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 of group II invention with species A1 (secondary reactant being hydrogen source compound) and species B1 (nitrogen fixation product being amine), corresponding to claims 2-7, 10, 17-18 and 28-31, 36-39, 42 in the reply filed on 12/02/2025 is acknowledged. It is noted that currently amended claim 8 nitrogen fixation product being ammonia is not being elected. Since applicant already elected secondary reactant being hydrogen source compound (claim 6-7), therefore, currently amended claim 9 directing to an aliphatic compound being secondary reactant) is not elected. Similarly, currently amended claim 16 recites secondary reactant being a complex secondary reactant is not elected either. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claim 1, 8-9, 11-12, 14-16 and 32-35 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention and non-elected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 12/02/2025.
Non-Compliant Claim Identifier
The identifier of claim 1 and 8-9, 11-12, 14-16 and 32-35 need be remarked as withdrawn since these claims are directed to non-elected inventions in the instant application. A correct status identifier (Withdrawn) has not been set forth for the amended claims. See MPEP § 714 and 37 CFR 1.121(c). Appropriate correction is required. A non-compliant form has not been sent out for advancing the prosecution and correction is required in next response.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 28, 2-7, 10, 17-18 and 29-31, 36-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. In this case, claim 28-31 respectively recites “differentially activated secondary reactant”, wherein the term “differentially activated secondary reactant” in such claims appears to mean such secondary reactant not being activated (by plasma) (see instant specification in the published application US2023/0182104 para. [0025] as well as claim 29), while the accepted meaning of such “differentially activated secondary reactant” appears to mean the secondary reactant being differently activated (as compared to nitrogen gas stream). Therefor the term “differentially activated secondary reactant” lead to confusion and thus renders claim indefiniteness. Next, claim 28 also recites “directing the nitrogen gas stream to enter the at least one plasma reactor while remaining being separated from the secondary reactant stream”, one of ordinary skill in the art is uncertain what remaining material or compounds being separated from the secondary reactant stream, or is the nitrogen gas supplied to the at least one plasma reactor and remains separated from the secondary reactant stream? Therefore, such confusion renders claim indefiniteness as well. Thirdly, one of ordinary skill in the art is uncertain what is the relationship between recited “secondary reactant” as compared to provided nitrogen gas stream, such as “secondary reactant” being same or different as compared to the nitrogen gas stream, or what material such “secondary reactant” needs to be for claimed nitrogen fixation reaction? Therefore, the metes and bounds of such recited secondary reactant cannot be ascertained. All claim 28’s depending claims are rejected for similar reasons.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. In this case, claim 10 recites “the nitrogen fixation product is an amine”, it is noted that amine is just a generic name for any organic compound having a carbon-nitrogen bound and the nitrogen atom has a lone electron pair. Instant specification does not disclose any amine compound, i.e. any organic compound having a carbon-nitrogen bound and the nitrogen atom has a lone electron pair can be produced from such claimed reaction, rather only certain specific amine product, such as methylamine or dimethylamine or trimethylamine or aniline (see instantly published application US2023/0182104 para. [0041]-[0043]). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art cannot ascertain what is the exact scope of such claimed nitrogen fixation product being amine, such as nitrogen fixation product being specific described amine product in the specification, e.g. methylamine, or being any amine compound, i.e., any organic compound having a carbon-nitrogen bound and the nitrogen atom has a lone electron pair?
Claim 42 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. In this case, claim 42 recites “differentially activated state” wherein the term “differentially activated state” appears to mean such secondary reactant not being activated (by plasma) (see instant specification in the published application US2023/0182104 para. [0025] as well as claim 29), while the accepted meaning of such “differentially activated state” appears to mean the secondary reactant being differently activated (as compared to nitrogen gas stream). Therefor the term “differentially activated state” lead to confusion and thus renders claim indefiniteness.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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 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.
Claims 28, 2, 4-5 and 29, 36, 38-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102((a) (1)) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patel et al. (Plasma-Activated Electrolysis for Cogeneration of Nitric Oxide and Hydrogen from Water and Nitrogen, ACS Energy Lett. 2019, 4, 2091−2095).
