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 1, 3-4 and 15 are actively pending. Election with traverse on 3/25/24.
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.
Claims 1, 3-4 and 15 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.
Claim 1 recites 100-400 g of each salt and then lists 7 salts and all possible combinations of these salts, to be dissolved in 200-2000 ml of water. Since the claim does not require complete dissolution, any amount of salt can be added. However, the term ”each salt” makes the claim indefinite, because if one selects just one salt, it is 100-400 g, but if one selects two or more salts, the amount can be 100 g of one, 100 or another range for the second salt, etc., which would lead to a large combination of weights. Then the claim has a precise limitation of 2 ml of solution for each gram of support. This is indefinite.
Claim 1 recites the temperature range in step iii) as 650-750 0C. This rang appears as the operating range in lines 31-32 of page 5 of the specification, including a broader operating range of 500-850 0C. Line 2 in page 6 teaches that this can be raised to 900 0C for methane as carbon source. Support for the preheating is found in page 11 under the description of figure 18, which is in zone 54. Zone 54 is described as having a maximum temperature of 700 0C. Therefore, it is unclear how the temperature range is arrived at.
Therefore, it is also unclear what the maximum temperature is, because it can have several values. By claim language, it is 750 0C, by disclosure, it can have several values depending on which part of the specification one is looking into.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 1, 3, 4, and 15 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The ratio of 2 ml solution for each gram of support appears new matter. The disclosure at page 12, lines 15-29, of the specification has this only for mullite support and for two specific compositions only. Therefore, applying this to the generic composition(s) is new matter.
Response to arguments: applicant failed to address this rejection in the response.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-4 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Abdulkareem, et al, Synthesis and Characterization of Tri-metallic Fe–Co–Ni Catalyst Supported on CaCO3 for Multi-Walled Carbon Nanotubes Growth via Chemical Vapor Deposition Technique, Arab J Sci Eng (2017) 42:4365–4381 with evidence from Kim et al (C A R B ON 4 9 ( 2 0 1 1 ) 1 9 7 2 –1 9 7 9) (submitted by applicant) and Carruthers et al (US 2009/0099016),
Claims 1, 2 and 15: Abdulkareem teaches growing CNTs on CaCO3 particles. Particle size is of catalyst laden particles about 0.15 mm because of grinding and sieving using 150 micron, but Abdulkareem is silent on the support particle size used. However, the particle size does not appear to be critical because the claimed average size distribution is pretty wide, and the starting particle size can be optimized to have the required surface area to host the metallic particles (see results and discussion) and to reduce the grinding requirements. CNTs are grown using CVD with acetylene/argon as claimed steps ii) and iii). Detailed shape of the CNTs are clearly visible in the pictures.
Abdulkareem also teaches that other supports are used in the industry, like silica, alumina, MgO, etc. See Kim for use of non-porous alumina (density 3.89 g/ml) support of diameter ~0.5 mm (See SEM photo, fig. 4a.) Applicant uses mullite in the only example. Mullite is alumina. Abdulkareem teaches that porous support has inherent problems with growing CNTs, and used non-porous CaCO3. CaCO3 was chosen primarily because it is cheap and has other advantageous properties. However, this would not negate the use of other inert supports. Applicant’s claim cites among a large number of supports, calcium-magnesium carbonate, which inherently would have the beneficial characteristic of suppressing the amorphous carbon formation. Having such a large number of possible supports is evidence that the support itself is also not critical. Therefore, Abdulkareem makes the claims obvious in this regard.
Depositing catalyst on CaCO3 (nonporous: see the penultimate paragraph of introduction) is as claimed. Nitrates of Ni, Co and Fe are used. Metal salts dissolved in distilled water. Mechanical stirring is implied. The proportion of solution to CaCO3 is taught by the reference, but because the claim is indefinite, it cannot be ascertained as the same as that of applicant’s. However, catalyst deposit on CaCo3 can also be optimized for CNT growth, which is the intent of Abdulkareem. Steps include drying pre-calcination (heating) at 110-120C, and calcination at 500C; and all temperatures are below that of the lowest CVD temperature of 550C. The catalyst particles are cooled. “Gradual cooling” provides no specific cooling rate. See sections 2.1-2.3. CNTs as organic adsorbents is an inherent material property, and intended use.
Abdulkareem teaches the concentration of the solution within the concentration range claimed, but not the 2ml/g range usage for the support. However, since the amount of solution absorbed is limited by the surface area of the support, and not by the amount of solution used for the absorption, this is not a critical range, and providing the minimum amount of solution sufficient for such absorption would have been obvious to reduce waste.
Abdulkareem does not appear to teach removing the CNTs from the support, but not removing CNT’s from the sup[port is not a patentable invention. CNT’s being absorbing units is an inherent material property.
Regarding claims 3 and 4, the particle size does not appear to be critical; a mere change in particle size is prima facie obvious: MPEP 2144.04. Particle size also can be optimized for CNT growth. Having sand in place of CaCO3 also would have been obvious since Abdulkareem teaches that CaCO3 was used because it is non-porous and cheap. Sand would have been equivalent.
Further evidence that many different materials like silica, alumina, aluminosilicates, zeolites, etc., can be used as support is provided by Carruthers [0050-0051].
Response to Arguments
Arguments are moot – new grounds for rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KRISHNAN S MENON whose telephone number is (571)272-1143. The examiner can normally be reached Flexible, but generally Monday-Friday: 8:00AM-4:30PM.
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, Prem C Singh can be reached on 571-272-6381. 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.
/KRISHNAN S MENON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1777