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 .
Claims 1-20 are pending and under consideration for this Office Action.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 5, 7, 9-12, 14, 15, 17, 19, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al (“Fe Foam-Supported FeS2–MoS2 Electrocatalyst for N2 Reduction under Ambient Conditions”, ACS Appl. Mater, Interfaces, 2021, 13, 55040−55050) in view of Sonntag et al (US 20160045868 A1).
Claim 1: Yang discloses an electrochemical cell system (see e.g. page 55044, col 2, “Electrochemical performances of NRR”) for producing ammonia (see e.g. abstract), the electrochemical cell system comprising:
a working electrode submerged in an electrolyte (see e.g. Figure S11),
the working electrode comprising:
an iron foam (IF) substrate (see e.g. abstract); and
an electrocatalyst (see e.g. abstract) deposited on the IF substrate (see e.g. abstract).
Yang does not explicitly teach that the electrocatalyst comprises a plurality of iron vanadate (FeVO4) nanoparticles.
Sonntag teaches a catalyst for the production of ammonia (see e.g. [0091]), making it analogous art (see MPEP § 2141.01(a) I). The system of Sonntage includes FeVO4 (see e.g. [0040]) nanoparticles (see e.g. [0043]) as a suitable reduction catalyst (see e.g. abstract). MPEP § 2144.07 states ‘The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945)’ and KSR rationale E states that it is obvious to choose ‘from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success’. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to use the plurality of iron vanadate (FeVO4) nanoparticles taught in Sonntag as the catalyst material for the electrode of Yang.
Claim 2: Yang in view of Sonntag teaches that the plurality of FeVO4 nanoparticles are formed from a hydrothermal method (washcoat that is subjected to a heat treatment, see e.g. Sonntag - [0070]; [0082]).
Claim 5: Yang in view of Sonntag teaches that the electrolyte is continuously fed diatomic nitrogen (N2) during an ammonia producing process (see e.g. Yang - page 55047, col 1: “In the experiment of varying the N2 flow rates”).
Claim 7: Yang in view of Sonntag teaches a counter electrode configured to produce a drive current with the working electrode; and a reference electrode for measuring an electric potential associated with the working electrode (see e.g. Yang – Figure S11).
Claim 9: Yang discloses a method for producing ammonia (see e.g. abstract), the method comprising:
depositing a catalyst on an iron foam (IF) substrate (see e.g. abstract) to form a working electrode of an electrochemical cell (see e.g. Figure S11).;
submerging the working electrode in an electrolyte (see e.g. page 55046, connecting paragraph of col 1 and col 2); and
applying a potential difference between the working electrode and a counter electrode to produce the ammonia (see e.g. page 55045, Fig 6).
Yang does not explicitly teach that the electrocatalyst comprises a plurality of iron vanadate (FeVO4) nanoparticles.
Sonntag teaches a catalyst for the production of ammonia (see e.g. [0091]), making it analogous art (see MPEP § 2141.01(a) I). The system of Sonntage includes FeVO4 (see e.g. [0040]) nanoparticles (see e.g. [0043]) as a suitable reduction catalyst (see e.g. abstract). MPEP § 2144.07 states ‘The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945)’ and KSR rationale E states that it is obvious to choose ‘from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success’. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the method of Yang to use the plurality of iron vanadate (FeVO4) nanoparticles taught in Sonntag as the catalyst material for the electrode of Yang.
Claim 10: Yang in view of Sonntag teaches applying the potential difference comprises applying the potential difference between the working electrode and the counter electrode so that the counter electrode is at a higher potential than the working electrode (see e.g. Yang – Supplemental page 3, “3. Electrochemical Measurements”).
Claim 11: Yang in view of Sonntag teaches applying the potential difference comprises applying the potential difference between the working electrode and the counter electrode so that the counter electrode is less than 1 reversible hydrogen electrode Volt (VRHE) higher than the working electrode (see e.g. page 55045, col 1).
Claim 12: Yang in view of Sonntag teaches that the plurality of FeVO4 nanoparticles are formed from a hydrothermal method (washcoat subjected to a heat treatment, see e.g. Sonntag - [0070]; [0082]).
Claim 14: Yang in view of Sonntag teaches that the electrolyte comprises diatomic nitrogen (N2) (see e.g. Yang - page 55047, col 1: “In the experiment of varying the N2 flow rates”).
Claim 15: Yang in view of Sonntag teaches that the electrolyte is continuously fed diatomic nitrogen (N2) during an ammonia producing process (see e.g. Yang - page 55047, col 1: “In the experiment of varying the N2 flow rates”).
Claim 17: Yang in view of Sonntag teaches producing a drive current between the working electrode and the counter electrode; and measuring the applied potential difference using a reference electrode (see e.g. Yang – Supplemental page 3, “3. Electrochemical Measurements”).
Claim 19: Yang in view of Sonntag teaches applying the potential difference comprises applying the potential difference between the working electrode and the counter electrode to produce ammonia (see e.g. abstract).
Yang in view of Sonntag does not explicitly teach an ammonia yield greater than 4 µg/h/mg. However, Yang in view of Sonntag renders of the structure and method steps obvious (see rejections above). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention that the results of these method steps would be the same, including an ammonia yield greater than 4 µg/h/mg.
