Detailed Notice
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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 6/15/2026 has been entered into the prosecution for the application.
The previous 112(b) rejection applied to claim 1 has been withdrawn in light of the amendment.
Applicants amended to Claim 1 has entered prosecution.
Claims 1, 16-20, 26-32 are pending consideration.
The amendment necessitates the new grounds for rejection presented in this office action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/15/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments bear towards (1) the incorporation of methane into Edwards would teach ethylene production; (2) that the use of methane, as per Miyakoshi, would not lead one of ordinary skill to assume the methane would produce low levels of ethylene. In the first argument, as applicant demonstrates, Edwards teaches that the gaseous product comprises 0.17-3.96 vol.% ethylene, which to one of ordinary skill is so close to the claimed 0.1 vol.% range, that one would readily understand the process of Edwards to be teaching that the amount of ethylene produced is negligible, which is the intent of the instant claim. In the second argument, the examiner has introduced new art which via Zhu which teaches that the microwave assisted decomposition of methane over Fe produces “negligible amounts of higher order hydrocarbons … C2H4” [0015]. Accordingly, applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
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.
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.
Claims 1, 16-20, 26-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Edwards (WO2018104712A1) in view Zhu (US 20080210908 A1).
Regarding Claims 1, 18-20, 26-27, and 28 Edwards teaches a method for producing hydrogen gas by exposing a liquid composition containing a metal catalyst and a liquid hydrocarbon to microwave radiation [abstract]. Edwards demonstrates that a single metal catalyst of iron [00227-00228, and 00252 demonstrating various compositions of the catalyst/support] can be made by impregnating catalyst supports such as silicon carbide with hydrated metal salt and placing the catalyst-on-support in a reducing environment to form an elemental Fe loaded catalyst on a silicon carbide [00227-00228, 00252]. The catalyst was then loaded into a microwave in the presence of hexadecane or diesel (these being a liquid hydrocarbon) and irradiated with microwave energy to generate gases [00236 and Table 1], including hydrogen gas [00240]. Edwards discloses that examples of hydrocarbons would be, for instance, benzene, toluene, or xylene [0044]. Edwards teaches that while the liquid hydrocarbon is initially in a liquid state under standard atmospheric conditions, it is recognized that the material in the process conditions can be carried out such that the hydrocarbon is in the gaseous state during the process [0099]. Consequently, as a reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art, including nonpreferred embodiments, it is understood that Edwards anticipates the claim language of gaseous hydrocarbon (MPEP 2123 I). Edwards does not teach that the product comprises any ethylene, which is understood to be less than 0.1% vol, as per the claim amendment, and/or Edwards teaches that the process produces less than 0.1 vol.% ethylene [0059-0060].
However, Edwards does not teach that a gaseous hydrocarbon may be selected from C1-4 compounds.
Zhu teaches a method for producing hydrogen vias microwave based catalytic decomposition of methane over an Fe catalyst [Abstract]. Zhu teaches a process for whereby methane gas is exposed to a catalyst within a reactor and the mixture is subjected to microwave radiation to produce hydrogen gas [0069-0066]. Zhu teaches that the catalyst may be simply Fe [0040], which is understood to be eligible prior art even as a non-preferred embodiment (see MPEP 2123 II). Zhu teaches that the method of reducing methane by microwave-assisted catalysis produces negligible amounts of ethylene [0015].
Prior to the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the method of Edwards, as per Claim 1, could be modified to incorporate the use of methane as a hydrocarbon gas to be cracked, as per Zhu, into the microwave-based iron on a silicon carbide supported catalytic production of hydrogen gas method, as per Edwards, in order to generate hydrogen with less by-products from a hydrocarbon source. Prior to the filing of the present invention it would have been obvious that the teachings of Zhu, bearing to an Fe catalyst could be applied to the system of Edwards, bearing to a Fe/SiC with a reasonable expectation of success, as the use of similar catalysts would suggest to one of ordinary skill that the use of the same precursor gases and catalyst systems which operate in nominally similar many would produce similar product gases.
Regarding Claim 16-17, 29-32, the elemental iron on a SiC support has a 1 to 10 wt. % of the catalyst [0198].
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 NATHANAEL J DOWNES whose telephone number is (571)272-1141. The examiner can normally be reached 8am to 5pm.
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.
NATHANAEL JASON. DOWNES
Examiner
Art Unit 1794
/NATHANAEL JASON DOWNES/Examiner, Art Unit 1794
/BRIAN W COHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights