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 1-9 and 11-20, in the reply filed on 11 November 2025 is acknowledged.
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.
Claims 1-20 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.
As to claim 1, the claim recites the limitation "the first electrochemical stack" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
As to claim 18, the claim recites the limitation "the first electrochemical stack" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
As to claim 19, the claim recites the limitations "the first electrochemical stack" in line 8 and “the sodium hydroxide solution” in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
As to claim 20, the claim recites the limitation "the first electrochemical stack" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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)(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.
Claims 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2022/0388855 A1 to Dincer et al. (Dincer).
As to claim 18, Dincer teaches a system for generating hydrogen and ammonia comprising a water treatment unit (310) comprising a desalination system to remove salts from saline water to generate desalinated pure water, an electrochemical stack (325) electrolyzing water to generate hydrogen and including an inlet for receiving water from a water source (300) and an anion exchange membrane (AEM), and a reactor (480) for generating ammonia including an inlet receiving nitrogen and hydrogen generated in the stack and an energy source, thermal energy for catalyst activation, activatable to reduce nitrogen to ammonia in the presence of hydrogen (Paragraphs 0048, 0049, 0050, 0054 and 0055; Figure 2).
As to claim 20, Dincer teaches a system for generating hydrogen comprising an electrochemical stack (325) electrolyzing water to generate hydrogen and including an inlet for receiving water from a water source (300), an anion exchange membrane (AEM), and an outlet (340) connected to a reactor (480) for generating ammonia (Paragraphs 0048, 0049, 0050, 0054 and 0055; Figure 2).
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.
Claims 1, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dincer in view of US 2010/0282689 A1 to Ganzi et al. (Ganzi).
As to claims 1, 6, 7 and 9, Dincer teaches a system for generating hydrogen and ammonia comprising an electrochemical stack (325) electrolyzing water to generate hydrogen and including an inlet for receiving water from a water source (300) and an anion exchange membrane (AEM), a water treatment unit (310) coupled to the water source (300) and the stack (325) to purify the water, and a reactor (480) for generating ammonia including an inlet receiving nitrogen and hydrogen generated in the stack and an energy source, thermal energy for catalyst activation, activatable to reduce nitrogen to ammonia in the presence of hydrogen (Paragraphs 0048, 0049, 0050, 0054 and 0055; Figure 2).
Dincer further teaches that the water treatment unit can be a brine purification unit (a desalination system) allowing the usage of seawater, a saline sodium chloride containing water, as the starting water (Paragraph 0048); however, Dincer is silent as to the specifics of the brine purification unit.
However, Ganzi also discusses desalination of salt water brine and teaches a desalination system comprising ion exchangers as a particularly desirable low energy system (Paragraphs 0004 and 0074; Figure 4). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the desalination device of Dincer with the desalination system including ion exchangers of Ganzi in order to utilize a desirably low energy system as taught by Ganzi.
As to claim 4, the combination of Dincer and Ganzi teaches the apparatus of claim 1. As discussed above, Diner teaches that the electrochemical stack is an AEM electrolytic cell, thus a cell with a cathode and an anode with the AEM disposed therebetween.
As to claim 8, the combination of Dincer and Ganzi teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Dincer further teaches that stack includes a first outlet delivering hydrogen from the stack and a second outlet delivery oxygen from the stack (Paragraphs 0050 and 0109).
As to claims 11 and 12, the combination of Dincer and Ganzi teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Ganzi teaches that the ion exchanger desalination device comprises an electrodeionization cell comprising an anode, a cathode and a proton (cation) exchange membrane, such that chlorine ions and sodium (alkali) ions are generated and captured, thus a chlor-alkali stack (Paragraph 0074; Figure 4).
As to claim 13, the combination of Dincer and Ganzi teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Dincer further teaches that the system comprises a hydrogen storage system (expansion tank (355)) connected to the stack (325) (Paragraph 0050; Figure 2).
As to claim 19, Dincer teaches a system for generating hydrogen and ammonia comprising an electrochemical stack (325) electrolyzing water to generate hydrogen and including an inlet for receiving water from a water source (300) and an anion exchange membrane (AEM), a water treatment unit (310) coupled to the water source (300) and the stack (325) to purify the water, and a reactor (480) for generating ammonia including an inlet receiving nitrogen and hydrogen generated in the stack and an energy source, thermal energy for catalyst activation, activatable to reduce nitrogen to ammonia in the presence of hydrogen (Paragraphs 0048, 0049, 0050, 0054 and 0055; Figure 2).
Dincer further teaches that the water treatment unit can be a brine purification unit (a desalination system) allowing the usage of seawater, a saline sodium chloride containing water, as the starting water (Paragraph 0048); however, Dincer is silent as to the specifics of the brine purification unit.
