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 Arguments
Applicant’s remarks filed 8/25/2026 regarding the rejections of claims 4 and 7-8 under 35 USC 112(b) and rejections of claims 1-3 and 5-11 under 35 USC 103 have been considered and are persuasive. The rejections are withdrawn.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5-8, and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu et al., US 12,151,231, in view of Kang et al., KR 20190071292.
Regarding claim 1, Hu teaches a method of decomposition of ammonia comprising introducing ammonia to a reactor, in the presence of high-entropy alloy Co25Mo45Fe10Ni10Cu10 nanoparticles (HEA), which produces hydrogen and nitrogen. See the abstract, Table 1, and column 17, lines 13-28 of Hu.
The HEA alloy of Hu has an entropy of 11.64 J/K*mol which meets the claim limitation.
Calculation according to the formula in [0017] of applicant’s specification:
-8.314 J/K*mol * (-0.35 + -0.36 + -0.23 + -0.23 + -0.23) = 11.64 J/K*mol.
Although Hu does not disclose separating the hydrogen gas from the nitrogen gas as per claim 1, Kang teaches a method of decomposing ammonia to generate a mixed gases of nitrogen and hydrogen, separating hydrogen from the mixed gases (Abstract, pages 1-4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to add the technique of separating hydrogen from mixed gases taught by Kang to the ammonia decomposition process taught by Hu to obtain the invention as specified in the claim 1, with the motivation of separating valuable hydrogen from the mixed gas of hydrogen and nitrogen by controlling a temperature without a separate pressurizing process.
Since both of Hu and Kang teach decomposition of ammonia to produce hydrogen and nitrogen, one would have had a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 2, all of the elements in the HEA of Hu, Co25Mo45Fe10Ni10Cu10, are within the range of the claim.
Regarding claims 5 and 7-8, Hu teaches a carbon fiber supported catalyst. See column 14, lines 54-64. The support can also be considered a catalyst promoter since deposition thereon increases surface area which increases the catalytic activity.
Regarding claim 6, any of the metals in the HEA of Hu can be considered a promoter.
Regarding claims 10-11, the process taught by Hu is performance at temperature of 275-600 0C. See column 17, lines 13-29. Regarding the pressure, Hu is silent, however Hu does not mention pumps or increasing the pressure, thus the pressure therein is around atmospheric pressure (~1bar) and close enough to the claimed range to render it obvious. Furthermore, when scaling up the process for industrial use, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to determine a pressure in the claimed range in order to most efficiently carry out the decomposition reaction.
Claim(s) 4 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu et al., US 12,151,231, in view of Kang et al., KR 20190071292 , and WO2023/049350 (WO’350).
Regarding claim 4, Hu does not teach the presence of the phases listed. However, it is known in the art to dispose HEA catalysts used for ammonia processing on metal oxide-containing supports. WO’350 teaches that HEA catalysts can be disposed on aluminum oxide, titanium oxide, cerium oxide, silicon oxide, zeolite, spinel, and/perovskite. See page 11, lines 5-17 of WO’350. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the catalyst of Hu, by including one or more of the oxides of WO’350 as a catalyst support as disclosed in WO’350 (page 12, lines 5-17) in order to reduce the amount of metals needed and in order to provide a high surface area for reaction. This catalyst support meets at least the limitation of “an oxide phase” in claim 4.
Regarding claim 9, the use of a metal-oxide containing catalyst support is rendered obvious in the rejection of claim 4 above. The metal oxide support also meets the limitation in claim 9 requiring a non-stick additive which can be aluminum oxide, silicon dioxide, and titanium oxide.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-8, and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yao et al., Sci. Adv. 2020; 6, in view of Kang et al., KR 20190071292.
Regarding claims 1 and 3, Yao teaches a method of ammonia decomposition comprising introducing ammonia to a reactor that contains Co0.186Ni0.172Rh0.282Ru0.273Ir0.087, (S = 12.72 J/K*mol, see Calculation below) to produce hydrogen and nitrogen gas. See the NH3 decomposition section on page 9 of Yao along with Table S2 in the appended supplementary materials.
Calculation according to the formula in [0017] of applicant’s specification:
-8.314 J/K*mol * (-0.31 + -0.30 + -0.36 + -0.35 + -0.21) = 12.72 J/K*mol.
Although Yao et al. do not specifically disclose separating the hydrogen gas from the nitrogen gas as per applicant claim 1, Kang teaches a method of decomposing ammonia to generate a mixed gases of nitrogen and hydrogen, separating hydrogen from the mixed gases (Abstract, pages 1-4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to add the technique of separating hydrogen from mixed gases taught by Kang to the ammonia decomposition process taught by Hu to obtain the invention as specified in the claim 1, with the motivation of separating valuable hydrogen from the mixed gas of hydrogen and nitrogen by controlling a temperature without a separate pressurizing process.
Regarding claim 2, Yao teaches Co0.186Ni0.172Rh0.282Ru0.273Ir0.087 which contains 18.6 at. % cobalt, 17.2 at. % nickel, 28.2 at. % rhodium, 27.3 at. % ruthenium, and 8.7 at. % iridium.
Regarding claims 5 and 7-8, Yao teaches a supported catalyst. See the MEA-NP synthesis section on page 8 of Yao. The support can also be considered a catalyst promoter since deposition thereon increases surface area which increases the catalytic activity.
Regarding claim 6, the iridium in the HEA of Yao is considered to meet the limitation requiring a “promoter”.
Regarding claims 10-11, the process taught by Yao is performance at temperature of 300-500 0C. See the NH3 decomposition section on page 9. Regarding the pressure, Yao is silent, however Yao does not mention pumps or increasing the pressure, thus the pressure therein is around atmospheric pressure (~1bar) and close enough to the claimed range to render it obvious. Furthermore, when scaling up the process for industrial use, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to determine a pressure in the claimed range in order to most efficiently produce hydrogen.
Claim(s) 4 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yao et al., Sci. Adv. 2020; 6, in view of Kang et al., KR 20190071292 , and WO2023/049350 (WO’350).
Regarding claim 4, Yao does not teach the presence of the phases listed. However, it is known in the art to dispose HEA catalysts used for ammonia processing on metal oxide-containing supports. WO’350 teaches that HEA catalysts can be disposed on aluminum oxide, titanium oxide, cerium oxide, silicon oxide, zeolite, spinel, and/perovskite. See page 11, lines 5-17 of WO’350. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the catalyst of Yao, by including one or more of the oxides of WO’350 as a catalyst support as disclosed in WO’350 (page 12, lines 5-17) in order to reduce the amount of metals needed and in order to provide a high surface area for reaction. This catalyst support meets at least the limitation of “an oxide phase” in claim 4.
Regarding claim 9, the use of a metal-oxide containing catalyst support is rendered obvious in the rejection of claim 4 above. The metal oxide support also meets the limitation in claim 9 requiring a non-stick additive which can be aluminum oxide, silicon dioxide, and titanium oxide.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANTHONY J ZIMMER whose telephone number is (571)270-3591. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:30 AM - 6 PM EST.
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, Alexa Neckel can be reached at 571-272-2450. 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.
ANTHONY J. ZIMMER
Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 1736
/ANTHONY J ZIMMER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1736
Prosecution Insights