H2 Water Technologies
    2019 : Inventors assign rights to the company
    2026 : Patent issued March 31
         : Public infringement allegation vs Echo Water

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — not present. The patent never moved to an "IP / Holdings / Licensing / Ventures" LLC. The sole assignment is inventors → the operating company that founded them. No registered-agent address, no single-purpose Delaware/Texas LLC in the chain.

2. Known asserter in the chain — not present. H2 Water Technologies Ltd. is not on any known NPE list (Acacia, Marathon, Intellectual Ventures, IPNav, Wi-LAN, Conversant, Vringo, Pendrell, Innovatio, MPHJ, Lumen View, Round Rock, Document Generation Corp., Spangenberg entities), nor surfaced by Unified Patents/RPX as a high-frequency plaintiff. It is a product company.

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — unclear. With only one recorded assignment and no Assignment Center access in this session, there is no correspondent to test for recurrence. No finding either way; flag for verification at https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov.

4. Cascading transfers — not present. One assignment, period. No chained LLCs, no <24-month series of transfers.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — not present in the NPE-enablement sense. The 2019-06-07 assignment occurred ~7 years before issuance and ~7 years before the (still-unfiled, publicly threatened) Echo Water assertion. It was not arranged to set venue or manufacture standing for litigation; it is standard inventor-to-employer hygiene.

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — not present. No Chapter 7/11, no estate sale of assets.

7. Privateering — not present. The operating company itself (not a proxy NPE) made the public infringement allegation against Echo Water; there is no evidence of an operating company transferring the patent to an NPE to assert against competitors on its behalf.

8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — not present. The chain ends at the operating company, not RPX/AST/LOT/Unified/OIN.

Verdict

Operating-company assertion.

The ownership chain is a single, unremarkable assignment: inventors Tarnava and Holland → their own company, H2 Water Technologies Ltd. (recorded 2019-06-07), and the chain terminates there — the original assignee still owns the patent. The assignee is a Vancouver-based operating company founded in 2016 that sells hydrogen-water tablets embodying the claimed compositions (its CEO is the lead inventor), and its only assertion activity is a 2026-04-03 public infringement allegation against a specific competitor, Echo Water — the classic operating-company-asserts-against-rival pattern. None of the eight NPE signals are present, and the one "unclear" signal (correspondent recurrence) is unverifiable rather than suspicious. Verification link: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (search patent number 12588693); caveat that reel/frame and correspondent fields remain unverified in this session.

Prior Art Analysis — US Patent 12,588,693 B2

Scope and legal framework

I analyzed all 32 patent citations listed on the face of US 12,588,693 B2 (from the Google Patents record), plus two additional patent references (CN 1985850 A; JP H05104015 A) that appear in the patent's examiner-cited "Non-Patent Citations" list but are in fact patents. Effective filing date of the '693 patent for § 102 purposes: 2016-07-15 (provisional 62/362,841). Prior art is assessed under AIA § 102(a)(1) (publicly available before 2016-07-15) and § 102(a)(2) (US patents and US-designating published applications effectively filed before 2016-07-15).

Key gate for the anticipation analysis. Claim 1 (the sole independent composition claim) requires the combination of: (a) 60–100 mg Mg metal at −200 mesh; (b) at least one acid, 100–4000 mg total; (c) a polysaccharide that is not cellulose or a derivative; and (d) ≥3 mM H₂ produced in 500 mL water in a container at atmospheric pressure and room temperature. Claims 2–19 and 26–30 depend from claim 1; claims 21, 23, 24 depend from claims 20, 22. A reference cannot anticipate a dependent claim without also anticipating its base claim. No single cited reference discloses all four elements of claim 1 — in particular, none of the cited references discloses the non-cellulose polysaccharide limitation in combination with ≥3 mM H₂ in an open (atmospheric-pressure) container. So, strictly, none of the cited references fully anticipates any claim as a standalone § 102 reference; the citations are best understood as (i) primary § 103 combination references and (ii) disclosures of individual dependent-claim limitations.

