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
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-17, in the reply filed on 10/15/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 18-19, as amended, now depend on claim 1. However, the amendment of claim 18 to depend from claim 1 merely adds an intended use; the amendment does not explicitly require the structure from claim 1. Nevertheless, Group II, claim(s) 18-22 is/are essentially still a method and is still distinct for the reasons set forth in the restriction filed 9/30/25.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 10/15/2025 has been entered into the prosecution of the application.
Currently, claim(s) 1-17 is/are pending, with claims 18-22 withdrawn from consideration.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 1, 6, 9 and 16-17 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
As to claim 1, the term “at least two compartments an anodic compartment” should read “at least two compartments, an anodic compartment”.
As to claim 6, the term “2.0 V[[.]] vs RHE” should read “2.0 V vs RHE”.
As to claim 9, the term “to increase[[d]] N2 production” should read “to increase N2 production”.
As to claim 16, the term “set up” should read “setup”.
As to claim 17, the term “the resulting product is” should read “the resulting products are”.
As to claim 17, the term “ad” should read “and”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 7-8, 10-11, 13-14, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adli, Nadia Mohd, et al. "Ammonia oxidation electrocatalysis for hydrogen generation and fuel cells." Journal of The Electrochemical Society 165.15 (2018): J3130 (hereinafter, Adli) disclosed in the IDS received on 02/16/2023 in view of Munoz, Leonardo De Silva, et al. "Hydrogen production by electrolysis of a phosphate solution on a stainless steel cathode." International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 35.16 (2010): 8561-8568 (hereinafter Munoz).
As to claim 1, Botte teaches to a system for electrochemical oxidation of ammonia comprising:
a divided cell having at least two compartments an anodic compartment and a cathodic compartment (Adli, Fig. 2(b), teaches to a divided cell having at least two compartments at an anodic compartments and a cathodic compartment, as Adli teaches to a typical ammonia electrolysis cell for hydrogen generation); said compartments separated by an anion exchange membrane (AEM) (Adli, Fig. 2(b), teaches to said compartments separated by an anion exchange membrane, as Adli teaches to a membrane configured to exchange anions by flowing OH- ions);
the anodic compartment comprising an anode (Adli, Fig. 2(b), teaches to the anodic compartment comprising an anode, as Adli teaches to an anode) comprising a nickel containing catalyst (Adli, pg. J3143, Table II, teaches to comprising a nickel containing catalyst, as Adli teaches to using Ni(OH)2 as an anode) and a first electrolyte for oxidative electrolysis of ammonia (Adli, pg. J3138, Fig. 2(b), teaches to a first electrolyte for oxidative electrolysis of ammonia, as Adli teaches to ammonia oxidation in KOH electrolyte);
the cathodic compartment comprising a cathode (Adli, Fig. 2(b), teaches to the cathodic compartment comprising a cathode, as Adli teaches to a cathode in the cathodic compartment) and a second electrolyte for reductive electrolysis of hydrogen or carbon dioxide (Adli, Fig. 2(b), teaches to a second electrolyte for reductive electrolysis of hydrogen or carbon dioxide, as Adli teaches to reductive electrolysis of hydrogen in any of aqueous alkaline electrolyte, aqueous acidic electrolyte, and nonaqueous liquid ammonia electrolyte), and
wherein the anodic compartment has a pH of 9-12 (Adli, pg. J3142, teaches to wherein the anodic compartment has a pH of 9-12, as Adli teaches that the highest current density is observed with the pH of 12 and the lowest was observed at pH 8).
Adli does not explicitly teach to wherein the cathodic compartment has a pH ≥13.
In analogous art, Munoz teaches to wherein the cathodic compartment has a pH ≥13 (Munoz, pg. 8565, Table 1, teaches to wherein the cathodic compartment has a pH is equal to or greater than 13, as Munoz teaches to catholyte comprising a pH value of 15.2).
Both Adli and Munoz relate to production of hydrogen by electrolysis (Munoz, pg. 8565). Adli does not explicitly teach that the cathodic compartment has a specified pH value. Adli does teach using a second electrolyte for reductive electrolysis of hydrogen, wherein the second electrolyte comprises potassium hydroxide in an alkaline environment. Munoz teaches that the cathodic compartment has a specified pH value for hydrogen production by electrolysis.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Adli with the catholyte of Munoz for producing hydrogen by electrolysis.
As to claim 2, Adli in view of Munoz teaches to the system of claim 1, wherein the nickel containing catalyst is Ni(OH)2 or Ni(OH)Cl (Adli, pg. J3143, Table II, teaches to wherein the nickel containing catalyst is Ni(OH)2 or Ni(OH)Cl, as Adli teaches to using Ni(OH)2 as an anode).