Claim 20: Yang in view of Sonntag teaches applying the potential difference comprises applying the potential difference between the working electrode and the counter electrode to produce ammonia (see e.g. abstract).
Yang in view of Sonntag does not explicitly teach a Faradaic Efficiency greater than 10%. However, Yang in view of Sonntag renders of the structure and method steps obvious (see rejections above). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention that the results of these method steps would be the same, including a Faradaic Efficiency greater than 10%.
Claim(s) 3 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang in view of Sonntag as applied to claims above 1 and 13, and in further view of Asim et al (“Fabrication of a Novel Co/CoO@Fe2V4O13 Composite Catalyst as a Photoanode for Enhanced Photoelectrochemical Water Oxidation”, ChemAsianJ., September 2023, 18, e202300537, pages 1-9).
Claim 3: The limitation claiming “the plurality of FeVO4 nanoparticles are deposited on the IF substrate by drop casting in a nanoink solution” is a product by process limitation. MPEP § 2113 I states ‘"[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985)’. Yang in view of Sonntag teaches all of the positively recited structure and renders the claim obvious. However, in the interest of compact prosecution, additional art is provided to show the claim is further obvious. Asim teaches that drop casting in a nanoink solution of iron vanadates is a suitable means of forming an electrode comprises iron vanadate catalysts (see e.g. page 2, col 2, “Development of photoanode”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the system of Yang in view of Sonntag to utilize a recognized deposition process such as the drop casting in a nanoink solution method taught in Asim with a reasonable expectation of success with predictable results.
Claim 13: Yang in view of Sonntag does not explicitly teach depositing the plurality of FeVO4 nanoparticles on the IF substrate comprises drop casting the plurality of FeVO4 nanoparticles in a nanoink solution on the IF substrate. Asim teaches that drop casting in a nanoink solution of iron vanadates is a suitable means of forming an electrode comprises iron vanadate catalysts (see e.g. page 2, col 2, “Development of photoanode”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the method of Yang in view of Sonntag to utilize a recognized deposition process such as the drop casting in a nanoink solution method taught in Asim with a reasonable expectation of success with predictable results.
Claim(s) 6 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang in view of Sonntag as applied to claims above 1 and 9, and in further view of Xian et al (“Bioinspired Electrocatalyst for Electrochemical Reduction of N2 to NH3 in Ambient Conditions”, ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces, 2020, 12, 2445−2451).
Claim 6: Yang in view of Sonntag does not explicitly teach that the electrolyte comprises sodium sulfate (Na2SO4). Xian teaches that sodium sulfate is known and recognized electrolyte (see e.g. page 2446, col 1, “Electrochemical Measurements”) for the reduction of nitrogen into ammonia (see e.g. abstract). MPEP § 2144.07 states ‘The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945)’ and KSR rationale E states that it is obvious to choose ‘from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success’. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the system of Yang by using sodium sulfate in the electrolyte as taught in Xian with a reasonable expectation of success with predictable results.
Claim 16: Yang in view of Sonntag does not explicitly teach that the electrolyte comprises sodium sulfate (Na2SO4). Xian teaches that sodium sulfate is known and recognized electrolyte (see e.g. page 2446, col 1, “Electrochemical Measurements”) for the reduction of nitrogen into ammonia (see e.g. abstract). MPEP § 2144.07 states ‘The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945)’ and KSR rationale E states that it is obvious to choose ‘from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success’. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the method of Yang by using sodium sulfate in the electrolyte as taught in Xian with a reasonable expectation of success with predictable results.
Claim(s) 8 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang in view of Sonntag as applied to claims above 7 and 17, and in further view of Wang et al (“Selective Electrochemical Reduction of Nitrogen to Ammonia by Adjusting the Three-Phase Interface”, Research, Volume 2019, Article ID 1401209, 12 pages).
Claim 8: Yang in view of Sonntag teaches that the reference electrode is Ag/AgCl (see e.g. Yang – Supplemental page 3, “a commercial Ag/AgCl as reference electrode”).
Yang in view of Sonntag does not explicitly teach that the counter electrode is platinum. Wang teaches that platinum is a suitable material for counter electrodes (see e.g. page 8, col 2, “4.5 Electrochemical NRR Measurements”) used in the electrolytic reduction of nitrogen to ammonia (see e.g. abstract). MPEP § 2144.07 states ‘The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945)’ and KSR rationale E states that it is obvious to choose ‘from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success’. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to use a platinum counter electrode as taught in Wang.
Claim 18: Yang in view of Sonntag teaches that the reference electrode is Ag/AgCl (see e.g. Yang – Supplemental page 3, “a commercial Ag/AgCl as reference electrode”).
Yang in view of Sonntag does not explicitly teach that the counter electrode is platinum. Wang teaches that platinum is a suitable material for counter electrodes (see e.g. page 8, col 2, “4.5 Electrochemical NRR Measurements”) used in the electrolytic reduction of nitrogen to ammonia (see e.g. abstract). MPEP § 2144.07 states ‘The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945)’ and KSR rationale E states that it is obvious to choose ‘from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success’. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to use a platinum counter electrode as taught in Wang.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER W KEELING whose telephone number is (571)272-9961. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 AM - 4:00 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, Luan Van can be reached at 571-272-8521. 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.
/ALEXANDER W KEELING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1795
Prosecution Insights