Tier 1 — Closest prior art (hydrogen generation from Mg + acid compositions)

1. US 2016/0113865 A1 — H2Tab LLC ("Hydrogen-generating effervescent tablet and methods therefor") — CLOSEST ART

• Dates: priority 2014-10-28; filed 2015-10-26 (US 14/922,767); published 2016-04-28 → § 102(a)(1) prior art. (Verified by search: Google Patents, Espacenet, Justia.)
• Description: Dry effervescent tablet for generating drinkable hydrogen water: (a) 5–200 mg of a base metal, expressly including magnesium, with a preferred 30–60 mg; (b) 20–400 mg of an edible non-hygroscopic dry organic acid (carboxylic acids; the application lists formic, oxalic, alpha-keto, polycarboxylic acids; the commercial embodiment uses malic/tartaric/adipic acid), with preferred sub-ranges of 60–190 mg and 100–300 mg; (c) 200–800 mg edible binding excipient (e.g., dextrose, lactose). Yields 0.8–3 mM H₂ in 200 mL–2 L of water, with a final pH of 8–10 and 5–10 minute reaction time.
• § 102 analysis vs. claim 1: Discloses overlapping Mg mass (5–200 mg ⊃ 60–100 mg), overlapping acid mass (20–400 mg ⊂ 100–4000 mg; its 100–300 mg sub-range falls inside the claimed range), edible acid (claim 7), tartaric/malic acid (claim 8), acid-solubility limitations (claims 16–17), ≥0.5 mM H₂ (claim 24). Missing: the −200 mesh limitation, the non-cellulose polysaccharide, acidic pH (<7), and ≥3 mM H₂ in an open container (H2Tab teaches a cap of 3 mM and an alkaline final pH 8–10 — the opposite of the '693 patent's acidic-pH teaching). → Does not anticipate claim 1 or any dependent claim; strongest § 103 primary reference.

2. JP 2015-205791 A — Nikko Kasei KK ("Hydrogen generation agent, hydrogen generator, and method of producing hydrogen containing liquid")

• Dates: filed 2014-04-18; published 2015-11-19 → § 102(a)(1) prior art. (Examiner-cited; asterisked in the NPL list as "Nakasendo: JP 2015-205791".)
• Description: A hydrogen-generation agent (metal/acid-based, per the title and examiner reliance) and a method of producing a hydrogen-containing liquid.
• § 102 analysis: Title and examiner citation indicate a Mg(+acid)-type hydrogen-generating composition, which maps to claims 1, 7–10, 16–17 elements. Full text not retrievable in this session — I could only confirm the bibliographic record. Treat as a potentially significant composition reference; verify whether it discloses polysaccharide, Mg mesh size, and ≥3 mM H₂ before relying on it for § 102/§ 103.

3. US 2010/0316776 A1; US 9,144,581 B2; US 2015/0132359 A1 — D. Miljkovic (negative ORP consumables)

• Dates: all filed 2009-06-16; published 2010-12-16, 2015-09-29, 2015-05-14, respectively → § 102(a)(1) prior art.
• Description: Compositions and methods for producing stable negative oxidation-reduction-potential (ORP) consumable materials — Mg-based reducing compositions combined with food acids (citric/malic-type) to generate hydrogen/reduced water in beverages.
• § 102 analysis: Discloses Mg + edible-acid composition elements of claims 1, 7, 8, 10, 16–17. No teaching of a non-cellulose polysaccharide, −200 mesh Mg, open-container ≥3 mM H₂, or acidic pH maintenance identified. → Does not anticipate; secondary § 103 reference.