As to claim 3, Adli in view of Munoz teaches to the system of claim 1, wherein the catholyte is potassium hydroxide, sodium hydroxide, or cesium hydroxide (Adli, pg. J3138, Fig. 2(b), teaches wherein the catholyte is potassium hydroxide, sodium hydroxide, or cesium hydroxide, as Adli teaches to ammonia oxidation in KOH electrolyte; Munoz, pg. 8565, Table 1, teaches to wherein the catholyte is potassium hydroxide, sodium hydroxide, or cesium hydroxide, as Munoz teaches to using KOH electrolyte).
As to claim 5, Adli in view of Munoz teaches to the system of claim 1, wherein the applied potential is greater than about 1.3V and less than about 2.1V (per paragraph [0046] of the specification 11/18/2022, the term “about” is interpreted as claiming ±50% of a given value; Adli, pg. J3138, teaches to wherein the applied potential is greater than about 1.3V and less than about 2.1, as Adli teaches to using a voltage of up to 1.5 V).
As to claim 7, Adli in view of Munoz teaches to the system of claim 1, wherein the applied potential is about 1.7 to about 1.9 V to increase production of nitrate (per paragraph [0046] of the specification 11/18/2022, the term “about” is interpreted as claiming ±50% of a given value; Adli, pg. J3137, teaches to wherein the applied potential is about 1.7 to about 1.9 V, as Adli teaches to using 2.0 V for ammonia electrolysis; the term “to increase production of nitrate” is an intended use; the system of Adli in view of Munoz is configured to increase production of nitrate).
As to claim 8, Adli in view of Munoz teaches to the system of claim 1, wherein the applied potential is about 1.4 to about 1.6 V to increase production of nitrate (per paragraph [0046] of the specification 11/18/2022, the term “about” is interpreted as claiming ±50% of a given value; Adli, pg. J3138, teaches to wherein the applied potential is about 1.4V to 1.6 V, as Adli teaches to using a voltage of up to 1.5 V; the term “to increase production of nitrate” is an intended use; the system of Adli in view of Munoz is nonetheless configured to increase production of nitrate).
As to claim 10, Adli in view of Munoz teaches to the system of claim 1, wherein the starting NH-3 concentration in the anode compartment is below about 1M ammonia to increase nitrate and/or nitrite production (per paragraph [0046] of the specification 11/18/2022, the term “about” is interpreted as claiming ±50% of a given value; Adli, pg. J3140, teaches to wherein the starting NH3 concentration in the anode compartment is below about 1M ammonia, as Adli teaches to using 200 mM ammonia concentration; the term “to increase nitrate and/or nitrite production” is an intended use; the system of Adli in view of Munoz is nonetheless configured to increase nitrate and/or nitrite production).
As to claim 11, Adli in view of Munoz teaches to the system of claim 1, wherein the temperature is in in the range of about 5°C to about 95°C (per paragraph [0046] of the specification 11/18/2022, the term “about” is interpreted as claiming ±50% of a given value; Adli, J3131, teaches to wherein the temperature is in the range of about 5°C to about 95°C, as Adli teaches that an ammonia electrolysis cell typically operates at room temperature)
As to claim 13, Adli in view of Munoz teaches to the system of claim 1, wherein the temperature is below 50°C to increase nitrite production (Adli, J3131, teaches to wherein the temperature is below 50°C, as Adli teaches that an ammonia electrolysis cell typically operates at room temperature; the term to increase nitrite production” amounts to an intended use; the system of Adli in view of Munoz is nonetheless configured to increase nitrite production).
As to claim 14, Adli teaches to the system of claim 1, wherein the catalyst is supported on high surface area support wherein the high surface area support is a Ni foam or porous carbon (Adli, pg. J3143, Table II, teaches to wherein the catalyst is supported on high surface area support wherein the high surface is a Ni foam or porous carbon).
As to claim 16, Adli in view of Munoz teaches to the system of claim 1, wherein the electrolysis is carried out in flow or batch set up (Adli, Fig. 2(b), teaches to wherein the electrolysis is carried out in flow or batch set up, as Adli teaches to a flow setup).
Claim(s) 4, 6, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adli, Nadia Mohd, et al. "Ammonia oxidation electrocatalysis for hydrogen generation and fuel cells." Journal of The Electrochemical Society 165.15 (2018): J3130 (hereinafter, Adli) in view of Munoz, Leonardo De Silva, et al. "Hydrogen production by electrolysis of a phosphate solution on a stainless steel cathode." International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 35.16 (2010): 8561-8568 (hereinafter Munoz), as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Medvedev, Jury J., et al. "Pathways of ammonia electrooxidation on nickel hydroxide anodes and an alternative route towards recycled fertilizers." Green Chemistry 24.4 (2022): 1578-1589 (hereinafter, Medvedev) disclosed in the IDS received on 02/16/2023.
