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
In response to the amendment filed on 5 June 2026, claims 1 and 3-18 are presently pending. Claims 8-14 were previously withdrawn, being directed to a non-elected invention. Claim 2 has been canceled by the applicant, and its matter incorporated into claim 1 by amendment. The rejection of claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. §112(b) is withdrawn in light of the amendments to the claims. All prior art grounds of rejection are maintained.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments filed on 5 June 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicants argue that Wang is directed to a magnesium water electrode used as a hydrogen evolution reaction (HER) negative electrode (Wang p. 3), which is a competitive side-reaction to the electrochemical reduction of nitrate to ammonia (ERNA) as demonstrated by Wenyang (p. 7), and therefore it is not obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the electrode of Wenyang to incorporate the features of a nanoparticulate catalyst and copper foam substrate. For at least the following reasons, the examiner does not find this argument persuasive.
The teaching relied upon in the rejection is not that Wang is directed to a different electrocatalytic reduction process, as Applicants argue. Rather, it is that Wang demonstrates the benefit of a catalyst made of nanoparticles and deposited on a foam copper substrate: the amount of the catalytically active material necessary for the electrode is reduced (Wang p. 2, para. 3, “Reducing the catalyst platinum loading can effectively reduce the electrode cost…”). It is therefore obvious to modify the electrode taught by Wenyang to use catalytic nanoparticles, as Wang teaches that this reduces the catalyst loading factor and therefore the cost of the electrode.
In response to Applicants’ argument that there is no reasoning as to why one of ordinary skill in the art would have sought to modify Wenyang’s Co3O4 sheets into the claimed 50 to 500 nm cobalt nanoparticles, the range taught by Wang of 10 to 60 nm partially overlaps the claimed range. It is furthermore obvious to one skilled in the art to identify the claimed range of 50 to 500 nm nanoparticles through routine experimentation for the most effective, or at least workable, nanoparticle size, especially for specific applications of the claimed invention. See MPEP §2144.05(II).
In response to Applicants’ argument that Sacco as applied to claim 4 does not cure the deficiencies of Wenyang and Wang with respect to amended claim 1, the subject matter of canceled claim 2 was incorporated into claim 1 by amendment. Because the combination of Wenyang and Wang teaches all limitations of the originally-filed claim 1 and the now-canceled claim 2, the rejection is maintained.
Consequently, for at least these reasons, Examiner finds the Applicants’ arguments unpersuasive.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 5-7, and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wenyang et al. (J. Hazard. Mater., 2022, previously attached) in view of Wang et al. (CN 111293303 A, previously attached).
Regarding claims 1, 3, 5, and 6, Wenyang teaches an electrode for electrochemical reduction of nitrate to ammonia comprising a copper substrate, and Co3O4 and Co(OH)2 electrolytically deposited on the copper substrate (p. 1, Abstract; p. 2, 2.2 Preparation of Co3O4/Cu electrode). Wenyang does not teach a porous copper electrode wherein the porous copper substrate is a copper foam, nor wherein the Co3O4 is in the form of nanoparticles which are bound to and extend from the copper substrate. However, Wang teaches an electrode comprising a platinum nanoparticle catalyst supported on a foam copper substrate (p. 2, "the negative electrode comprises..."), wherein the nanoparticles are bound to and extend from the porous copper substrate (p. 3, "In another aspect of the invention..."), and the nanoparticles are in the range of 50 to 500 nanometers (p. 2, “the platinum nanoparticle is 10-60 nm.”). The electrode disclosed by Wang is analogous because its application is in hydrogen evolution reaction (p. 2, “The invention claims a simple and fast method…”), known in the art as a similar reduction reaction occurring in aqueous electrochemical cells.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the copper and Co3O4 electrode of Wenyang by using a copper foam substrate and Co3O4 nanoparticles deposited on the substrate. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to increase the active surface area of both Cu and Co3O4 in the electrode and therefore the number of potential sites for the overall reduction reaction (Wenyang p. 4, 3.1 Theoretical predicting activity of dual active sites...; see also p. 3, 2.6 Computational Methods), and to decrease the required catalyst loading (Wang p. 3, “…this method can effectively reduce the loading of platinum…”). Doing so would be expected to result in an electrode with improved ammonia yield per unit mass or volume of catalytic material as the number of reaction sites increases.
Regarding claim 7, Wenyang does not disclose a volume of the nanocomposite electrode at least 0.1 cm3. However, the volume of an electrode will be limited by the size and composition of the electrolytic bath, the structural requirements for operation, and other parameters of specific applications. The claimed volume would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art through routine experimentation. See MPEP § 2144.05(II).
Regarding claims 15-18, the electrode of Wenyang is utilized in the electrocatalytic reduction of nitrate to ammonia in an aqueous solution (p. 3, 2.3 Electrochemical test). The electrocatalytic reduction of nitrate to nitrite is facilitated by the copper in the electrode of Wenyang, and the further reduction of nitrite to ammonia is facilitated by the presence of Co3O4 in the electrode (p. 5, 3.1).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wenyang in view of Wang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sacco et al. (WO 98/21767 A2, previously attached).
Regarding claim 4, Wang does not teach a porosity of the copper foam in a range of 5 to 200 pores per inch. However, Sacco teaches a copper foam support member for an electrode, equivalent to a copper foam substrate, with "a pore size within the range from about 40 ppi to about 70 ppi" (p. 8, lines 10-16; as an electrode support member p. 5, lines 3-6). Sacco teaches that this helps with filling the active negative material and providing greater mechanical flexibility of the copper support member (p. 8, lines 10-16). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the electrode copper foam substrate disclosed by Wang to include wherein a porosity of the copper foam substrate is between 5 and 200 ppi as claimed, because of the greater ease of filling the negative space of the electrode with, e.g. catalytically active nanoparticles for improving its function. Additionally, the prior art range of 40-70 ppi is fully within the claimed range of 5-200 ppi.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
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 Colton B. Forry whose telephone number is (571)272-8873. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 7:30 AM-5:00 PM 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, Michael Barr can be reached at 571-272-1414. 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.
/CBF/Examiner, Art Unit 1711
/MICHAEL E BARR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1711
Prosecution Insights