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. 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. Status of Application Claims 1-10 are pending and presented for examination. Claims 1-6 were elected without traverse in the response dated 15 January 2026. As such claims 7-10 are withdrawn by the Examiner as non-elected. As such, THIS RESTRICTION REQUIREMENT IS MADE FINAL . Priority Acknowledgement is made of applicant's request for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. §119(a)-(d). Certified copies of the priority documents have been received . 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 appl icant regards as his invention. Claims 1-6 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. As to claim 1 (and those dependent thereon), it is indefinite as to if the support in step a should be carbon nanotubes, for the purposes of compact prosecution and to match the remainder of the claim it is being construed as such (“ . . . pretreating a catalyst precursor onto a support comprising carbon nanotubes”). As to claim 6, with respect to the phrase “carbon atoms, with methane, propane and ethylene” it is unclear if this phrase is attempting to further limit the claim, it is being construed for the purposes of compact prosecution as not limiting the claim such that any hydrocarbon having 6 or les carbon atoms meets the claim. 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. Claims 1 , 2, 4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN104860295 to Zhang et al . (hereinafter, “Zhang at __”; cited by Applicants with citations to the attached English machine translation) in view of US PG Pub No. 20100316556 to Wei et al . (hereinafter, “Wei at __”) . Regarding claim s 1 and 4 , Zhang discloses a method for the continuous production (Zhang at 2 third paragraph) of carbon nanotubes (Zhang at 1) and hydrogen (Zhang at 5) comprising: Preparing a catalyst precursor (Zhang at 5); Pre-reducing the catalyst precursor (Zhang at 5); Preloading carbon nanotubes into a reactor (the CNTs are produced in a pre-reactor (Zhang a 5) via an electric furnace ( Id. ) to a CVD reaction temperature in a protective gas (nitrogen, Zhang at 5); Feeding the catalyst in step b into the reactor ( Id. ); Introducing a carbon source gas into the reactor ( Id. ) to form new carbon nanotubes and hydrogen; Keeping the CNT bed height at a level (it fills the height, Zhang at 2 which meets keeping it at a height during discharge ) and c ontinuously discharging the carbon nanotubes and hydrogen (Zhang at 6). Repeating the steps d-f to generate new CNTs and hydrogen (Zhang at 6 which states that the process is continuous and as such must be repeated to accomplish this). However, Zhang does not expressly state stirring of solid materials in step e . Wei discloses in a method of generating carbon nanotubes and hydrogen (Wei at [0026]) that a stirring paddle can be utilized during CNT synthesis (Wei at [0060]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention to perform the method of Zhang in view of the stirring of Wei. The teaching or suggested motivation in doing so being enhanced yield rate from the source gas, Id. ). As to claim 2, as pre-treating the catalyst precursor onto a support is not required by the claim this limitation is met. Turning to claim 6, methane can be utilized (Zhang at 4). Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang and Wei as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of “ Water-Assisted Highly Efficient Synthesis of Impurity-Free Single-Walled Carbon Nanotubes ” to Hata et al . (hereinafter, “ Hata at __”). Regarding claim 5, neither Zhang or Wei expressly state addition of a decarbonizing gas. Hata in a method of forming CNTs from methane ( Hata at “Abstract”) discloses the addition of water vapor ( Hata at 1363 R col). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention to perform the method of Zhang and Wei in view of the water vapor exposure of Hata . The teaching or suggested motivation in doing so being removal of amorphous carbon which can limit synthesis ability ( id. ). Claims 1 , 2, 4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent No. 7993594 to Wei et al . (hereinafter, “Wei-2 at __”) in view of “ D ecomposition of methane over Ni catalysts supported on carbon fibers formed from different hydrocarbons ” to Otsuka et al . (hereinafter, “Otsuka at __”) . Regarding claim 1, 4 and 6, Wei-2 discloses a method of continuously producing carbon nanotubes and hydrogen (Wei-2 at “Abstract” & 4:11-13) comprising: Preparing a catalyst precursor (Wei-2 at “Example 2”); Activating (pre-reducing) the catalysts ( 13:14 ). Pre - loading catalysts into the reactor ( Id. ) which is electrically heated directly (“Fig. 5A” and is a direct heating mantle which is electric) under a protective gas (15:56); Feeding the catalysts to the reactor (“Example 1”); Introducing a carbon source gas (methane) into the reactor while stirring a solid material in the reactor to form new CNTs and hydrogen (13:2-8, note that the catalyst activation would meet the reactor for step c and meet the pre-reducing the catalyst precursor supported on carbon nanotubes of step b); Discharging the CNTs (while this is not stated to keep the bed height at a certain level, it is noted that there is no claimed requirement that the bed height be the same as that of step b but merely that it be kept at a level and this level can change at any time, Id. ). g) Repeating the steps of d, etc., to continuously prepare CNTs (as the process is continuous this is considered to be met). However, Wei-2 does not expressly state that the catalysts are loaded onto CNTs and that thusly the CNTs are what is loaded into the reactor in step c . Otsuka in a method of making CNTs (Otsuka at “Abstract”) discloses impregnating nickel onto carbon nanofibers ( Id. ). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention to perform the method of Wei-2 in view of the CNF support of Otsuka. The teaching or suggested motivation in doing so being production of hydrogen from methane without needing to add deactivating gases of carbon monoxide and dioxide ( Id. ). Turning to claim 2, impregnation is utilized on Otsuka (Otsuka at “Abstract”). Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wei-2 and Otsuka as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Hata . Regarding claim 5, neither Wei -2 nor Otsuka expressly state addition of a decarbonizing gas. Hata in a method of forming CNTs from methane ( Hata at “Abstract”) discloses the addition of water vapor ( Hata at 1363 R col). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention to perform the method of Wei-2 and Otsuak in view of the water vapor exposure of Hata . The teaching or suggested motivation in doing so being removal of amorphous carbon ( id. ). Allowable Subject Matter Claim 3 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. As to claim 3, none of the cited prior art either alone or in combination discloses or reasonably suggests setting the bed height to 1/5-4/5 the height of the reactor. “ A parametric study of the large scale production of multi-walled carbon nanotubes by fluidized bed catalytic chemical vapor deposition ” discloses setting the initial bed height to 1.8 cm for a 1000 cm reactor which is way less than 20-80% as claimed. Conclusion Claims 1-6 are rejected. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT RICHARD M RUMP whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-5848 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday-Thursday 06:45 AM to 04:45 PM . 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, Curt Mayes can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-272-1 234 . 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. FILLIN "Examiner Stamp" \* MERGEFORMAT RICHARD M. RUMP Primary Examiner Art Unit 1759 /RICHARD M RUMP/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759