DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
1. In response to the amendment received on 8/21/26:
claims 1-10 are presently pending
all previous prior art grounds of rejection are withdrawn in light of the amendments to the claims
new grounds of rejection are presented herein
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: on page 10 lines 13-14 it is noted that the specification states “… Mo-Ni-C monometallic catalysts”. However, it would appear that this is a typo and should actually refer to “Mo-N-C” since the section is disclosing various transition metal-nitrogen-carbon catalyst materials (see Specification at page 9, lines 24-26).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
Claims 1-10 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.
Specifically, claim 1 requires the working electrode to comprise a “transition metal-nitrogen-carbon (M-N-C) catalyst” (see claim 1 at lines 4-5) which is selected from the group consisting of “Fe-N-C, a Mo-Ni-C … and FeMo-N-C” (see claim 1 at lines 6-7). As such, the claim initially requires a metal-nitrogen-carbon catalyst but then in the added limitation would attempt to include a molybdenum-nickel-carbon catalyst. While it would seem that the Ni, as opposed to N, is a typographical error, it is unclear as to what is actually being required since the claim previously limits the catalyst material to a metal-nitrogen-carbon compound and then would seem to further include a metal-nickel-carbon compound.
Please note, for purposes of claim interpretation the examiner will be treating Mo-Ni-C as though it is referring to Mo-N-C since that would appear to be in keeping with applicants’ intent.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(d)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Specifically, it is noted that claim 1 has been amended to require the transition metal to be Fe, Mo, or a combination thereof. As such, the further limitations of claim 2 by attempting to further include additional transition metals would fail to include all of the limitations of independent claim 1 by further opening up the possibility of the transition metals to others than Fe, Mo, or combinations.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 5-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and/or 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by “Electrochemical Ammonia Synthesis Via Nitrate Reduction on Fe Single Atom Catalyst” by Wu et al., Nat. Comm. 12:2870 (2021) (hereinafter referred to as “WU”).
Regarding claim 1, WU teaches a method for the electrocatalytic conversion of nitrates and nitrites to ammonia (see generally WU at Abstract), comprising:
providing an electrochemical H-cell (see WU at page 4, section titled “Electrocatalytic Nitrate Reduction Performance” teaching the nitrate reduction being conducted in an H-cell; see also WU at page 8, section titled “Electrocatalytic nitrate reduction” teaching the specifics of the customized H-cell), comprising
a working electrode comprising an atomically dispersed transition metal-nitrogen-carbon (M-N-C) catalyst comprising a catalyst member selected from the group consisting of a dispersed Fe-N-C, a Mo-N-C monometallic catalysts and FeMo-N-C bimetallic catalysts (see WU at page 8, section titled “Electrocatalytic nitrate reduction” teaching the formation of the working electrode via formation of an ink with the prepared catalyst powder that was drop-casted onto glassy carbon electrode; see also WU at pages 2-4, section titled “Synthesis and characterizations of Fe SAC” teaching the catalyst being formed Fe atoms atomically dispersed in the N-doped carbon (NC) matrix or transition metal atoms in a N-doped carbon support, i.e. a Fe-N-C catalyst),
a counter electrode (see WU at page 8, section titled “Electrocatalytic nitrate reduction” teaching a platinum foil counter electrode),
a hydrogen-permeable membrane between the working electrode and the counter electrode (see WU at page 8, section titled “Electrocatalytic nitrate reduction” teaching the H-cell separated by Nafion 117 membrane), and
an electrolyte comprising an aqueous solution of nitrate and/or nitrite (see WU at page 8, section titled “Electrocatalytic nitrate reduction” teaching the electrolyte being a solution of 0.1M K2SO4 and 0.5M KNO3 in both the anode and cathode chambers); and
applying a cathodic potential between the working electrode and the counter electrode sufficient to electrocatalytically reduce the nitrate and/or nitrite to ammonia at the working electrode (see WU at page 8, section titled “Electrocatalytic nitrate reduction” teaching the electrocatalytic NO3- reduction; see also WU at page 4, section titled “Electrocatalytic nitrate reduction performance” teaching the electrocatalytic reduction NO3- to NH3).
Regarding claim 2, WU teaches the method wherein the transition metal comprises Fe, Mo, Cr, Mn, Co, Ni, Cu, Ru, Rh, Pd, W, La, or Ce, or a combination thereof (see teachings of WU cited above in the rejection of claim 1 teaching the transition metal nitrogen carbon catalyst being made with Fe).