Patel et al. teaches a process of reacting nitrogen gas and a hydrogen source compound (i.e. differentially activated secondary reactant) to form nitric oxide i.e. a nitrogen fixation product comprising using plasma assisted electrochemical cells for such reaction, wherein nitrogen gas stream being supplied into the plasma reactor, while water being separately supplied into the electrochemical cell (Fig. 1-2, page 2092 left col. last para.-page 2093 left col. 2nd last para.). Patel et al disclosed nitrogen gas stream and secondary reactant are separated from each other (Fig. 1), when directing nitrogen gas stream into the plasma reactor for activation, secondary reactant still remains separated from the nitrogen gas stream and activated nidogen species in the plasma reactor- wherein both nitrogen gas stream and activated nitrogen species inside the plasma reactor, while secondary reactant being in the electrochemical cell (i.e. outside of the plasma reactor), directing the activated nitrogen stream comprising the activated nitrogen species to exit the plasma reactor to enter a reaction zone (electrochemical cell), directing the secondary reactant steam to enter the reaction zone to react with the activated nitrogen species thus producing NO (i.e., a nitrogen fixation product) (Fig 1-2, 2092 left col. last para.-page 2093 left col. 2nd last para., supporting information “EXPERIMETNAL METHOD” section).
Regarding claim 28, Patel does not expressly teaches “entraining the activated nitrogen species in an activated nitrogen stream”, however, Patel already teaches same or substantially the same plasma activating a nitrogen stream in a same or substantially the same at least one plasma reactor, such activated nitrogen stream remains separated from the secondary reactant before being exit the plasma reactor into the reaction zone, therefore, same or substantially the same “entraining the activated nitrogen species in an activated nitrogen stream” as that of instantly claimed is envisioned.
Alternatively, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to adopt such approach of “entraining the activated nitrogen species in an activated nitrogen stream” wherein such activated nitrogen species in the activated nitrogen stream being separated from a secondary reactants can help ensure all the energy being directed to activating nitrogen while obtaining hydrogen and nitric acid in different compartments of the reactor as suggested by Patel et al. (Fig. 2, page 2092 left col. last para-right col. first para., page 2093 left col. 2nd last para.).
Regarding claim 2, Patel et al. teaches plasma being a radio frequency plasma (page 2092 3rd para., Fig. 1, page 2093 first para.). It is noted that radio frequency plasma is a non-thermal plasma.
Regarding claim 4, Patel et al. further teaches the plasma reactor being quartz tube (i.e. a cylinder) having a proximal end and a distal end and having an inlet at the proximal end (introducing N2) and an outlet at the distal end for directing the activated nitrogen species to the electrochemical cell (i.e. in fluid communication with the reaction zone) because both electrodes are porous (Fig. 1-2, page 2092 last para.-page 2093 left col. 2nd last para., supporting information “EXPERIMETNAL METHOD” and “MICROSSTRUCTURAL CHARACTERIZATION” section, Fig. S1).
Regarding claim 5, Patel et al. already teaches the plasma electrode is porous as well, hence, activated nitrogen species passes through such pores into the electrochemical cell (reaction zone).
Regarding claim 29, Patel et al disclosed secondary reactant is not being activated (by plasma).
Regarding claim 36 and 38-39, Patel et al also teaches NO being removed from the reaction zone via an outlet at the end of the electrochemical cell and separation of NO (nitric acid- a liquid) from its gas stream N2 (noted the effluent stream comprising both NO and N2 gas) can be easily realized (Fig. 1, page 2092 right col. first para.).
Claims 28, 2-3, 6, 17 and 29, 36-37, 42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102((a) (1)) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakarura et al. (Nitrogen Fixation through the Plasma/Liquid Interfacial Reaction with Controlled Conditions of Each Phase as the Reaction Locus, Electrochemistry, 88(3), 190–194 (2020)).
Sakarura et al. teaches a nitrogen fixation method through the plasma/liquid interfacial reaction comprising: providing a nitrogen source gas, and providing a water phase ( i.e. a differentially activated secondary reactant), providing at least one plasma reactor (Fig 1.) wherein the nitrogen source being directed to enter the plasma reactor for activation (page 191 section 2.1) to obtain active nitrogen species (Fig. 2), directing the activated nitrogen stream comprising the activated nitrogen stream to exit the plasma reactor and entering into the liquid phase (comprising water) in electrochemical cell (i.e. the reactor cell), directing the water into the reactor cell, wherein the activated nitrogen species in the nitrogen stream reacting with water to produce nitrogen fixation product (e.g. ammonia, NO2-, NO3-) (page 191 section 2.2-2.4, Fig. 3, page 192 section 3.1-page 193 section 3.4). Sakarura et al. already teaches nitrogen source stream being separated from water, the activated nitrogen gas stream comprising activated nitrogen species remains separated from the water phase (before entering reaction zone).