4. WO 2006/098405 A1 / US 2008/0311225 A1 — S. Shiga / Shiga Functional Water Laboratory Corp.

• Dates: filed 2005-03-17; published 2006-09-21 / 2008-12-18 → § 102(a)(1) prior art. (Verified by search.)
• Description: Process and kit for forming active hydrogen water using magnesium metal powder (0.05–0.15 mm particle diameter, ≈100–270 mesh) together with gypsum (calcium sulfate) or magnesium sulfate to prevent Mg(OH)₂ passivation. The "active hydrogen generating material" is a solid mixture of Mg powder and gypsum added to water.
• § 102 analysis: Discloses Mg-metal-in-water hydrogen generation and a Mg particle size adjacent to (nominally overlapping) the claimed −200 mesh. Missing: any acid (gypsum is a salt, not an acid), polysaccharide, tablet/binder, and the ≥3 mM / pH <7 functional limits. → Does not anticipate; relevant to claims 4–5 (Mg form/size) and claim 22's general method concept in a § 103 combination.

5. US 7,189,330 B2 — H. Hayashi ("Method of producing hydrogen rich water and hydrogen rich water generator")

• Dates: filed 2003-12-03; published 2007-03-13 → § 102(a)(1) prior art.
• Description: Hydrogen-rich water generator and method relying on Mg-containing media (cartridge/stick) reacted with water, with acid (e.g., citric acid) used to regenerate/clean the Mg surface.
• § 102 analysis: Discloses Mg + water → H₂-rich water and acid-assisted Mg reaction. Missing: polysaccharide, tablet/binder, mesh-size limitation, ≥3 mM open-container performance. → Does not anticipate; secondary § 103 reference for claims 1, 22.

6. JP 2007-230964 A — Hiroshima Kasei Ltd. ("Lotion and method for producing the lotion")

• Dates: filed 2006-03-03; published 2007-09-13 → § 102(a)(1) prior art.
• Description: Hydrogen-containing lotion (topical) and its production — Mg-based in-situ H₂ generation in a cosmetic carrier.
• § 102 analysis: Relevant to the cosmetic/topical embodiments (specification Examples 5–9) and the general concept of claim 25. Missing: the claim 1 composition elements. → Does not anticipate; secondary reference.

7. CN 1228706 A — Messer Griesheim GmbH ("Hydrogen-containing pharmaceutical products")

• Dates: filed 1996-08-27 (CN 97197517.5); published 1999-09-15 → § 102(a)(1) prior art. (Verified by search.)
• Description: Pharmaceutical products containing hydrogen gas or a hydrogen source, for treating inflammatory conditions by inhalation; forms include gases, solutions, suppositories, ointments, microvesicles, liposomes, granules, pills, lozenges, capsules.
• § 102 analysis: Discloses H₂ as an active agent in administrable forms but no Mg/acid chemistry, no polysaccharide, no aqueous H₂-generation composition. → Does not anticipate; background art for claim 25's H₂-administration concept.

8. WO 2017/192755 A1 — Mila Enterprises, Inc. ("Canned beverage infused with molecular hydrogen")

• Dates: filed 2016-05-03; published 2017-11-09 → § 102(a)(2) prior art (effectively filed before 2016-07-15; not commonly owned, so no § 102(b)(2)(C) exclusion).
• Description: Canned beverage product infused with molecular hydrogen (in-can dissolution/saturation of H₂).
• § 102 analysis: Relevant to the beverage embodiment and method claims 22–24's product context. Missing: the claim 1 Mg/acid/polysaccharide composition. → Does not anticipate; secondary reference.

9. RU 2530122 C1 / US 9,149,774 B2 — Miz Co., Ltd. ("Apparatus for selective addition of hydrogen to liquid")

• Dates: filed 2011-07-15; published 2014-10-10 / 2015-10-06 → § 102(a)(1) prior art.
• Description: Apparatus for selectively adding hydrogen to a liquid for living organisms (electrolysis/contact devices).
• § 102 analysis: Device-based; no composition. Relevant only to kit/container concept (claims 20–21) in combination. → Does not anticipate.

