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
Claims 19 and 20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 11/17/25.
Applicant's election with traverse of claims 1-18 in the reply filed on 11/17/25 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the common technical feature is a special technical feature since . This is not found persuasive because the common technical feature is what is common to both inventions and the apparatus of claim 19 merely requires the electrolysis cell to be “connectable to … at least one oxygen source” which JOSHI would appear to provide for. However, even if the common technical feature were the entirety of claim 1, for the reasons as set forth in the grounds of rejection presented herein, the prior art would teach the features of claim 1 such that restriction would be reasonable under the unity of invention standard.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 6-8, 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 6, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Please note, for purposes of claim interpretation the examiner will be treating the “such as” phrase as not being required but merely exemplary of a situation which would meet the previously set forth limitation.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the pulsed cathodic current load" in line 2. However, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Please note, for purposes of claim interpretation the examiner will be treating the claim as though it depended from claim 4 since such a dependency would resolve the antecedent basis issue.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the temperature" in line 2 of the claim. However, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. No earlier temperature is explicitly set forth and there are multiple claimed elements to which the limitation could be referring. For example, the temperature could be the temperature of the cell or the source of nitrogen, oxygen, protons, or synthesized ammonia.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the pressure" in line 2. However, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. No earlier pressure is explicitly set forth and there are multiple claimed elements to which the limitation could be referring. For example, the pressure could be the pressure of the cell or the source of nitrogen, oxygen, or synthesized ammonia.
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) 1-7 and 9-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. No. 2012/0241328 to Joshi et al., (hereinafter referred to as “JOSHI”) in view of US Pat. No. 5,108,467 to Schr ter et al., (hereinafter referred to as “SCHR TER”).
Regarding claim 1, JOSHI teaches a method for electrochemical ammonia synthesis (see generally JOSHI at Abstract and Fig. 1), comprising the steps of:
providing at least one electrolysis cell having a cathode (see JOSHI at Fig. 1 depicting electrolytic cell 110 having cathode 120);
contacting the cathode with a source of cations, a source of nitrogen, and a source of protons (see JOSHI at Fig. 1 depicting cathode 120 being in contact with Li+ cations (cation source), Nitrogen 128 (nitrogen source), and water 138 (proton source); see also JOSHI at ¶35 and ¶38 teaching the providing of the lithium; see also JOSHI at ¶37 teaching the providing of the nitrogen; and see also JOSHI at ¶42 teaching the addition of water),
subjecting the cell to a potential and current load, whereby ammonia is synthesized (see JOSHI at Fig. 1 depicting electric potential 124; see also JOSHI at ¶39).
While JOSHI teaches the providing of nitrogen from the atmosphere via the use of one or more separators, specifically including the use of a pressure swing absorption (“PSA”) oxygen separator (see JOSHI at ¶37), JOSHI fails to explicitly teach a source of oxygen contacting the cathode as claimed wherein the oxygen source provides a predetermined oxygen concentration as set forth.
However, SCHR TER teaches several PSA separators for separating nitrogen from atmospheric air (see SCHR TER at col. 3 lines 8-14 and Table 1 teaching modern alternating pressure processes for obtaining nitrogen from air). Moreover, SCHR TER teaches the PSA separator as being able to generate a nitrogen gas stream of 99% and 99.5% (see SCHR TER at Table 1 and col. 3 lines 12-30 teaching processes resulting in 99% to 99.5% nitrogen with 0.5% to 1% oxygen).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that, as taught by JOSHI (see JOSHI at ¶37), a nitrogen separator could be used such as either of the three taught by SCHR TER as producing nitrogen streams from air with 0.5% or 1% oxygen. Furthermore, the use of these separators would result in the providing of the nitrogen as taught by JOSHI while also providing a source of oxygen to the cathode in a predefined concentration as claimed.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used one of the nitrogen concentration processes of SCHR TER as the nitrogen generator in the method of JOSHI such that the nitrogen feed gas would have a predefined oxygen concentration and be provided to the cathode as claimed.
Regarding claim 2, JOSHI in view of SCHR TER teaches the method wherein the oxygen concentration is below 20% (see SCHR TER at Table 1 in col. 3 teaching the concentration of oxygen in the produced nitrogen gas being at 0.5% or 1%).
Regarding claim 3, JOSHI in view of SCHR TER teaches the method wherein the source of oxygen comprises an oxygen partial pressure of between 0.02-2.5 bar (see SCHR TER at Table 1 in col. 3 teaching the concentration of oxygen in the produced nitrogen gas being at 0.5% or 1% and at 1 bar which would mean an oxygen partial pressure of about 0.005 bar or 0.01 bar which is close to the claimed range). See MPEP 2144.05(I), second paragraph.
Regarding claim 4-7, JOSHI in view of SCHR TER teaches the method wherein the method comprises the steps of subjecting the cathode to a continuous pulsed cathode potential or a pulsed cathodic current as set forth in claims 4 and 7 (see JOSHI at ¶39-¶43 teaching the application of the electric potential with periodically shutting down the electric potential so that the periods of applying the potential is a cathode pulse as claimed), wherein the cathode potential is pulsed between a first cathode potential and a second potential as set forth in claim 5 (see teachings of JOSHI cited above in which the periods of potential are a first cathode potential and the pause periods being a second cathode potential, i.e. a zero potential), wherein the cathode potential is pulsed between the lithium reduction potential and a less negative cathode potential as set forth in claim 6 (see teachings of JOSHI cited above in which the periods of potential are a first cathode potential at which lithium is reduced and the pause periods being a second cathode potential, i.e. a zero potential, which is a less negative potential as claimed), wherein the pulsed cathodic current load is pulsating DC and/or pulsating AC (see teachings of JOSHI cited above in which the periods of the applied potential alternating with rest periods is pulsating DC as claimed).
