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 .
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 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 (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),
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 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) 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). 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US Pub. No. 2025/0179650 to Chen et al., evidencing that both Nafion 117 and Nafion 211 are known proton exchange membranes (see ¶99).
US Pub. No. 2024/0301569 to Feaster et al., teaching a direct conversion process of air to ammonia via advanced manufactured electrochemical reactors.
US Pub. No. 2021/0276891 to Li et al., teaching a system and method for removing nitrate from water.
US Pub. No. 2017/0092959 to Serov et al., teaching catalysts for bio-electrochemical systems.
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
Prosecution Insights