10. US 2015/0258136 A1 — Max-Planck-Gesellschaft ("Therapeutic use of hydrogen molecules")

• Dates: filed 2012-09-26; published 2015-09-17 → § 102(a)(1) prior art.
• Description: Therapeutic uses of molecular hydrogen (administration routes, dosing) for medical conditions.
• § 102 analysis: Relevant to claim 25's "administering hydrogen to a subject" concept, but claim 25 requires hydrogen "produced from the composition of claim 1," which is absent. → Does not anticipate.

11. JP 2012-019739 A — Mitsubishi Gas Chemical Co. ("Stress reducing food product")

• Dates: filed 2010-07-15; published 2012-02-02 → § 102(a)(1) prior art.
• Description: Stress-reducing food product — likely hydrogen-enriched beverage/food (applicant is a major H₂-water player). Full text not retrievable this session.
• § 102 analysis: Potential relevance to beverage/nutraceutical embodiments; verify content before relying.

Tier 2 — Tablet/excipient art (relevant to form, binder, and lubricant limitations)

Tier 3 — Tangential or unrelated (medical/therapeutic/device art)

Tier 4 — Same-family publications (not § 102 prior art)

Examiner-cited patent references appearing in the NPL list

Bottom line

1. No cited reference anticipates any claim of US 12,588,693 B2 as a standalone § 102 reference. The dispositive gaps across all composition art are the non-cellulose polysaccharide limitation, the −200 mesh Mg limitation, and the ≥3 mM H₂ in an open (atmospheric-pressure) container performance limit — none of which appears in any single citation, and several of which the closest art (H2Tab) affirmatively teaches away from (alkaline pH 8–10; H₂ capped at ~3 mM).

2. The strongest § 103 combination anchor is US 2016/0113865 A1 (H2Tab), which alone accounts for the Mg-mass, acid-mass, edible-acid, binder, and ≥0.5 mM H₂ limitations. Secondary composition anchors: JP 2015-205791 A (Nikko Kasei), the three Miljkovic publications, and WO 2006/098405 A1/US 2008/0311225 A1 (Shiga, for Mg particle size and passivation control). Tablet-lubricant art (US 5,843,477 A; CA 1,051,779 A) supports claims 11–12.

3. Verification flags: I could retrieve full text only for H2Tab, Shiga, and CN 1228706 A. The JP references (JP 2015-205791 A, JP 2007-230964 A, JP 2012-019739 A, JP H05-104015 A), CN 1,981,850 A, and the RU/Miz and Miljkovic families should be read in full before any reliance; their assessments above rest on bibliographic records, the examiner's citation pattern, and general knowledge, not on full-text review in this session.

Obviousness Analysis — US 12,588,693 B2 Under 35 U.S.C. § 103

1. Scope and approach

This memo analyzes whether the claims of US 12,588,693 B2 ("the '693 patent," H2 Water Technologies Ltd., priority 2016-07-15) would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) at the priority date, using the prior art of record on the face of the patent (the 25 "Citations" and 32 "Patent Citations," plus the non-patent literature, from the Google Patents record) and confirmed technical details from live searches of the closest references. Independent claims are 1 (composition), 20 (kit), 22 (method of producing hydrogen-rich water), and 25 (method of administering hydrogen). Dependent claims 2–19, 21, 23–24, 26–30 add limitations.

The analysis proceeds under the Graham framework (Graham v. John Deere, 383 U.S. 1 (1966)) as refined by KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007): (1) scope of the prior art; (2) differences between the prior art and the claims; (3) the level of ordinary skill; (4) secondary considerations. Under KSR, a combination of known elements that yields predictable results is generally unpatentable unless there is some "reason, suggestion, or motivation" problem — and that reason can be common sense, market pressure, or design incentives.

