Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. The Office Action is in response to communication filed on 08/20/2025.
Response to Amendment
3. The communication filed on 08/20/2025, Claims 1-14 are pending. Claim 13 is presently withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
4. Applicant’s arguments filed on 08/20/2025, pages 5-11 have been fully considered but it is not persuasive.
Status of the Claims
The applicant states that: “Claims 1-14 are pending. Claim 13 is presently withdrawn. The Office Action incorrectly states that claim 1-12, and 14 are pending. Applicant has not canceled claim 13… Appropriate correction of the Record is requested”.
Examiner’s Response:
Applicant acknowledge that claim 13 is presently withdrawn.
In the office action 05/20/2025, examiner makes it clear in the record that claim 13 is not elected; there is nothing mentioned that claim 13 is cancelled in the office action. Please double check with the record.
Restriction Requirement
Applicant argued that the Examiner failed to consider unity of invention, as required, as the present application is a national stage filing under §371.
Examiner’s response:
Examiner makes it clear in the non-final office action, repeated here as that:
“Applicant's election with traverse of restriction request (filed in 12/31/2024) reply filed on 03/31/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that “MPEP §1983.03(d) states that “[w]hen making a lack of unity requirement, the examiner must (1) list the different groups of claims and (2) explain why each group lacks unity with each other group (i.e., why there is no single general inventive concept) specifically describing the unique special technical feature in each group.”
In the present Office Action, it is clear that the Examiner failed to consider unity of invention. For example, the present Office Action fails to explain why each group lacks unity with each other group (i.e., why there is no single general inventive concept) specifically describing the unique special technical feature in each group. Notably, for example in the reasons for restriction given by the Examiner, “separate status on the art in view of their different classification” is not relevant in a unity of invention determination.
Further, the present Office Action fails to identify any technical relationship among the two groups involving one or more of the same or corresponding special technical features. The present Office Action also fails to identify any prior art and provide any analysis related to a technical feature and the identified prior art. Accordingly, the restriction requirement is improper and must be withdrawn.”.
This is not found persuasive because as stated in the restriction requirement 12/31/2024, page 1-2, “• Group I, Claims 1-12, 14, drawn to a method for the synthesis of nitrogen oxides (NOx); classified in C01B 21/20.
• Group II, Claim 13, drawn to a method for the synthesis of nitric acid (HNO3); classified in C01B 21/38.
.” Invention I claim 1-12, 14 and Invention II claim 13 are independent distinct (one is a method for the synthesis of nitrogen oxides (NOx) and another one is a method for the synthesis of nitric acid (HNO3)) and classified in different classes; It is obvious that there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply:
i. The inventions have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their different classification.
ii. The inventions have acquired a separate status in the art due to their recognized divergent subject matter.
iii. The inventions require a different field of search (for example, searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search queries).
iv. The prior art applicable to one invention would not likely be applicable to another invention.
v. The inventions are likely to raise different non-prior art issues under 35 U.S.C. 101 and/or 35 U.S.C 112, first paragraph.
Examiner’s Note: there is no section “MPEP §1983.03(d)” in MPEP, as applicant argued.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.”
It is so obvious that since Group I, Claims 1-12, 14, drawn to a method for the synthesis of nitrogen oxides (NOx); classified in C01B 21/20; and Group II, Claim 13, drawn to a method for the synthesis of nitric acid (HNO3); classified in C01B 21/38, therefore, group I and group II are not single invention concept. They are for different inventions, one for the synthesis of nitrogen oxides (NOx), the other for the synthesis of nitric acid (HNO3).
Claim Objections
The applicant argued that the claim objections is claim objection is not right, since:
“comprising the following steps…” is a conventional and accepted transitional expression in method claims, and its use does not limit the claim to a closed set of steps.
Examiner’s Response:
This is a claim objection and it is not a claim rejection. The purpose of changing from “comprising the following steps” to “comprising following steps” is to make the claim language more accurate and more proper. Examiner were trying to help the applicant for this.
If using “the following steps” in a claim, usually, “following steps” should be recited previously; otherwise, it could raise lacking of antecedence basis issue.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §103
The applicant argued that it is improper to combine INGELS (WO 2012150865) with TANAKA et al. (WO 2018230737), since “TANAKA is not describing a method for producing nitrogen oxides, but rather a membrane to separate ammonia from a gas mixture and that it is beneficial to push the gas mixture through said membrane using a high pressure. Contrary to the position of the Office Action, there would be no motivation to raise the pressure of INGELS based on TANAKA”.
Examiner’s Response:
Examiner respective disagree.
As stated in the non-final office action 05/20/2025, the benefit for combination is that “the reaction under high pressure to achieve efficiency”; as TANAKA teaches, “high-pressure and high-temperature production conditions are imposed” to achieve efficiency in synthesis. TANAKA is not just for gas separation, it is also for synthesis, as in page 10, just one example: “when separating the product gas in ammonia synthesis, the temperature during ammonia separation is usually the same as or lower than the synthesis temperature of ammonia”.
