Detailed Action
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 06/26/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wang (CN111408393A).
In regards to claim 1, Wang teaches an ammonia synthesis composite catalyst comprising a catalyst that exhibits catalytic activity for the synthesis of ammonia, such as ruthenium with a ZrH2 support supporting the catalyst [0006; 0015],
And a hydrogen storage material free of a Group 2 element, Group 3 element, and a lanthanoid being present in the support, such as ZrH2 and TiH2, [0008].
Wang also teaches that the supported catalyst amount is 0-20 mass % [0013].
In regards to claim 2, Wang teaches that the hydrogen storage material is a hydrogen storage metal, such as ZrH2 and TiH2 [0008].
In regards to claim 3, Wang teaches that the work function of the hydrogen storage metal is more than 3.5 eV, as the spec indicates that Ti has a work function of 4.3 eV [0047], and Wang teaches the use of TiH2.
In regards to claims 9, 10, and 11, Wang teaches that the catalyst includes a transition metal, such as ruthenium [0002].
Claim(s) 1-3 and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Luo (CN110270338A).
In regards to claim 1, Luo teaches an ammonia synthesis composite catalyst comprising a catalyst that exhibits catalytic activity for the synthesis of ammonia, such as ruthenium, with a graphitized activated carbon support supporting the catalyst [0009],
And a hydrogen storage material free of a Group 2 element, Group 3 element, and a lanthanoid, such as nickel [0009].
Luo also teaches that the supported catalyst amount of ruthenium is 0.5-12 mass % [0010].
In regards to claim 2, Luo teaches that the hydrogen storage material is a hydrogen storage metal, such as nickel [0009].
In regards to claim 3, Luo teaches nickel as the hydrogen storage metal, which has a work function of 5.04-5.35 as evidenced by table B1 of Libretext attached, which is greater than 3.5 eV and fulfills the claim limitation.
PNG
media_image1.png
40
1292
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In regards to claims 9, 10, and 11, Luo teaches that ruthenium is the transition metal in the ammonia synthesis composite catalyst [0009].
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-6, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Suo (“Synthesis of carbon supported Au-decorated PdCu nanocatalyst for formic acid oxidation”, Ionics, Volume 22, Pages 958-990, 2016) as evidenced by Wang (“Atomically dispersed Au1 catalyst towards efficient electrochemical synthesis of ammonia”, Science Bulletin, Issue 63, Pages 1246-1253, 2018) and Ding (“Theoretical Studies of the work functions of Pd-based bimetallic surfaces”, The Journal of Chemical Physics, 2015).
In regards to claim 1, Suo teaches ammonia synthesis composite catalyst comprising a catalyst that exhibits catalytic activity for the synthesis of ammonia, such as Au, as evidenced by Wang (See attached) with a carbon support supporting the catalyst and a hydrogen storage material free of a Group 2 element, Group 3 element, and a lanthanoid, such as PdCu (“Introduction, “In this work, carbon supported Au-decorated PdCu nanoparticles were synthesized for formic acid oxidation”). Even though the catalyst taught by Suo is for formic acid oxidation, the catalyst of Au is known to be catalytically active for the synthesis of ammonia, as evidenced by Wang and fulfills the claim limitation for the composition of the ammonia synthesis catalyst.
Suo also teaches that the supported catalyst amount of is 20%, which is between the claimed range of 0.1 to 30 mass % (Synthesis of the catalysts, “Carbon supported PdCu catalyst (metallic loading of 20 wt%, atomic ratio of Pd to Au being 2:1) was prepared using our previous developed method”).
In regards to claim 2, Suo teaches that the hydrogen storage material is a hydrogen storage metal, such as PdCu (“Introduction, “In this work, carbon supported Au-decorated PdCu nanoparticles were synthesized for formic acid oxidation”).
In regards to claim 3, Suo teaches that PdCu is the hydrogen storage metal, which has a work function of about 4.5 eV as evidenced by Fig. 2 of Ding (See attached)
PNG
media_image2.png
549
757
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In regards to claims 5 and 6, Suo teaches that the hydrogen storage metal is a hydrogen storage alloy of PdCu and a solid solution (“Introduction, “In this work, carbon supported Au-decorated PdCu nanoparticles were synthesized for formic acid oxidation”).
In regards to claim 9, Suo teaches that Au is a catalyst, which is a transition metal.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5, and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ozyagcilar (US4623532A).
In regards to claim 1, Ozyagcilar teaches an ammonia synthesis composite catalyst comprising a catalyst and a support that includes a hydrogen storage material selected from the claimed group where the hydrogen storage metal is substantially free of a Group 2 element, Group 3 element, and a lanthanoid (Col. 2 Lines 38-40, “This new catalyst is comprised of a hydride binary or bi-metallic alloy of iron and titanium”; Col. 7 Lines 48-55, “It is also possible to combine the titanium and iron intermetallic compounds with known catalytically active metals for this reaction such as ruthenium and osmium, either in the form of mixtures of multi-component (e.g. ternary, quarternary or higher) alloys, or to support those compounds on an inert carrier material or other substrate”). Ozyagcilar also teaches that the hydrogen storage material of iron and titanium is separate from the catalyst of ruthenium (Col. 7 Lines 48-55, “It is also possible to combine the titanium and iron intermetallic compounds with known catalytically active metals for this reaction such as ruthenium and osmium, either in the form of mixtures of multi-component (e.g. ternary, quarternary or higher) alloys, or to support those compounds on an inert carrier material or other substrate”).
Ozyagcilar does not explicitly teach that the supported amount of the catalyst in the ammonia synthesis composite catalyst is 0.1 to 30 mass %. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine the certain amount of supported catalyst to be present for catalysis purposes in ammonia synthesis.
In regards to claims 2 and 5, Ozyagcilar teaches that the hydrogen storage material is a hydrogen storage metal alloy (Col. 2 Lines 38-40, “This new catalyst is comprised of a hydride binary or bi-metallic alloy of iron and titanium”).
In regards to claim 3, Ozyagcilar teaches that the work function of the hydrogen storage metal is more than 3.5 eV. Ozyagcilar teaches that the molar ratio for the titanium iron alloy is 1.0, which would have a composition of TiFe (Col. 3 Lines 64-68, “Although not to be construed as a limitation, the alloy compositions preferred and considered to be the most active should contain as one of the alloy phases the bi-metallic compound having a titanium to iron mole ratio of 1.0”). As evidenced by Table 2 of Han (attached), TiFe would have a work function of 4.312, which fulfills the claim limitation.
PNG
media_image3.png
232
695
media_image3.png
Greyscale
In regards to claims 9 and 10, Ozyagcilar teaches that a catalyst includes a transition metal, such as titanium, iron, or ruthenium (Col. 2 Lines 38-40, “This new catalyst is comprised of a hydride binary or bi-metallic alloy of iron and titanium”; Col. 7 Lines 48-55, “It is also possible to combine the titanium and iron intermetallic compounds with known catalytically active metals for this reaction such as ruthenium and osmium, either in the form of mixtures of multi-component (e.g. ternary, quarternary or higher) alloys, or to support those compounds on an inert carrier material or other substrate”).
In regards to claim 11, Ozyagcilar teaches that Ruthenium can also be used in the catalyst as a transition metal support (Col. 7 Lines 48-55, “It is also possible to combine the titanium and iron intermetallic compounds with known catalytically active metals for this reaction such as ruthenium and osmium, either in the form of mixtures of multi-component (e.g. ternary, quarternary or higher) alloys, or to support those compounds on an inert carrier material or other substrate”).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ozyagcilar (US4623532A) in view of Sandrock (“A panoramic overview of hydrogen storage alloys from a gas reaction point of view”, Journal of Alloys and Compounds, 1999).
In regards to claim 6, Ozyagcilar does not explicitly teach that the hydrogen storage metal is a solid solution.
Sandrock teaches that a hydrogen storage alloy can be in the form of a solid solution, depending on which metal is used, such as titanium (4.2.6, “Several solid solution alloys form reversible hydrides, in particular those based on the solvents Pd, Ti, Zr, Nb, and V”). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the hydrogen storage alloy in the form of a solid solution in the catalyst taught by Ozyagcilar as it is already well known in the art to do so. Substitution of equivalents known for the same purpose has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. See Smith v. Hayashi, 209 USPQ 754. See also MPEP § 2144.06.II.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ozyagcilar (US4623532A) in view of Lee (US5888317A).
In regards to claim 7, Ozyagcilar does not teach using a Ti-Mn alloy as the hydrogen storage alloy.
Lee teaches using a Ti-Mn alloy as a hydrogen storage material. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the Ti-Mn alloy taught by Lee in the catalyst taught by Ozyagcilar due to the high hydrogen storage capacity and proper plateau pressure of the Ti-Mn alloy (Col. 1 Lines 5-10, “The present invention relates to a hydrogen-storage material employing Ti-Mn alloy system, more specifically, to a material for hydrogen-storage constituted by Ti-Mn alloy system which has a high hydrogen-storage capacity, a proper plateau hydrogen dissociation equilibrium pressure, hypostoichiometric composition and crystal structure of C14”). Substitution of equivalents known for the same purpose has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. See Smith v. Hayashi, 209 USPQ 754. See also MPEP § 2144.06.II.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ozyagcilar (US4623532A) in view of Bernauer (US4457891A).