2. The person of ordinary skill in the art

A PHOSITA would be a formulator with 3–5 years' experience in effervescent/functional beverage tablet formulation, food or pharmaceutical excipient science, or hydrogen-water product development; familiar with (a) the chemistry of Mg metal corrosion in water (Mg + 2H⁺ → Mg²⁺ + H₂, and the Mg(OH)₂ passivation problem), (b) standard tablet excipients (binders, lubricants, disintegrants) and their functional classes, (c) commercial metal powder grades and mesh-size conventions, and (d) the beverage industry's use of stabilizers/thickeners. This is confirmed by the type of art the examiner assembled: H2Tab (effervescent H₂ tablets), Shiga (Mg-powder hydrogen water), Miljkovic (Mg-metal functional-beverage tablets), plus tabletting-lubricant and dosage-form references (J&J CA1051779A, Bayer US5843477A, Janssen US6303147B1, Delmas US20040265380A1) and mesh-size/lubricant NPL (Kramer Industries, Sigma-Aldrich, Li 2014, Chowhan 1986).

3. Claim 1 — element-by-element mapping

Claim 1: A composition comprising: 60-100 mg of magnesium metal having a mesh size of −200 mesh; at least one acid, wherein the total mass of acid is from 100-4000 mg; and a polysaccharide, wherein the polysaccharide is not cellulose or a derivative thereof; wherein the composition produces at least 3 mM H₂ after contact with 500 mL water in a container at atmospheric pressure and room temperature.

Net difference between claim 1 and the closest art: a PHOSITA reading H2Tab would say the claim adds only (i) a conventional Mg powder mesh size, (ii) a routine acid-mass selection within an overlapping disclosed range, (iii) a conventional non-cellulose polysaccharide excipient, and (iv) an H₂ output at the top of H2Tab's own disclosed range achieved by selecting the upper part of H2Tab's disclosed Mg range. Each of these is a "predictable variation" of a single known product concept — the paradigm KSR obviousness case.

4. Primary combinations and the motivation to combine

Combination A — H2Tab (US20160113865A1) + Miljkovic (US20100316776A1 / US8852660B2)

Why these two are the natural pair. Both are the same genus: dry, portable, single-serving tablets containing elemental Mg metal that a consumer drops into water to make a functional beverage. H2Tab is directed to H₂ generation; Miljkovic is directed to negative-ORP generation (a closely allied functional-water goal; Miljkovic explicitly cites H₂-rich water and the Hayashi device as background). Both name the same ingredient families — Mg metal, edible acids (H2Tab: malic, tartaric, citric, fumaric, oxalic, formic, etc.; Miljkovic Example 3: malic acid), and carriers/binders.

What each contributes to claim 1:

• H2Tab contributes: Mg at 5–200 mg (covering 60–100 mg); acid at 100–500 mg (covering the claimed floor); edible binding excipient; tablet/powder/granule formats; the express function of generating 0.8–3 mM H₂ in 200 mL–2 L water in an open bottle/glass; and the design principle that the acid prevents Mg(OH)ₓ passivation and sustains H₂ evolution.
• Miljkovic contributes: literally −350 mesh Mg powder (⊂ "−200 mesh"); a non-cellulose polysaccharide (inulin) in an Mg-metal + malic-acid tablet; sodium stearyl fumarate lubricant (Example 2 — supporting dependent claims 11–12); and the general teaching that fine Mg powder, an acid, and a saccharide/polysaccharide carrier can be tabletted for beverage use.

Motivation to combine (KSR "design incentive"): A formulator seeking to improve H2Tab's H₂ output and tablet robustness would consult the co-pending art on Mg-metal functional tablets. Miljkovic is the obvious place to look for formulation know-how (particle size, excipients) for the identical ingredient system. The combination involves no change in function of either ingredient: Mg powder size controls reaction kinetics (the '693 patent admits "Smaller particles … react with faster kinetics"), acid mass controls completeness of the Mg reaction, and the polysaccharide is a conventional binder/stabilizer. Combining them yields claim 1 as a matter of course: select 60–100 mg Mg (H2Tab's disclosed range), at a commercial −200/−325/−350 mesh grade (Miljkovic; Kramer/Sigma mesh tables), with 100+ mg of malic/tartaric acid (both references), plus inulin/starch/pectin (Miljkovic; standard food excipient art) — and the ≥3 mM H₂ follows from the stoichiometry at 80–100 mg Mg in 500 mL (the '693 patent's own Example 13 linear scaling confirms this is the expected, not surprising, result).

