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
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species A, encompassing claims 1-4 and 17-20, in the reply filed on December 17, 2025 is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1, 2 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Uda (“Alcohol Fuel Cells at Optimal Temperatures”; Electrochemical and Solid-State Letters; pages 261-264; 2006).
Regarding claim 1, Uda discloses an electrochemical cell for the production of hydrogen from a fuel, i.e. methanol (page 261, col. 1, second paragraph) comprising:
a catalyst layer comprising a thermochemical conversion catalyst (page 261, connecting paragraphs of col. 1 and col. 2; figure 1; Cu-ZnO supported on alumina was the catalyst used for the endothermic conversion of methanol to hydrogen; page 263, col. 2, paragraph 3);
an electrooxidation layer comprising a hydrogen oxidation catalyst adjacent to the catalyst layer (the catalyst layer was in direct contact with an electrode membrane assembly of an alcohol fuel cell; figure 1 shows a first electrocatalyst in contact with the catalyst layer; page 261, col. 1, first paragraph under Experimental Section – the anode electrocatalyst was Pt-Ru);
a proton conducting membrane comprising a solid acid electrolyte, i.e. CsH2PO4, adjacent to the electrooxidation layer (figure 1; page 261, col. 1, first paragraph under Experimental Section – a thin CsH2PO4 membrane was sandwiched between two electrocatalyst layers);
a hydrogen evolution layer comprising a hydrogen evolution catalyst that is separated from the electrooxidation layer by the proton conducting membrane (page 261, col. 1, first paragraph under Experimental Section – the cathode electrocatalyst was Pt); and
a circuit that provides a path for electrons generated in the electrooxidation layer to travel to the hydrogen evolution layer (it is well-known that electrons are transported through an external circuit from an anode to the cathode of the fuel cell; page 261 col. 1, first paragraph under Experimental Section to col. 2, last paragraph).
Regarding claim 2, the catalyst layer of Uda further comprises an electronically conductive component (page 261, col. 1, first paragraph under Experimental Section).
Regarding claim 17, the catalyst layer of Uda further comprises a support for the thermochemical conversion catalyst (page 261, col. 1, first paragraph under Experimental Section - Cu-ZnO supported on alumina was the catalyst used for the endothermic conversion of methanol to hydrogen).
Regarding claim 18, Uda discloses wherein the solid acid electrolyte is a proton conducting metal phosphate, i.e. CsH2PO4, having a stable super-protonic phase at an electrochemical cell operating temperature (abstract; figure 1; page 261, col. 1, first paragraph).
Regarding claims 19-20, the metal phosphate of Uda is a cesium phosphate comprising cesium dihydrogen phosphate, CsH2PO4 (page 261, col. 1, first paragraph to col. 2, first paragraph).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 non-obviousness.
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uda as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Hill (“Low Temperature H2 production from ammonia using ruthenium-based catalysts: Synergetic effect of promoter and support”; Applied Catalysis B Environmental; 2015; pages 129-135).
Regarding claim 3, Uda discloses all the features discussed above, but fails to teach wherein the thermochemical conversion catalyst is a catalyst for the thermal decomposition of ammonia.
Hill discloses a method for hydrogen production via ammonia decomposition by the synergetic combination of a highly conductive support and an electron donating promoter in a ruthenium catalytic system. This development of catalytic activity represents a breakthrough towards the use of ammonia as a chemical storage for in-situ hydrogen production in fuel cells (abstract).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to replace the catalyst in the method of Uda, according to the preferred thermochemical conversion to be achieved. As taught by Hill, it is well-known to produce hydrogen via ammonia decomposition in a ruthenium catalytic system in fuel cells, and one would have a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.
Regarding claim 4, the thermochemical conversion catalyst of Hill comprises ruthenium and carbon (pages 130-133 under Section 3 – Results and Discussion).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZULMARIAM MENDEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-9805. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-4:30p.
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, James Lin can be reached at 571-272-8902. 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.
/ZULMARIAM MENDEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1794