However, Ganzi also discusses desalination of salt water brine and teaches a desalination system comprising ion exchangers as a particularly desirable low energy system (Paragraphs 0004 and 0074; Figure 4). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the desalination device of Dincer with the desalination system including ion exchangers of Ganzi in order to utilize a desirably low energy system as taught by Ganzi. Ganzi teaches that the ion exchanger desalination deice comprises an electrodeionization cell comprising an anode, a cathode and a proton (cation) exchange membrane, such that chlorine ions and sodium (alkali) ions are generated and captured, thus a chlor-alkali stack (Paragraph 0074; Figure 4).
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Dincer and Ganzi as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2025/0129487 A1 to Kondo et al. (Kondo).
As to claims 2 and 3, the combination of Dincer and Ganzi teaches the apparatus of claim 1. However, Dincer fails to teach that the energy source for the ammonia production comprises a synthesis cell. However, Kondo also discusses the production of ammonia from hydrogen and nitrogen and teaches that an energy saving device that allows for the reuse of unreacted hydrogen in an efficient manner comprises a synthesis cell (Paragraph 0039). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to replace the ammonia reactor of Dincer with the synthesis cell of Ganzi in order to utilize an energy saving device that allows for the reuse of unreacted hydrogen in an efficient manner as taught by Kondo. Kondo teaches that the synthesis cell comprises an anode, a cathode and a proton membrane comprising, for example, Nafion, a perfluorosulfonic acid polymer, therebetween (Paragraphs 0072 and 0125; Figure 2).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Dincer and Ganzi as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2023/0203682 A1 to Yan et al. (Yan).
As to claim 5, the combination of Dincer and Ganzi teaches the apparatus of claim 1. However, Dincer is silent as to the effective formation of the anion exchange membrane. However, Yan also discusses water electrolysis with anion exchange membranes and teaches that an effective membrane comprises, for example, imidazolium functionalized styrene polymers (Paragraphs 0067 and 0068; Figure 2). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to form the AEM of Dincer of imidazolium functionalized styrene polymers with the reasonable expectation of effectively providing the membrane as taught by Yan.
Claims 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Dincer and Ganzi as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Kondo and further in view of US 2022/0032228 A1 to Yen (Yen).
As to claim 14, the combination of Dincer and Ganzi teaches the apparatus of claim 1. However, Dincer fails to teach an embodiment wherein hydrogen and nitrogen are separately supplied to the ammonia reactor and thus fails to teach a need for separating unreacted hydrogen gas, instead recycling them together.
However, Kondo also discusses the production of ammonia from hydrogen and nitrogen and teaches that an energy saving device that allows for the reuse of unreacted hydrogen in an efficient manner comprises a synthesis cell (Paragraph 0039). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary kill in the art at the time of invention to replace the ammonia reactor of Dincer with the synthesis cell of Ganzi in order to utilize an energy saving device that allows for the reuse of unreacted hydrogen in an efficient manner as taught by Kondo.
Ganzi teaches that the hydrogen is supplied to the anode and the nitrogen is supplied to the cathode, such that hydrogen ions pass through a proton exchange membrane to react with nitrogen at the cathode to form ammonia. Ganzi teaches that the outlet ammonia stream comprises unreacted hydrogen and nitrogen which is returned to the cell anode for reuse of the hydrogen (Paragraphs 0134 and 0138). However, Ganzi teaches that this reuse applies only to the hydrogen portion of the mixed gas and fails to teach separating the hydrogen from the nitrogen.
However, Yen discusses mixed hydrogen and nitrogen gas streams and teaches that hydrogen can be separated from nitrogen in a mixed gas via use of a electrochemical hydrogen pump (Paragraphs 0016). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide the apparatus of the combination with an electrochemical hydrogen pump for receiving the hydrogen and nitrogen gas stream, allowing the hydrogen to be separated from the nitrogen and thus allowing the nitrogen to also be utilized for further reaction at the cathode.
As to claim 15, the combination of Dincer, Ganzi, Kondo and Yen teaches the apparatus of claim 14. Yen further teaches that the electrochemical hydrogen pump includes an anode, a cathode and a proton exchange membrane (Paragraph 0017).
Claims 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Dincer and Ganzi as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2018/0305828 A1 to Takanami et al. (Takanami).
As to claims 16 and 17, the combination of Dincer and Ganzi teaches the apparatus of claim 1. However, Dincer fails to further teach that the apparatus comprises a phase separator fluidly connected to an outlet of the electrochemical stack to remove water from the generated hydrogen. However, Takanami also discusses anion exchange membrane electrolysis cells for the generation of hydrogen and oxygen from water and teaches that liquid water should be separated from the gaseous hydrogen in a phase separator (4) allowing for recycle of the water to the cell for further hydrogen generation (Paragraph 0053; Figure 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to, prior to sending the hydrogen for ammonia production, provide the hydrogen to a phase separated connected therebetween, in order to remove the water for further use as taught by Takanami.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CIEL P Contreras whose telephone number is (571)270-7946. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 AM to 4 PM.
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.
/CIEL P CONTRERAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1794