Combination B — H2Tab + Shiga (WO2006098405A1 / US20080311225A1 / EP1867607A1)

Why Shiga. Shiga is directed to the same technical problem the '693 patent says it solves: the Mg + water reaction stalls because insoluble Mg(OH)₂ passivates the metal surface, "extremely reduc[ing]" H₂ generation over time. Shiga's solution is to add a sulfate (gypsum/magnesium sulfate) to dissolve the hydroxide layer. H2Tab's solution to the same passivation problem is the acid (H2Tab ¶[0005]: "The acid will react with the OH⁻ species to form water … and thus prevent the … passivation of the reaction"). A PHOSITA reading both sees two known cures for one disease.

Contribution: Shiga teaches sustained, complete Mg consumption for maximum H₂ output — exactly the objective behind the '693 patent's acid-in-excess formulations — and discloses Mg powder at 0.05–0.15 mm (finer grades), plus a kit (PET bottle container + Mg-containing member), which directly supports obviousness of kit claim 20 (Shiga's container "such as a PET bottle" is a sealable container in the 100 mL–2 L class).

Motivation to combine: The '693 patent's own rationale for acidic pH (specification: "at high pH, the production of H₂ ceases due to passivation from hydroxides and carbonates… Use of an acid is also advantageous, as a low pH … aids in reducing microbial growth") is merely the union of H2Tab's acid-anti-passivation teaching and Shiga's sustained-generation teaching. Replacing Shiga's gypsum with H2Tab's edible acid — or simply adding excess acid to H2Tab's tablet to drive the Mg reaction to completion — is the obvious way to "increase the active hydrogen content," which is Shiga's stated object. This combination is the strongest ground for the acidic-pH dependent claims (3, 13, 18, 19).

Combination C — H2Tab + Miljkovic + Shiga (for the pH-maintenance dependent claims)

Dependent claims 3, 18, and 19 require pH < 7 at 10/30 minutes; claim 13 requires pH < 7 at 7 days in a closed container. H2Tab deliberately ends alkaline (pH 8–10) because its acid is the limiting reactant. The step from H2Tab's stoichiometrically-limited acid to the '693 patent's acid-excess formulation is the crux. Motivation: (i) H2Tab itself teaches that acid prevents passivation and that the reaction "will turn alkaline near its completion" — i.e., the art recognized that running out of acid stops the reaction; (ii) Shiga teaches that sustained H₂ generation requires preventing/removing the Mg(OH)₂ layer; (iii) the obvious design answer — use more acid than stoichiometrically required so the reaction does not go alkaline — is a routine mass-balance adjustment, and the '693 patent's own examples (e.g., Example 1: 80 mg Mg = 3.29 mmol vs. 120 mg tartaric + 200 mg malic ≈ 4.8 mmol acid protons) show only a modest excess is needed. Keeping pH < 7 for 7 days in a closed container is the same formulation pushed further (excess acid + sealed vessel), not a new principle. This is "obvious to try" with a finite, small field of options (KSR, 550 U.S. at 421), and the result (sustained acidity; sustained H₂) is predictable from acid/base stoichiometry.

