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 Interpretation
Claim 1 recites “a first vessel”, “a second vessel” and “a third vessel”, since no structure component(s) involved with any of such vessel, they can be considered being the same vessel as well as being different vessel(s) for broadest reasonable interpretation.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim 1-5 and 8-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over O’Connor (WO2018/141911) in view of in view of Steinberg et al. (US5767165).
O’Connor discloses a reaction process to produce solid carbon and hydrogen wherein the process comprises contacting a hydrocarbon with a molten salt mixture at a temperature above 250°C and preferably less than 1000°C wherein the hydrocarbon is cracked (i.e. pyrolyzed) to produce hydrogen, a gas phase, and solid carbon within the mixture and wherein a metal such as nickel or iron is combined with the molten salt to form the mixture (para [0028], [0029], claim 6-7). The ordinary skilled artisan would recognize that iron melts at a temperature above 1000°C and remains a separate solid phase in the molten salt, therefore, iron is disposed within the molten salt forming a multiphase composition comprising a mixture of the solid reactive component (solid iron) in the molten salt. O’Connor’s teachings envision adopting a vessel or reactor to thermal decompose, i.e. pyrolyze, a hydrogen carbon with a molten salt to obtain valuable solid carbon and hydrogen product.
O’Connor also teaches the produced hydrogen escapes from the reaction mixture, apparently such gaseous hydrogen escapes from the molten salt (i.e. liquid) (para. [0016]). O’Connor also teaches adding a solid carbon source or precursor as a seed to enhance the separation of the carbon phase from the molten salt phase (para. [0027], claim 6-8), such solid carbon being disposed within the molten salt forming a multiphase composition comprising a mixture of the solid reactive component (solid carbon) in the molten salt as well. Apparently during such process, the gaseous products would contact the molten salt. O’Connor further teaches cooling and separating the solid carbon phase from the molten salt (para. [0009], claim 1), and that after carbon removal from the molten mixture, the molten salt may be recycled (para. [0009]), wherein removing of the carbon phase is preferably done continuously taking part of the conversion reaction product in a side stream. O’Connor’s teachings envision the use of a vessel for separating molten salt from the solid carbon product.
Regarding claim 1, O’Connor does not explicitly disclose a reactor.
Steinberg discloses a two-step process for producing methanol wherein the first step comprises passing a hydrocarbon through a molten salt or metal within a reactor wherein the solid carbon and hydrogen are separated from the molten salt/metal with the solid carbon rising to the surface of the molten salt due to the differences in density which can be easily separated out from the reactor (Col. 2, ln 27-34, Col 3, ln 63 to Col. 4, ln 8 and Col. 4, ln 62 to Col. 5, ln 34, Figures).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention to utilize the reactor of Steinberg in the process of O’Connor for decomposing methane to hydrogen and solid carbon which rises to the surface of the molten salt. Furthermore, applying a known technique of using a reactor to a known method of decomposing methane to hydrogen and solid carbon in a molten salt for improvement would yield predictable results (see MPEP § 2143 KSR).
Steinberg also teaches produced hydrogen gas can be easily drawn off of the rector for use in subsequent steps, solid carbon can be easily separated off from the reactor wherein separation of hydrogen gas (from molten salt) involves a second vessel, separating solid carbon from molten salt involves a third vessel (Col. 4, ln 62 to Col. 5, ln 15, Fig. 1-4).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to adopt a second vessel as shown by Steinberg to separate hydrogen from molten salt thus obtaining valuable hydrogen product for intended application, such as using as raw material obtain methanol etc. as suggested by Steinberg (Col 3, ln 63 to Col. 4, ln 60, Fig. 1-4). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to adopt a third vessel as shown by Steinberg to separate solid carbon from molten salt thus obtaining valuable carbon as final product for intended application as suggested by Stenberg (Col 3, ln 34-36, Fig. 1-4).
Regarding claim 2, such limitation has been met as discussed above.
Regarding claim 3-4, the significance of O’Connor and Steinberg as applied to claim 1 is explained above.
O’Connor discloses that the solid carbon and molten salt are removed from the reaction utilizing a side stream wherein the side-stream is cooled to separate the carbon before reintroducing the side-stream to the reactor (para. [0022]). Steinberg already teaches solid carbon and molten salt having different density.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention that O’Connor removes the solid carbon from the reactor while still in contact with the molten salt and to utilize the heat of the side-stream to heat the reactants to minimize the use of outside energy thereby improving process economics.
Regarding claim 5, O’Connor also discloses cooling the solid carbon/molten salt mixture so that the carbon phase can be removed (para. [0022]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention that if the solid carbon was in a separate phase as the molten salt, that the solid carbon possessed a different density with the solid carbon being on top as carbon has a lower density than the zinc chloride disclosed by O’Connor (para. [0029]) (carbon density about 1.8 g/cc and zinc chloride density about 2.9 g/cc).
Regarding claim 8, O’Connor discloses the use of zinc chloride (ZnCl) (para. [0029]).
Regarding claim 9-11, O’Connor further discloses the use of a solid dehydrogenation catalyst, with the catalyst preferably selected from Ni, Fe, Zn or Cu and present as a metal-chloride or metallic format (para. [0028], [0029]).
Regarding claim 12, O’Connor discloses the use of nickel or iron metals dispersed in the molten salt (para. [0028], [0029]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's amendments filed on 04/20/2026 have been acknowledged thus previous 112 rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed on 04/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In response to applicant’s arguments about O’Connor not teaching instantly claimed first vessel, second vessel and third vessel (see instantly filed Fig. 1 and 5), as explained claim interpretation section, there is no structure components being involved with such vessels, nor the claims require such first, second and third vessel being different as applicant alleged, therefore, O’Connor’s teachings envision a reactor for pyrolyzing methane to hydrogen and solid carbon. Furthermore, Steinberg expressly teaches such pyrolysis reaction in a vessel (Fig. 1-4), Steinberg also teaches produced hydrogen gas can be easily drawn off of the rector for use in subsequent steps, solid carbon can be easily separated off from the reactor wherein separation of hydrogen gas (from molten salt) involves a second vessel, separating solid carbon from molten salt involves a third vessel (Col. 4, ln 62 to Col. 5, ln 15, Fig. 1-4).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUN LI whose telephone number is (571)270-5858. The examiner can normally be reached IFP.
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, Ching-Yiu (Coris) Fung can be reached at 571-270-5713. 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.
/JUN LI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1732
Prosecution Insights