Regarding claim 28, Sakarura et al. does not expressly teaches “entraining the activated nitrogen species in an activated nitrogen stream”, however, Sakarura et al. already teaches same or substantially the same plasma activating a nitrogen stream in a same or substantially the same at least one plasma reactor, and such activated nitrogen stream remains separated from the secondary reactant before being exit the plasma reactor into the reaction zone, therefore, same or substantially the same “entraining the activated nitrogen species in an activated nitrogen stream” as that of instantly claimed is envisioned.
Alternatively, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to control the nitrogen fixation process via modulating the water phase in the reactor cell (shielding from the plasma reactor) for help obtaining desired nitrogen fixation product (e.g. ammonia) as suggested by Sukarura et al. (page 190 last para-page 191 first para.).
Regarding claim 2-3, Sakarura et al. teaches the plasma using a dielectric barrier discharger (DBD), noted such DBD plasma is a non-thermal plasma.
Regarding claim 6 and 17, Sakarura et al. already teaches the secondary reactant stream being water (a liquid), which is a hydrogen source compound.
Regarding claim 29, Sakarura et al disclosed secondary reactant is not being activated (by plasma).
Regarding claim 36-37, Sakarura et al also teaches removing nitrogen fixation product, i.e. ammonia released as gas phase from the outlet the reactor cell being released into a trap cell for separation and recovery (Fig. 1, Fig. 5, page 192 last para. -page 193 first para.)
Regarding claim 42, Sukarura et al. has been described as above. Since Sukarura et al. already teaches water phase being kept in electrochemical cell reactor and not being activated by plasma, therefore, such secondary reactant being shielded from the nitrogen plasma to maintain the water phase in a differentially activated state as that of instantly claimed is envisioned.
Alternatively, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to control the nitrogen fixation process via modulating the water phase in the reactor cell (shielding from the plasma reactor) for help obtaining desired nitrogen fixation product (e.g. ammonia) as suggested by Sukarura et al. (page 190 last para-page 191 first para.).
Claims 7, 18 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakarura et al. (Nitrogen Fixation through the Plasma/Liquid Interfacial Reaction with Controlled Conditions of Each Phase as the Reaction Locus, Electrochemistry, 88(3), 190–194 (2020)) as applied above, and in view of Ballantine (US2021/0155491).
Regarding claim 7 and 31, Sakarura et al. does not expressly teach the secondary gas stream comprising hydrogen.
However, it is well-known in the art that hydrogen gas can react with nitrogen to produce ammonia (para. [0021], Fig. 1 A).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to supply such well-known hydrogen gas as shown by Ballantine to modify the secondary reactant stream of Sakarura et al. because adopting such well-known hydrogen gas as reactant for modifying a well-known process of producing ammonia for improvement would have predictable results (see MPEP §2143 KSR).
Regarding claim 18, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to adopt aerosol water to contact with activated nitrogen species in the reaction zone because providing water in aerosol form only involves routine skill for one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakarura et al. (Nitrogen Fixation through the Plasma/Liquid Interfacial Reaction with Controlled Conditions of Each Phase as the Reaction Locus, Electrochemistry, 88(3), 190–194 (2020)) as applied above, and in view of Sakarura’2018 (Excitation of H2O at the plasma/water interface by UV irradiation for the elevation of ammonia production, Green Chem., 2018, 20, 627–633).
Regarding claim 30, Sakarura et al. does not expressly teach activating secondary reactant in a second plasma reactor prior to the step of directing the secondary reactant stream to interact with the activated nitrogen species.
Sakarura’2018 teaches activating hydrogen source of the secondary reactant by using a UV plasma (i.e. a second plasma reactor), which can help increase reaction of activated nitrogen species with such activated hydrogen species for obtaining more ammonia (abstract, page 628 left col. 3rd para.-page 629, Fig 1-3, page 630 last para.-page 631 left col. last para.).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to adopt a second plasma reactor as shown by Sakarura’2018 to activate the secondary reactant stream of Sakarura et al. prior to the step of directing the secondary reactant stream to interact with the activated nitrogen species because by doing so can help provided activated secondary reactant species thus improving the ammonia production as shown by Sakarura’2018 (abstract, page 628 left col. 3rd para.-page 629, Fig 1-3, page 630 last para.-page 631 left col. last para.).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUN LI whose telephone number is (571)270-5858. The examiner can normally be reached IFP.
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, Ching-Yiu (Coris) Fung can be reached at 571-270-5713. 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.
/JUN LI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1732