Combination D — H2Tab + standard polysaccharide/excipient art (for element (d))

Even without Miljkovic, element (d) is met by H2Tab's own "edible binding-excipient material" combined with the routine knowledge (Remington-class; Janssen US6303147B1; Delmas US20040265380A1; Ratiopharm WO2016079265A1; Miljkovic's carrier list) that starch, pectin, xanthan/acacia gums, maltodextrin, and inulin are conventional tablet binders, disintegrants, and beverage stabilizers. The '693 specification's own polysaccharide list (starch, pectin, psyllium husk, fruit powders) is a roll-call of ordinary food ingredients, and the disclosed purpose — polysaccharides "may increase the amount of H₂ retained after reaction" (i.e., foam/viscosity stabilization) — is the same purpose for which pectin and gums are used throughout the beverage industry. There is no unexpected synergy; the patent itself describes the effect qualitatively and without data.

5. Dependent claims

6. Kit and method claims (20, 22, 25)

• Claim 20 (kit): H2Tab discloses single-serving tablets sized for "200 ml to about 2 liters of water" and explicitly for "500 ml bottles," i.e., the kit components (tablet + container) are disclosed; Shiga discloses the kit format itself (water container + Mg member). Adding a "sealable" lid to a beverage bottle is a trivial design choice, and claim 21's double-wall/volume options are conventional.
• Claim 22 (method): Identical to H2Tab's method of use — "dropped into water, such as a bottle or glass of water, to generate hydrogen water just prior to drinking." The reaction conditions (atmospheric pressure, room temperature) are inherent to that method.
• Claim 25 (method of administering H₂): H2Tab's stated purpose is oral consumption of H₂ water; the therapeutic-administration framing is the same known utility (Shiga: "human and animal medicines"; the file's medical literature, e.g., Ohsawa, Ichihara).

7. Why the PHOSITA would have been motivated — summary of the KSR rationale

1. Same field, same problem. H2Tab, Miljkovic, and Shiga are all Mg-metal/functional-water formulations addressing the same passivation-limited H₂-generation problem. The '693 patent's "solution" — excess acid keeping the pH acidic so the Mg keeps reacting — is the obvious union of H2Tab's acid-anti-passivation mechanism and Shiga's sustained-generation objective.
2. Predictable variation, not a leap. Every claim-1 variable (Mg mass, mesh size, acid mass, polysaccharide excipient, H₂ output) is a routine knob: Mg mass and H₂ output scale linearly (the '693 patent's own Example 13); mesh size is an off-the-shelf commercial grade; acid mass is a stoichiometric buffer calculation; the polysaccharide is a conventional binder/stabilizer chosen from a short list of known food ingredients.
3. "Obvious to try" with a finite field. The formulator choosing an Mg powder grade, an edible acid, and a polysaccharide binder faced a small, known set of options with predictable outcomes (KSR, 550 U.S. at 421).
4. No teaching away. H2Tab's alkaline endpoint is not a teaching away from acidic pH — H2Tab itself explains that the reaction turns alkaline only because the acid runs out, i.e., the art recognized acidity as the driver of H₂ production. Shiga likewise teaches that removing the hydroxide layer sustains H₂. Nothing in the cited art discourages excess acid.
5. The H₂-concentration limitation is the least persuasive difference. H2Tab claims up to 3 mM in the identical open-bottle use; exceeding 3 mM is achieved merely by using more of H2Tab's own disclosed Mg range (up to 200 mg), with the output being stoichiometrically predictable. The '693 patent's own data concede linearity.

