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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-11 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.
Each of claim 1 and 11 recite, in lines 8-10, “to synthesize a nitrogen-containing compound from nitrogen and protons originating from the proton source in the cathode part”. It is unclear if “in the cathode part” is intended to modify “the proton source” or “to synthesize”. Since the proton source was previously recited as being included in either the cathode part or the anode part, it appears that Applicant’s intent was that “in the cathode part” modified “to synthesize”. Applicant should amend claims 1 and 11 to clarify the scope. Note that if the intent was for “in the cathode part” to modify “the proton source”, then the earlier recitation of the proton source should be amended to require the proton source to be included in the cathode part.
In claims 2 and 3, Applicant uses both “redox potential” and “reduction potential”. The claims should use consistent language throughout to avoid confusion.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Tamura et al (WO 2021/124616 A1, citations below come from the English equivalent US 2021/0395902 A1).
Tamura et al teach (see abstract, figs. 1 and 2, paragraphs [0012]-[0016] and [0039]) an apparatus for ammonia electrosynthesis comprising:
a cathode part (left-hand side of fig. 2) that included a nitrogen-activation catalyst (e.g. molybdenum complex), an organic solvent (e.g. alcohols (such as methanol, ethanol, 1-propanol, ethylene glycol, etc), tetrahydrofuran, acetonitrile, ethylene carbonate, propylene carbonate, dimethylformamide, dimethyl sulfoxide, or an ionic liquid), a reducing agent (samarium diiodide), and a cathode electrode (13);
an anode part (right-hand side of fig. 2) that included an anode electrode (12); and,
a diaphragm (4) positioned between the cathode part and the anode part.
The anode part of Tamura et al included a proton source (water, H2O).
The apparatus of Tamura et al applied a voltage (by power supply 15) between the cathode electrode and the anode electrode thereby synthesizing a nitrogen-containing compound (ammonia) from nitrogen and protons.
Note that while Tamura et al teach that the second electrolytic solution “may be an aqueous solution containing an organic compound”, the claims do not require the organic solvent to be present at a particular amount, such that any amount of the organic compound/solvent in the cathode part falls within the scope of the claim.
Regarding claims 2 and 3, the identity of the reducing agent of Tamura et al is identical to the reducing agent discussed in the instant specification (see e.g. paragraph [0016] on page 5). Therefore, the reducing agent taught by Tamura et al is considered to inherently possess the properties as claimed since it is the same reducing agent as disclosed by Applicant.
Regarding claim 4, the cathode electrode of Tamura et al included (see paragraph [0020]) copper, platinum, zinc, iron, titanium, tin, bismuth, samarium, nickel, or carbon. Regarding claim 5, the anode electrode of Tamura et al included (see paragraph [0019]) nickel, cobalt, manganese, iron, lanthanum (La), strontium (Sr), or carbon.
Regarding claims 6-7, Tamura et al teach (see paragraph [0015]) that the cathode solution included an electrolyte added to increase electric conductivity such as a metal halide salt (LiCl, NaCl, KCl), a compound (e.g. K2SO4) or a basic compound (LiOH, NaOH, KOH).
Regarding claim 8, the diaphragm of Tamura et al included (see paragraphs [0021]-[0022]) an ion exchange membrane or a porous glass filter. Regarding claim 9, Tamura et al teach (see abstract) the nitrogen-containing compound being ammonia.
Regarding claim 10, Tamura et al teach (see paragraph [0059]) operating at a temperature of 5-80°C, preferably 10-40°C. Tamura et al fail to teach that the apparatus is operated under any specific pressure condition. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that the apparatus was inherently operated at standard atmospheric pressure, which is about 0.10 MPa.
Regarding claim 11, Tamura et al teach a method of producing ammonia using the apparatus as set forth in claim 1 (see above) including applying voltage between the cathode and anode using nitrogen and protons originating from the proton source.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The Office notes that several references that have already been cited by Applicant are worth mentioning. Arashiba et al (“Catalytic Ammonia Formation with Electrochemically Reduced Samarium Dioiodide from Samarium Triiodide and Water from Dinitrogen”) is similar in content to Tamura et al, except that the nitrogen and the nitrogen-compound were mixed with the cathode electrolyte at a location outside of the electrolytic cell. A potential exists for a finding of obviousness of the claimed invention over Arashiba et al in view of Tamura et al should Applicant overcome the anticipation rejection set forth above.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HARRY D WILKINS III whose telephone number is (571)272-1251. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30am -6:00pm.
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.
/HARRY D WILKINS III/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1794
Prosecution Insights