In regards to claim 8, Ozyagcilar does not teach or suggest using a Ti-Mn-V alloy as the hydrogen storage alloy in the catalyst.
Bernauer teaches a hydrogen storage alloy that comprises Ti-Mn-V (Col. 2 Lines 5-9, “The hydrogen storage material according to the invention comprises an alloy of the composition of 25 to 30.9% by weight of titanium, about 10 to about 42% by weight of vanadium and about 27.1 to about 65.1% by weight of manganese”). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the hydrogen storage metal taught by Bernauer in the catalyst taught by Ozyagcilar due to the Ti-Mn-V material having a high storage capacity at low pressure and temperature (Col 1 Lines 62-66, “It is, therefore, the object of the present invention to disclose a hydrogen storage material which has a large storage capacity for hydrogen and from which at least 90% of the hydrogen content is liberated under a pressure of one bar at a temperature of up to 100°C”). Substitution of equivalents known for the same purpose has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. See Smith v. Hayashi, 209 USPQ 754. See also MPEP § 2144.06.II.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 5-7 of Remarks, filed 06/26/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-3, 5, and 9-11 under 35 USC § 102 and claims 6-8 under 35 USC § 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Wang (CN111408393A), Luo (CN110270338A), Suo (“Synthesis of carbon supported Au-decorated PdCu nanocatalyst for formic acid oxidation”, Ionics, Volume 22, Pages 958-990, 2016), Ozyagcilar (US4623532A), Sandrock (“A panoramic overview of hydrogen storage alloys from a gas reaction point of view”, Journal of Alloys and Compounds, 1999), Lee (US5888317), and Bernauer (US4457891) as discussed above.
In regards to applicant’s remarks on page 5 regarding that the hydrogen storage material included in the support is different from the catalyst, Ozyagcilar teaches of a catalyst that comprises a hydrogen storage material of titanium and iron hydride [Col. 2 Lines 38-40] and that the catalyst also includes ruthenium [Col. 7 Lines 48-55] which is separate from the hydrogen storage material.
In regards to applicant’s remarks on pages 5-6 regarding that the Fe-Ti alloy Is identified as the catalyst itself, Ozygalicar also teaches that the compounds can be supported on an inert carrier material or other substrate [Col. 7 Lines 48-55]. As the mixture of titanium and iron can be combined with ruthenium and osmium, all three compounds would be supported on the inert carrier material or other substrate [Col. 7 Lines 48-55].
In regards to applicant’s remarks on page 6 regarding that the inert carrier material is for the titanium-iron compounds, Ozygacilar teaches that the titanium-iron compounds can be mixed with ruthenium, and would also therefore be on the inert carrier material as well.
In regards to applicant’s remarks on page 6 regarding that the hydrogen storage material is used to reduce the activation energy of the ammonia synthesis reaction, the claim as written only requires that the hydrogen storage metal is present within the catalyst composition.
In regards to applicant’s remarks on page 7 regarding the rejection of claim 14, 6, 7, and 8 due to amendment of claim 1, the new rejections are made as discussed above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 13 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 14-15 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Wang (CN111408393A), Luo (CN110270338A), Suo (“Synthesis of carbon supported Au-decorated PdCu nanocatalyst for formic acid oxidation”, Ionics, Volume 22, Pages 958-990, 2016), and Ozyagcilar (US4623532A) are considered to be the closest prior art to the claimed invention to the instant application.
In regards to claim 13, Wang, Luo, Suo, and Ozyagcilar does not teach or suggest that that the hydrogen storage material in the catalyst does not exhibit catalytic activity for the synthesis of ammonia.
In regards to claim 14, Wang, Luo, Suo, and Ozyagcilar teaches an ammonia synthesis composite catalyst comprising a catalyst and a support that includes a hydrogen storage material selected from the claimed group where the hydrogen storage metal is substantially free of a Group 2 element, Group 3 element, and a lanthanoid. They also teach that that the hydrogen storage metal included in the support is different from the catalyst. However, Wang, Luo, Suo and Ozyagcilar do not teach or suggest that the support is in the form of particles that have an average particle diameter of 0.1µm to 500µm or that the catalyst is in the form of particles that have an average particle diameter of 1nm to 100nm. Claim 15 is also allowed as they are dependent or otherwise require all of the limitations of claim 14.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAANZEB RAJA whose telephone number is (703)756-4531. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 8:30-6.
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, Anthony Zimmer can be reached at 571-270-3591. 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.
/JAANZEB C RAJA/ Examiner, Art Unit 1736
/ANTHONY J ZIMMER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1736