8. Counterarguments a patent owner would press — and their weight

1. "Open-container supersaturation >1.6 ppm is unexpected." The '693 patent emphasizes that Henry's-law saturation is ~0.8 mM (1.6 ppm) and that its open-container values (3–10 ppm in the gas cloud) are surprising. But H2Tab already claimed 0.8–3 mM H₂ from tablets used in open bottles — so the art already asserted open-container generation above the naive saturation value, and the incremental step to >3 mM is a matter of Mg loading, not a new phenomenon. The patent's own Table 1 shows the "supersaturation" decays to the 1.6 ppm SATP value within ~8 minutes — consistent with ordinary dissolved-gas physics, not a new state of matter.
2. The "−200 mesh + 60–100 mg + non-cellulose polysaccharide" combination in a single reference. No single reference contains all three in combination with ≥3 mM H₂. But obviousness is assessed on combinations, and the three components come from at most two references (H2Tab + Miljkovic) that are in the same art and same product category; there is no nexus or synergism between the mesh size and the polysaccharide choice that would make the combination more than the sum of its known parts.
3. Acidic pH (claims 3, 13, 18, 19) as a point of distinction. This is the owner's strongest argument: H2Tab teaches away from acidic final pH (pH 8–10 is claimed as a feature — "tasteless water"). However, H2Tab's own mechanism (acid prevents passivation) and Shiga's explicit sustained-generation teaching supply the motivation to push acid past the stoichiometric limit; the benefit the '693 patent touts (microbial stability, complete Mg consumption) is a well-known consequence of low pH in beverage preservation, not a new discovery. The 7-day closed-container claim (13) is the most defensible of the dependent claims, but excess acid in a sealed vessel makes sustained acidity a predictable mass-balance outcome.
4. Secondary considerations (commercial success, long-felt need, copying). No objective evidence of nexus is in the record: the patent owner's 2026-04-03 press release alleges infringement by Echo Water but offers no nexus data (e.g., no showing that commercial success is attributable to the claimed combination rather than to marketing of hydrogen-water products generally). Long-felt need is undercut by H2Tab's existence in the same market. Copying is merely alleged, not established.

9. Conclusion — strongest obviousness grounds

• Claim 1: Obvious over H2Tab (US20160113865A1) alone or in combination with Miljkovic (US20100316776A1 / US8852660B2). H2Tab discloses the identical product concept (Mg-metal effervescent tablet, 5–200 mg Mg, 100–500 mg edible acid, 200–800 mg binding excipient, generating 0.8–3 mM H₂ in 200 mL–2 L open-container water at room temperature). Miljkovic supplies the −350 mesh Mg (⊂ "−200 mesh") and the non-cellulose polysaccharide (inulin) in an Mg-metal/malic-acid tablet. The ≥3 mM output is the predictable consequence of selecting the upper portion of H2Tab's disclosed Mg range, confirmed by the '693 patent's own linear scaling data (Example 13).
• Dependent pH claims (3, 13, 18, 19): Obvious over H2Tab + Shiga (WO2006098405A1) — excess acid (H2Tab's anti-passivation mechanism) to sustain generation (Shiga's objective) — with routine stoichiometric optimization.
• Kit claims (20, 21): Obvious over H2Tab (bottle-sized tablets) + Shiga (PET-bottle kit).
• Method claims (22, 25): Obvious over H2Tab's express method of use.
• Lubricant claims (11, 12): Obvious over Miljkovic Example 2, J&J CA1051779A, Bayer US5843477A, and the Li 2014/Chowhan 1986 literature.

The combination that a petitioner or defendant should lead with is H2Tab + Miljkovic (+ Shiga for the pH claims), because it requires only two or three references in the same product category, maps every claim-1 element with literal or near-literal support, and rests on the KSR "predictable variation" and "obvious to try" rationales rather than hindsight. The weakest links in the obviousness case are (i) the open-container >3 mM result (owner's "supersaturation" narrative) and (ii) the 7-day acidic-pH limitation of claim 13 — both of which would need to be met with stoichiometric and prior-art-mechanism evidence (H2Tab ¶[0005] on acid preventing passivation; Shiga on sustained generation) rather than reliance on any single reference.

Caveat: CN1228706A (Messer Griesheim), JP2015205791A (Nikko Kasei), and WO2017192755A1 (Mila Enterprises) are listed on the face of the patent but their full disclosures were not retrievable in this session; based on their titles they are corroborating (H₂-generating compositions, H₂-generation agents, H₂-infused beverages) and would strengthen, not weaken, the Combination A ground if their disclosures match their titles. Treat that as unverified.