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 to claims 1-16 in the reply filed on 7/24/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 17-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected election, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 7/24/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-8 and 11-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chen et al, “Revealing nitrogen-containing species in commercial catalysts used for ammonia electrosynthesis” Nature Catalysis, 3:1055-1061, 2020. Applicant supplied the reference in the IDS dated 10/11/2023.
As to claim 1, Chen teaches of a membrane-free electrolyzer system (Chen, p. 1057, “A case analysis on the H2O-NaOH-KOH system, 1st paragraph), the system comprising:
a reaction medium comprising H2O-NaOH-KOH (Chen, p. 1057, “A case analysis on the H2O-NaOH-KOH system, 1st paragraph and Supplemental Fig. 4);
a pair of electrodes (Chen, p. 1057, “A case analysis on the H2O-NaOH-KOH system, 1st paragraph and Supplemental Fig. 4); and
a power supply connected to the electrodes (Chen, p. 1060, Electrolyte preparation and cell operation).
PNG
media_image1.png
794
782
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As seen and discussed in Chen, a membrane-free electrolyzer is utilized that includes a reaction medium comprising H2O-NaOH-KOH such that the system comprises a pair of electrodes in a cell in contact with the reaction medium and a power supply to electrolyze the reaction medium.
As to claims 2 and 3, Chen states that the H2O is present in the reaction medium in an amount of about 40 wt. % and that the reaction medium comprises equimolar NaOH and KOH (Chen, p. 1057, “A case analysis on the H2O-NaOH-KOH system, 1st paragraph and p. 1060, Electrolyte preparation and cell operation).
As to claims 4 and 5, this is towards a temperature of the reaction medium. It does not further delineate the system in terms of structure.
With that said, Chen teaches that the system includes an oil bath to heat the reaction medium to 200 °C. It is further noted that in Supplemental Figure 4, the oil bath is placed on a hot plate with insulation around the oil bath. Thus one of ordinary skill in the art would anticipate the ability to set the temperature of the oil bath as desired (Chen, p. 1057, “A case analysis on the H2O-NaOH-KOH system, 1st paragraph and Supplemental Fig. 4).
As to claims 6 and 7, Chen teaches that the electrodes are nickel electrodes (Chen, Supplemental Fig. 4).
As to claims 8, 11 and 12, Chen teaches that the reaction medium is within a leak-free reaction chamber constructed of polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) with a stainless steel cap (Chen, Supplemental Fig. 4).
As to claim 13, Chen teaches the system includes an oil bath (Chen, Supplemental Fig. 4).
As to claim 14, Chen teaches that the nitrogen containing material are nitrates and nitrites (NOx, x = 2 or 3) (Chen, p. 1056-1059 and Fig. 3).
As to claims 15 and 16, Chen teaches the system further comprises a container containing an absorbing solution comprising H2SO4 (Chen, p. 1060, Electrolyte preparation and cell operation and Supplemental Fig. 4).
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.
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of US 8,303,781 of Botte.
As to claim 9, Chen teaches to the system of claim 8.
Chen does not teach the reaction chamber includes a liquid injection conduit.
Chen does teach that generally electrosynthesis is a growing approach as a viable candidate for ammonia synthesis (Chen, p. 1055, 1st paragraph and p. 1060, 1st paragraph).
Botte teaches of electrolytic systems for ammonia generation (Botte, Abstract).
Botte teaches that in such electrolytic systems include an inlet conduit for the liquid reaction medium to allow the reaction medium into the cell for electrolysis to produce the desired products (Botte, col 3 lines 44-47 and Fig. 1).
PNG
media_image2.png
226
376
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chen as per Botte so as to have an inlet conduit into the reaction chamber in order to facilitate supply of the reaction medium containing the nitrogen materials to the cell for electrolysis.
As to claim 10, Chen in view of Botte teaches to the system of claim 9.
Chen teaches the reaction chamber includes a gas inlet and gas outlet (Chen, Supplemental Fig. 4).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN W COHEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7961. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9 am to 5 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, Curtis Mayes can be reached at 571-272-1234. 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.
BRIAN W. COHEN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1759
/BRIAN W COHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights