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 .
Response to Amendment
Acknowledgment is made to Applicant’s claim amendments received 30 April 2026. Claims 2-5, 7, 8, 12-17, 19 and 21 are currently pending of which claim 21 is withdrawn. Claims 1, 6, 9-11, 18 and 20 have been cancelled.
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 19, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 12, 13, 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2021/0336284 A1 to Seymour et al. (Seymour) in view of US 2017/0253979 A1 to Mehr (Mehr) in view of US 2025/0129487 A1 to Kondo et al. (Kondo) and further in view of US 2024/0297326 A1 to Brandtzaeg et al. (Brandtzaeg).
As to claims 19, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8 and 12, Seymour teaches a system for generating hydrogen and generating ammonia from this hydrogen, the system comprising: an electrochemical stack for generating hydrogen comprising an inlet for receiving an aqueous sodium hydroxide electrolyte, a cathode (first electrode), an anode (counter electrode) and an anion exchange membrane separating the anode and the cathode, the anion exchange membrane comprising, for example, sustanion, an imidazolium functionalized styrene polymer, such that the electrochemical stack generates hydrogen deliverable from a first outlet and oxygen deliverable from a second outlet (Paragraphs 0003, 0024, 0033, 0089 and 0093-0098; Claims 58, 69, 70 and 81; Figure 1).
However, Seymour is silent as to the specific source for the sodium hydroxide. However, Mehr discusses the production of excess sodium hydroxide for sale and teaches that this sodium hydroxide is produced via a chlor-alkali stack comprising an anode, a cathode and a proton exchange membrane which electrolyzes brine (sodium and chloride ion salt) to generate chlorine gas, hydrogen and sodium hydroxide. Seymour further teaches that the hydrogen is utilized to produce ammonia (Paragraphs 0073-0076, 0173 and 0175; Figure 5). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to derive the necessary sodium hydroxide for the hydrogen production of Seymour form a chlor-alkali stack with the expectation of producing available sodium hydroxide with the additional benefit of additional hydrogen generation for the production of ammonia.
However, the combination fails to teach a specific configuration for the production of ammonia from the generated hydrogen. 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 utilize the synthesis cell of Kondo in order to utilize an energy saving device that allows for the reuse of unreacted hydrogen in an efficient manner as taught by Kondo for the generation of ammonia. Thus a reactor for generating ammonia comprising an energy source activatable for reduce nitrogen to ammonia in the presence of hydrogen and fluidly coupled to receive nitrogen and the hydrogen from the electrochemical cell and the chlor-alkali cell. Kondo further 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).
However, the combination further fails to teach that the apparatus comprises an electrochemical hydrogen pump. However, Brandtzaeg also discusses the electrochemical production of hydrogen to utilize downstream for the production of ammonia and teaches that prior to ammonia production the produced hydrogen should be separated and compressed utilizing an electrochemical hydrogen pump (Paragraph 0046 and 0141-0156; Figure 2). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the apparatus of the combination with the addition to an electrochemical hydrogen pump connected between each of the hydrogen producing cells and the ammonia reactor in order to separate and compress the hydrogen prior to ammonia production as taught by Brandtzaeg.
As to claim 13, the combination of Seymour, Mehr, Kondo and Brandtzaeg teaches the apparatus of claim 19. Seymour further teaches that the electrochemical cell stack is coupled to a hydrogen storage system (Paragraph 0342).
As to claims 16 and 17, the combination of Seymour, Mehr, Kondo and Brandtzaeg teaches the apparatus of claim 19. Seymour further teaches that the electrochemical cell stack is coupled to a phase separator for removing water from the generated hydrogen (Claim 58), thus in combination the phase separator at least indirectly coupled to the ammonia reactor.
Claims 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Seymour, Mehr, Kondo and Brandtzaeg as applied to claim 19 above, and further in view of US 2022/0032228 A1 to Yen (Yen).
As to claim 14, the combination of Seymour, Mehr, Kondo and Brandtzaeg teaches the apparatus of claim 19. Kondo further 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. Kondo 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, Kondo 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 Seymour, Mehr, Kondo, Brandtzaeg 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).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 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
Prosecution Insights