Regarding claim 9, JOSHI in view of SCHR TER teaches the method wherein the pulses at the second cathodic current load has a current density above -0.5 mA/cm2 (see JOSHI at ¶42 teaching the shutting down of the electric potential such that the current density of 0 mA/cm2 would be applied which is above the value as claimed).
Regarding claim 10, JOSHI in view of SCHR TER teaches the method wherein the temperature is between 10-150 °C (see JOSHI at ¶36 teaching the process operating a temperatures as low as ambient temperature, i.e. approximately 25 °C).
Regarding claim 11, JOSHI in view of SCHR TER teaches the method wherein the pressure is equal to or below 20 bar (see JOSHI at Abstract and ¶22-¶30 teaching the process operating with various electrochemical and non-electrochemical reactions occurring at the electrodes with no indication of any increased pressures being necessary which would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art to therefore occur at standard pressure, i.e. ambient pressure of 1 atm or approximately 1 bar).
Regarding claim 12, JOSHI in view of SCHR TER teaches the method wherein the source of nitrogen is selected from the group consisting of: gaseous N2, liquidly dissolved N2, and combinations thereof (see JOSHI at ¶36-¶37 teaching the providing of nitrogen gas; see also SCHR TER at col. 3 lines 12-13 teaching the nitrogen being a gaseous product).
Regarding claim 13, JOSHI in view of SCHR TER teaches the method wherein the source of oxygen is selected from the group of air, CO2, CO, NOx, or H2O, alcohols, aldehydes, peroxides, superoxides, and organic acids which contain oxygen, and oxygen from transition metal electrodes in the form of oxides and carbonates (see SCHR TER at col. 3 lines 8-14 teaching the oxygen present being obtained from air).
Regarding claims 14 and 15, JOSHI in view of SCHR TER teaches the method wherein the source of oxygen and/or nitrogen is processed synthetic air, processed to a defined oxygen concentration of below 20% (see teachings of SCHR TER cited above in the rejection of claim 1 as to the nitrogen and oxygen being obtained from treated air with an oxygen concentration of 0.5% or 1% so as to be below 20% as claimed).
Regarding claim 16, JOSHI in view of SCHR TER teaches the method wherein the source of protons is selected from the group consisting of: gaseous H2, liquidly dissolved H-2, ethanol, water, alkyl alcohols, tert-butanol, perfluorinated alcohols, polyethyleneglycols, ethanethiol, alkyl thiols, alkyl ketones, alkyl esters and mixtures thereof (see teachings of JOSHI cited above in the rejection of claim 1 as to the source of protons being water).
Regarding claim 17, JOSHI in view of SCHR TER teaches the method wherein the cathode comprises a high surface area metal electrode (see JOSHI at ¶33 teaching the cathode being a gas diffusion electrode which is porous and so would having a high surface area as claimed).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JOSHI as modified by SCHR TER as applied to claims 1, 4, 5 above, and further in view of “Understanding Continuous Lithium-Mediated Electrochemical Nitrogen Reduction” by Lazouski et al., Joule 3, pages 1127-1139 (4/17/19) (hereinafter referred to as “LAZOUSKI”).
Regarding claim 8, while JOSHI in view of SCHR TER teaches the method wherein a potential of a certain current density would be provided so as to electrodeposit the lithium metal on the cathode (see JOSHI at ¶38-¶40), JOSHI as modified by SCHR TER is silent as to the actual current density to be employed.
However, LAZOUSKI teaches a lithium metal mediated electrochemical nitrogen reduction process (see LAZOUSKI at Abstract) in which current densities were used ranging from 0.3 mA/cm2 to 25 mA/cm2 (see LAZOUSKI at page 1131, section titled “Effect of Current Density” in the first paragraph).
As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would have appreciated that a current density could be used so as to be larger than 1 mA/cm2 as claimed. Moreover, since LAZOUSKI teaches the optimization of the current density within these values, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have employed current densities from within the range and also to have considered optimizing the current density based on the particular reactor setup.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used a current density value from within the range as claimed as taught by LAZOUSKI in the method of JOSHI as modified by SCHR TER in order to provide for improved efficiency and an acceptable reaction rate.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JOSHI as modified by SCHR TER as applied to claims 1 and 17 above, and further in view of “Electrodeposition of Porous Copper as a Substrate for Electrocatalytic Material” by Singh et al., J. Electroanal. Chem. 785, pages 1-7 (2017) (hereinafter referred to as “SINGH”).
Regarding claim 18, while JOSHI in view of SCHR TER teaches the method wherein the cathode comprises a porous Cu electrode (see JOSHI at ¶33 teaching the porous cathode being made of copper), JOSHI in view of SCHR TER fails to explicitly teach the electrode made by hydrogen bubbling templating as claimed.
However, SINGH teaches that it was known in the art to form porous copper for use as an electrode via a hydrogen bubbling templating process (see SINGH at Abstract, Experimental section on page 2, and Conclusions section on pages 6-7).
Moreover, one of ordinary skill in the art looking to use a porous copper electrode as taught by JOSHI would have considered known prior art processes for the making of porous copper electrodes when looking to implement the process of JOSHI. As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have used the process of SINGH since it provides for the porous copper electrode as taught by JOSHI.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the process of SINGH in making the porous copper cathode of JOSHI as modified by SCHR TER so as to arrive at the method having the cathode as claimed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Bryan D. Ripa whose telephone number is (571)270-7875. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00AM-4:00PM 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, James Lin can be reached at (571) 272-8902. 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.
/BRYAN D. RIPA/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1794