As to claim 4, Adli in view of Munoz does not explicitly teach wherein the anolyte is potassium sulfate or dipotassium phosphate.
In an analogous art, Medvedev teaches to the system of claim 1, wherein the anolyte is potassium sulfate or dipotassium phosphate (Medvedev, pg. 1579, Table 1, Fig. 4, teaches to wherein the anolyte is potassium sulfate or dipotassium phosphate, as Medvedev teaches to using potassium sulfate).
Both Adli in view of Munoz and Medvedev teaches to oxidation of ammonia through electrolysis (Medvedev, abstract). Adli in view of Munoz does not explicitly teach wherein the anolyte is potassium sulfate or dipotassium phosphate. Adli in view of Munoz does teach that the anolyte comprises potassium hydroxide. Medvedev teaches to using potassium sulfate or dipotassium phosphate for the anolyte in oxidation of ammonia at the anode for maintaining a desired pH value of the anolyte (Medvedev, pg. 1583). Potassium sulfate and dipotassium phosphate are well-known to help adjusting a pH value.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Adli in view of Munoz with the anolyte of Medvedev for adjusting a pH value, thereby optimizing the oxidation performance of ammonia.
As to claim 6, Adli in view of Munoz does not explicitly teach wherein the applied potential is a range of about 1.3 to about 2.0 V. vs RHE.
In an analogous art, Medvedev teaches to the system of claim 1, wherein the applied potential is a range of about 1.3 to about 2.0 V. vs RHE (per paragraph [0046] of the specification 11/18/2022, the term “about” is interpreted as claiming ±50% of a given value; Medvedev, pg. 1581, teaches to wherein the applied potential is a range of about 1.3 to about 2.0 V. vs RHE, as Medvedev teaches to ~1.4 vs. RHE).
Both Adli in view of Munoz and Medvedev teaches to oxidation of ammonia through electrolysis (Medvedev, abstract). Adli in view of Munoz does not explicitly teach wherein the applied potential is a range of about 1.3 to about 2.0 V. vs RHE. Adli in view of Munoz does teach using a voltage of up to 1.5 V for ammonia oxidation. Medvedev teaches to using ~1.4 V vs. RHE for ammonia oxidation reaction.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Adli in view of Munoz with the applied potential of Medvedev for performing the ammonia oxidation by electrolysis.
As to claim 17, Adli in view of Munoz teaches to wherein the pH is approximately 11 (per paragraph [0046] of the specification 11/18/2022, the term “approximately” is interpreted as claiming ±50% of a given value; Adli, pg. J3142, teaches to wherein the pH is approximately 11, as Adli teaches that the highest current density is observed with the pH of 12 and the lowest was observed at pH 8).
Adli in view of Munoz does not explicitly teach wherein the anolyte is 0.1 M K2HPO4, the starting ammonia concentration is 0.3M ammonia, and the resulting product is NH-4NO3 ad K2HPO4 with a N-P-K-(S) ratio of about 10-42-39-(0).
In an analogous art, Medvedev teaches to the system of claim 1, wherein the anolyte is 0.1 M K2HPO4 (Medvedev, pg. 1579, Table 1, teaches to wherein the anolyte is 0.1 M K2HPO4), the starting ammonia concentration is 0.3M ammonia (Medvedev, pg. 1579, Table 1, teaches to wherein the ammonia concentration is 0.3 M ammonia), and the resulting product is NH-4NO3 ad K2HPO4 with a N-P-K-(S) ratio (Medvedev, pg. 1579, Table 1, teaches that the resulting product is NH¬4NO3 ad K2HPO4 with a N-P-K-(S) ratio).
Both Adli in view of Munoz and Medvedev teaches to oxidation of ammonia through electrolysis (Medvedev, abstract). Adli in view of Munoz does not explicitly teach the operating condition of ammonia oxidation reaction using the electrolyzer. Adli in view of Munoz does teach to the electrolyzer configured to perform ammonia oxidation reaction. Medvedev teaches to an operating condition of ammonia oxidation reaction using the electrolyzer.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Adli in view of Munoz with the Medvedev for making the system configured to perform the ammonia oxidation reaction operable.
Adli in view of Munoz and Medvedev does not explicitly teach a N-P-K-(S) ratio of about 10-42-39-(0). However, The Office notes that the recited method of the instant claim can be reached by one of ordinary skill in the art by simply optimizing to the operating conditions to obtain a fertilizer in light of Medvedev above. A particular parameter can be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, and the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation (please refer to MPEP § 2144.05(II)(B)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to have discovered the optimum or workable ranges, including values within the claimed range, through routine experimentation.