Therefore, the 103 rejection maintained.
The applicants are encouraged to contact with examiner to further discuss the application and find proper way to move the case forward.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in Application No. 18273195 filed on 07/19/2023.
Priority # Filling Data Country
SE2150049-1 01/19/2021 KINGDOM OF SWEDEN
Information Disclosure Statement
6. The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 07/10/2025, 09/29/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
7. Claim 1 and its dependent claims 2-12, 14 recited limitation of “the following steps” in “A method for the synthesis of nitrogen oxides (NOx) comprising the following steps”. Change it to: “A method for the synthesis of nitrogen oxides (NOx) comprising following steps”. Appropriate action is requested.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
8. 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 of this title, 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.
9. Claims 1-8, 11, 14 are rejected are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over INGELS (WO 2012150865) and in view of TANAKA et al. (WO 2018230737).
Regarding claim 1, INGELS teaches a method for the synthesis of nitrogen oxides (NOx) (fig. 5; page 1, … Energy efficient process for producing Nitrogen Oxide) comprising the following steps:-
providing a gas mixture comprising oxygen and nitrogen (fig. 5; page 1, the first process, the electric arc process reacted nitrogen with oxygen);
and - heating the gas mixture to a temperature of at least 2300 K (page 3, … The high reaction temperature, 3000-4000 K was required for the dissociation of nitrogen) at a pressure of high bar (page 15, Table 2, pressure is high bar) in a thermal reactor (fig. 6) forming a gas mixture comprising NOx (paragraph 0001, … a process for producing NO gas from a feed flow
of air or oxygen enriched air,).
It is noticed that INGELS does not disclose explicitly of at a pressure of 10-100 bar.
TANAKA discloses of at a pressure of 10-100 bar (page 11, … The upper limit is usually 20 MPa or less, preferably 10 MPa or less, more preferably 5 MPa or less, and may be 3 MPa or less; which is at a pressure of 10-100 bar).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the technology that at a pressure of 10-100 bar as a modification to the method for the benefit of that the reaction under high pressure to achieve efficiency in synthesis (page 4; TANAKA is not just for gas separation, it is also for synthesis, as in page 10, just one example: “when separating the product gas in ammonia synthesis, the temperature during ammonia separation is usually the same as or lower than the synthesis temperature of ammonia”).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of INGEL and TANAKA teaches the limitations recited in claim 1 as discussed above. In addition, INGEL further discloses that the thermal reactor is a plasma reactor (as shown in fig. 6 and page 1 Fixation of nitrogen with oxygen in an electric arc plasma reactor).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of INGEL and TANAKA teaches the limitations recited in claim 1 as discussed above. In addition, INGEL further discloses that wherein the gas mixture comprising oxygen and nitrogen has an oxygen content of 25-60 % (vol/vol). (as shown in page 13, Table 1, oxygen content is 32.70%, 27.30%, 29.12% 30.88%).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of INGEL and TANAKA teaches the limitations recited in claim 1 as discussed above. In addition, INGEL further discloses that wherein the thermal reactor is operated by heating the gas mixture comprising oxygen and nitrogen with radiofrequency waves or microwaves (page 5, … applying an alternating electric field of radio frequency, producing cold plasma.)
Regarding claim 5, the combination of INGEL and TANAKA teaches the limitations recited in claim 1 as discussed above. In addition, INGEL further discloses that cooling the gas mixture in a cooling step forming a cooled gas mixture comprising NO2 (page 9, …the arc and plasma disc reactor comprises a heat exchanger, to reduce the retention time and to combine cooling of the product gas),wherein the cooling step comprises quenching the gas mixture comprising NOx (page 9, …quenched by applying a spray of fine water droplets upstream or just downstream the arc, excess air feed or bypassed air to obtain a stable NO-containing plasma
having a temperature below 2000 Kelvin).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of INGEL and TANAKA teaches the limitations recited in claim 5 as discussed above. In addition, INGEL further discloses that wherein the quenching is conducted by bringing the gas mixture in contact with a quenching medium being water or a gas mixture comprising oxygen and nitrogen, wherein the gas mixture preferably comprises oxygen, nitrogen and NO recirculated from the cooling step, and/or oxygen and nitrogen that was deliberately by- passed around the thermal reactor (page 9, … quenched by applying a spray of fine water droplets upstream or just downstream the arc, excess air feed or bypassed air to obtain a stable NO-containing plasma having a temperature below 2000 Kelvin; page 14, … In a quench by mixing in cold air or by contact cooling, the equilibrium reactions are too slow and are overridden by the statistical probability for recombination to NO versus N2 and 02).