Regarding claim 3, WU teaches the method wherein the M-N-C catalyst comprises a monometallic catalyst (see teachings of WU set forth above in the rejection of claims 1 and 2 teaching the catalyst made of just Fe so as to be a monometallic catalyst as claimed).
Regarding claim 5, WU teaches the method wherein the nitrate comprises potassium nitrate (see teachings of WU cited above in the rejection of claim 1 teaching the electrolyte comprising KNO3, i.e. potassium nitrate).
Regarding claim 6, WU teaches the method wherein nitrite comprises potassium nitrite (see teachings of WU cited above in the rejection of claim 1 teaching the electrolyte comprising potassium nitrate which since claim 1 requires the electrolyte comprise either a nitrate and/or nitrite is met by the potassium nitrate since just the optionally required nitrite is being further limited).
Regarding claim 7, WU teaches the method wherein the electrolyte comprises a concentration of greater than 0.01 M nitrate or nitrite (see teachings of WU cited above in the rejection of claim 1 teaching the electrolyte comprising potassium nitrate at a concentration of 0.5 M).
Regarding claim 8, WU teaches the method wherein the electrolyte is alkaline (see WU at pages 5-6 at section titled “Electrocatalytic nitrate reduction performance” teaching the method of nitrate reduction with the Fe SAC catalyst at different pHs including in an alkaline solution, i.e. pH=13 and also a neutral pH and acidic solution, i.e. pH=1).
Regarding claim 9, WU teaches the method wherein the electrolyte is neutral or acidic (see WU at pages 5-6 at section titled “Electrocatalytic nitrate reduction performance” teaching the method of nitrate reduction with the Fe SAC catalyst at different pHs including in an alkaline solution, i.e. pH=13 and also a neutral pH and acidic solution, i.e. pH=1).
Regarding claim 10, WU teaches the method wherein the cathodic potential is more negative than -0.1 V (see WU at page 4 at section titled “Electrocatalytic nitrate reduction performance” teaching a potential of -0.50 V, -0.66 V and -0.85 V being applied to the cathode).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WU in view of “Using Atomically Dispersed Bimetallic Active Sites to Probe the Nitrate Reduction Mechanism to Ammonia” by Murphy et al., ECS Meet. Abstr. MA2021-02 1559 (2021) (hereinafter referred to as “MURPHY”)
Regarding claim 4, while WU teaches the method wherein the M-N-C catalyst is a monometallic Fe catalyst (see teachings of WU cited above in the rejection of claims 1 and 2), WU fails to explicitly teach the M-N-C catalyst comprising a bimetallic catalyst as claimed.
However, MURPHY teaches that it was known to form M-N-C catalysts of separate transition metals such as Fe or Mo, and also bimetallic catalysts of Fe and Mo (see MURPHY at page 2 teaching single atom catalysts being applied to nitrate reduction and including the use of mono and bimetallic catalysts of Fe and Mo for the nitrate reduction reaction, i.e. FeMo-N-C catalyst as claimed). Additionally, MURPHY teaches the disclosed catalysts as providing for faradic efficiencies over 90% with good stabilities (see MURPHY at page 2).
As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have employed not just monometallic M-N-C catalyst but also bimetallic M-N-C catalysts as the working electrode catalyst. Alternatively, one of ordinary skill in the art would have also recognized the mixed Fe/Mo bimetallic M-N-C catalyst material of MURPHY as an alternative catalyst material to the monometallic Fe M-N-C catalyst material of WU.
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 replaced the monometallic Fe M-N-C catalyst material of WU in the method of electrocatalytic reduction of nitrate to ammonia with the bimetallic M-N-C catalyst of MURPHY since it is a known catalyst material that provides good efficiencies and is stable.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/21/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Specifically, applicant argues that the prior art fails to teach the working electrode comprising an atomically dispersed transition metal-nitrogen-carbon (M-N-C) catalyst comprising a catalyst member selected from the group consisting of a dispersed Fe-N-C, a Mo-N-C monometallic catalysts and FeMo-N-C bimetallic catalysts as amended (see Remarks at paragraph spanning pages 4-5). However, the examiner must respectfully disagree for at least the reasons as set forth above with respect to the teachings of WU as to the transition metal-nitrogen-carbon catalyst employed in the prior art.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Bryan D. Ripa whose telephone number is (571)270-7875. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00AM-4:00PM ET.
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.
/BRYAN D. RIPA/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1794
