2DETAILED 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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 29 January 2026 has been entered.
Status of Amendment
The amendment filed on 29 January 2026 fails to place the application in condition for allowance.
Claims 11-18 are currently pending.
Claim 11 is under examination.
Claims 12-18 are currently withdrawn.
Status of Rejections
The rejection of claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) is herein maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al (Chen, C., Zhu, X., Wen, X. et al. Coupling N2 and CO2 in H2O to synthesize urea under ambient conditions. Nat. Chem. 12, 717–724 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41557-020-0481-9 with citations provided towards the supporting information) in view of Molter (US 4,921,586) and Zhang et al (CN 108977841 A).
As to claim 11, Chen discloses an electrochemical cell for the electrochemical synthesis of green urea (pg. 14 of supporting information, pg. 725 “Electrochemical characterization), comprising an anodic chamber (right chamber with CE carbon rod) and a cathodic chamber (left chamber with WE) in fluid connectivity with each other through a tubular structure (See connecting tube between the two) configured to hold a membrane separating said anodic chamber and cathodic chamber (Nafion 117), said anodic chamber and cathodic chamber being configured to comprise an electrolyte and a three-electrode system (See three electrodes and electrolyte provided therein, “electrolyte used in this work was 0.1 M KHCO3” pg. 725 “Electrochemical characterization)
Said cathodic chamber comprising at least two inlets for the entry of gases (N2 and CO2 inlet necessarily have different inlets to provide two gases as the inlets do not need to specifically have holes in a cap) and at least one outlet for the exit of gases therefrom (Supp. Fig. 12 gas outlet).
As to the specific electrodes of the three electrode system, Chen further discloses the references electrode is an Ag/AgCl saturated with KCl (pg. 725 “Electrochemical characterization” “The reference electrode was an Ag/AgCl electrode containing saturated KCl solution”), a catalyst loaded carbon paper (catalyst ink was loaded onto a piece of carbon paper (Hesen)” pg. 725 “Electrochemical characterization”), and a carbon rod counter electrodes (pg. 725 “Electrochemical characterization”). Since Chen discloses three electrodes, it is deemed configured to compress the electrode, regardless as to the specific electrodes, and thus anticipate as addressed in the above claim interpretation section.
As to the recitation “at least two inlets for the entry of gases”, providing separate inlets for the N2 and CO2 would be prima facie obvious in providing separate inlets for each gas directly into the cathodic chamber which provides the expected result of being able to provide both necessary reactants into the chamber in order to carry out the reactions and the desired concentrations. See MPEP 2144.04 V C and 2144.04 VI B.
Molter discloses using copper phthalocyanine for the reduction of carbon dioxide (Abstract, Table 1).
Thus, Chen discloses the catalyst is a CO2RR type catalysts which differs from the instant claim by only the specific type of CO2RR catalysts. Molter is evidence that copper phthalocyanine is a recognized catalysts for the CO2RR reaction.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have substituted copper phthalocyanine as a CO2RR catalysts as taught by Molter for the catalyst in the apparatus of Chen because it is recognized for the intended use of the specific reaction which provide the expected result of the reduction of carbon dioxide. See MPEP 2144.07 and 2143 B
Zhang discloses a nitrogen gas and carbon dioxide gas electrochemical reduction method for urea synthesis comprising a platinum counter electrode (pg. 3 “anode comprises carbon and/or platinum;”).
Thus, Chen discloses a counter electrode that differs only by the specific counter electrode material. Zhang is evidence of using platinum as a counter electrode for the carbon dioxide nitrogen reduction.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have used a platinum counter electrode as taught by Zhang in the apparatus of Chen because it is a recognized material used for the carbon dioxide, nitrogen reduction to urea. See MPEP 2144.07 and 2143 B.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 13 May 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant provides a description of the instant claim language and then the cited prior art on pg. Applicant’s arguments are drawn towards the claimed “two inlets for entry of gases” and because the prior art discloses the gas mixture of their cell set up in Supplementary Fig. 12. This argument is not persuasive based on the broadest reasonable interpretation applied above. In the instant case, the inlet clearly provides access for two gases thus provides two inlets for the entry of gases. Alternatively, the top and bottom of the tub going through the cover may each be considered an inlet, insomuch as the gas enters the top and then through the bottom into the fluid. Contrary to Applicant’s assertion, the claims do not require “separate and distinct inlets” as to require the explicit structure of a distinct entry though the cover.
In response to Applicant’s arguments towards the obviousness of providing a second distinct inlet for each gas as provided above, the duplication of inlets is held to be prima facie obvious in providing separate inlets for each gas which provides a clear expected result of separately introducing the necessary reactants into the reaction solution. Applicant assertion with respect to the alleged advantages are not persuasive in accordance with MPEP 716.02(b) or (c) as no evidence is presented supporting the advantages of being able to readily monitor gas flow and independently monitoring each gas flow. The instant specification is silent as to any such monitoring or the like of each gas being admitted through each inlet, nor any evidence such a set up has on the subsequent reactions. Such advantages would be readily apparent to any practitioner of ordinary skill in the art that providing two inlets would allow control over each gas being admitted to the reaction system. Thus, the alleged advantage of individually monitoring each gas flow would not be unexpected based on this finding because one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that providing two inlets, in which bubbles are indicative of gas flow as conceded by Applicant in the remarks on pg. 5, that bubble flowing from each inlet would thus allow for the assurance that the reactants are flowing therein.
No further arguments are presented.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LOUIS J RUFO whose telephone number is (571)270-7716. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 9 am to 5 pm.
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, Luan Van can be reached at 571-272-8521. 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.
/LOUIS J RUFO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1795