Claim(s) 9 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adli, Nadia Mohd, et al. "Ammonia oxidation electrocatalysis for hydrogen generation and fuel cells." Journal of The Electrochemical Society 165.15 (2018): J3130 (hereinafter, Adli) in view of Munoz, Leonardo De Silva, et al. "Hydrogen production by electrolysis of a phosphate solution on a stainless steel cathode." International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 35.16 (2010): 8561-8568 (hereinafter Munoz), as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Gerardine G. Botte of US2009/0050489A1 (hereinafter, Botte).
As to claim 9, Adli in view of Munoz does not explicitly teach wherein the starting NH3 concentration in the anode compartment is above about 1M to increased N2 production.
In analogous art, Botte teaches to the system of claim 1, wherein the starting NH3 concentration in the anode compartment is above about 1M to increased N2 production (per paragraph [0046] of the specification 11/18/2022, the term “about” is interpreted as claiming ±50% of a given value; Botte, paragraph [0069], teaches to wherein the starting NH3 concentration in the anode compartment is above about 1M, as Botte teaches to a concentration of ammonia ranging from 0.01 M to 5 M; the term “to increased N2 production” is an intended use; the system of Adli in view of Munoz is nonetheless capable of increasing N2 production).
Both Adli in view of Munoz and Botte relate to oxidation of ammonia by electrolysis (Botte, paragraph [0144]). Adli in view of Munoz does not explicitly teach above about 1M of ammonia concentration. Adli in view of Munoz does teach about below 1M of ammonia concentration. Botte teaches to above about 1M of ammonia concentration.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Adli in view of Munoz with the ammonia concentration of Botte for performing the ammonia oxidation by electrolysis.
As to claim 12, Adli in view of Munoz does not explicitly teach wherein the temperature is in the range of about 50°C to about 60°C to increase nitrate production.
In an analogous art, Botte teaches to the system of claim 1, wherein the temperature is in the range of about 50°C to about 60°C to increase nitrate production (Botte, paragraph [0123], teaches to a range of operating temperature for an electrochemical cell used for oxidation of ammonia through an electrolysis, wherein the range is from 20 degrees Centigrade to 70 degrees Centigrade).
Both Adli in view of Munoz and Botte relate to oxidation of ammonia by electrolysis (Botte, paragraph [0144]). Adli in view of Munoz does not explicitly teach the operating temperature is in the range of about 50 degrees Centigrade to about 60 degrees Centigrade. Adli in view of Munoz does teach that an ammonia electrolysis cell typically operates at room temperature. Botte teaches that the electrolyzer is operable at temperature that ranges from 20 degrees Centigrade to 70 degrees Centigrade.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Adli in view of Munoz with the operating temperature of Botte for making the system operable in oxidation of ammonia by electrolysis.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adli, Nadia Mohd, et al. "Ammonia oxidation electrocatalysis for hydrogen generation and fuel cells." Journal of The Electrochemical Society 165.15 (2018): J3130 (hereinafter, Adli) in view of Munoz, Leonardo De Silva, et al. "Hydrogen production by electrolysis of a phosphate solution on a stainless steel cathode." International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 35.16 (2010): 8561-8568 (hereinafter Munoz), as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Almomani, Fares, and Mohammed Ali H. Salah Saad. "Electrochemical oxidation of ammonia (NH4+/NH3) ON synthesized nickel-cobalt oxide catalyst." International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 46.6 (2021): 4678-4690 (hereinafter, Almomani)
As to claim 15, Adli in view of Munoz does not explicitly teach wherein the nickel catalyst is doped with another metal and has the formula NixM1-x(OH)2 wherein M is one or more of Cr, Mn, Fe, Co, Cu, Zn, W, or Mo.
In an analogous art, Almomani teaches to the system of claim 1, wherein the nickel catalyst is doped with another metal and has the formula NixM1-x(OH)2 wherein M is one or more of Cr, Mn, Fe, Co, Cu, Zn, W, or Mo (Almomani, abstract, teaches to wherein the nickel catalyst is doped with another metal and has the formula NixM1-x(OH)2 wherein M is one or more of Cr, Mn, Fe, Co, Cu, Zn, W, or Mo, as Almomani teaches that the addition of Co to Ni-C enhanced ammonia oxidation reaction with the reasonable presence of Ni(OH)2 and Co(OH)2 in the formation of Co/Ni-C composite).
Both Adli in view of Munoz and Almomani relate to ammonia oxidation reaction by electrolysis (Almomani, abstract). Adli in view of Munoz does not explicitly teach adding a dopant. Adli in view of Munoz does teach to the nickel catalyst. Almomani teaches to the addition of Co to the nickel catalyst used in the ammonia oxidation reaction by electrolysis.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Adli in view of Munoz with the doping of the nickel catalyst of Almomani for improved electrochemical oxidation of ammonia.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN LEE whose telephone number is (703)756-1254. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 7:00-16:00.
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.
/JOHN LEE/Examiner, Art Unit 1794
/JAMES LIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1794