Regarding claim7, the combination of INGEL and TANAKA teaches the limitations recited in claim 5 as discussed above. In addition, INGEL further discloses that further comprising the step of depressurizing the cooled gas mixture comprising NO2 (page 14, …When lowering the pressure this effect is further enhanced…; page 4, …The contact cooling was achieved by lowering the pressure to expand the volume and external surface of the plasma).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of INGEL and TANAKA teaches the limitations recited in claim 5 as discussed above. In addition, INGEL further discloses that extracting energy during the cooling step forming a cooled gas mixture comprising NO2 (page 5, … Mixing and extracting the mix from the plasma zone is further reducing the decomposition of the formed
oxides…).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of INGEL and TANAKA teaches the limitations recited in claim 1 as discussed above. In addition, INGEL further discloses that wet scrubbing the gas mixture comprising NO2 thereby forming nitric acid (HNO3) (page 5, … describe a conceptual full industrial process for producing nitric acid based on an improved process for supplying energy and recovering this in a magnetohydrodynamic generator; the wet scrubbing the gas mixture is shown in page 18, quenched with a spray of water coming from the nozzle cooling water).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of INGEL and TANAKA teaches the limitations recited in claim 1 as discussed above. In addition, INGEL further discloses that wherein the gas mixture comprising oxygen and nitrogen is heated to a temperature of at least 2300 K (page 3, … The high reaction temperature, 3000-4000 K was required for the dissociation of nitrogen) and TANAKA further discloses that at a pressure of 15-70 bar (page 11, … The upper limit is usually 20 MPa or less, preferably 10 MPa or less, more preferably 5 MPa or less, and may be 3 MPa or less; which is at a pressure of 15-70 bar ).
The motivation of combination is the same as in claim 1’s rejection.
10. Claim 9, 10 is rejected are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over INGELS (WO 2012150865) and in view of TANAKA et al. (WO 2018230737) and further in view of ANGST et al. (DE 102015216851).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of INGEL and TANAKA teaches the limitations recited in claim 8 as discussed above. In addition, INGEL further discloses that at least part of the extraction of energy is conducted in a turbine system (page 16, …recovery of energy in expander or suction turbine). It is noticed that INGEL does not disclose explicitly of the turbine system preferably comprises a cooler or condenser.
ANGST discloses that the turbine system preferably comprises a cooler or condenser (fig. 3; page 10, 15 compressor 16 exhaust turbine 17 Charge air cooler bypass).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the technology that the turbine system preferably comprises a cooler or condenser as a modification to the method for the benefit of that to increasing the efficiency of cooling (page 10).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of INGEL and TANAKA teaches the limitations recited in claim 8 as discussed above. In addition, INGEL further discloses that at least part of the extraction of energy is conducted by leading the gas mixture into a heat-exchanger (page 8, …contact-cooling the plasma in a counter current heat exchanger. The exchange of heat takes place between feed into and the product going out of the reactor.). It is noticed that INGEL does not disclose explicitly of the heat- exchanger preferably generates steam that can be recovered in a steam turbine.
ANGST discloses that the heat- exchanger preferably generates steam that can be recovered in a steam turbine (fig. 3; page 4, passing the exhaust stream exiting the oxidation catalyst through the reduction catalyst, wherein the temperature of the exhaust stream passing through the reduction catalyst and the selected period of time are sufficient to desulfate or regenerate the reduction catalyst).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the technology that t the heat- exchanger preferably generates steam that can be recovered in a steam turbine as a modification to the method for the benefit of that to increasing the efficiency of heat exchange (page 10).
11. Claim 12 is rejected are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over INGELS (WO 2012150865) and in view of TANAKA et al. (WO 2018230737) and further in view of HOSONO et al. (CN 104981603).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of INGEL and TANAKA teaches the limitations recited in claim 8 as discussed above. In addition, INGEL further discloses that unreacted exhaust gas is spayed from the wet scrubbing to the thermal reactor (page 18-19, The optional
quenching gas which optionally can containing a fine water droplet spray (1 1) 1s entering from the cathode side and is mixed with the plasma arc (1) to form colder stable plasma (8), which is further cooled in the heat exchanger (1 6) shell side to become the product gas). It is noticed that INGEL does not disclose explicitly of unreacted exhaust gas is recirculated from the wet scrubbing.
HOSONO discloses that unreacted exhaust gas is recirculated from the wet scrubbing (fig. 3; page 2, as a part of exhausted from engine of the amount of nitrogen oxide (NOx) method… in which case the need from removing PM and SOx in exhaust gas recirculation. an effective method for removing PM from exhaust gas and SOx by washing liquid to remove their wet gas washing unit (scrubber)).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the technology that unreacted exhaust gas is recirculated from the wet scrubbing as a modification to the method for the benefit of that to have an effective method for removing gas (page 2).
12. Conclusion
. 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZAIHAN JIANG whose telephone number is (571)272-1399. The examiner can normally be reached on flexible.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Sath Perungavoor can be reached on (571)272-7455. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-270-0655.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ZAIHAN JIANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2488