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
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (claims 1-18) in the reply filed on 2 January 2026 is acknowledged.
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.
Claim 11 is 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 11 recites the limitation "the one or more substrates" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5, 8, 9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Somermeier (US 1,286,135).
Regarding claim 1, the reference Somermeier discloses a thermal process system (see page 1, lines 43-56; Figure), comprising:
a retort assembly comprising a retort chamber and configured to substantially contain one or more gases in the retort chamber during a thermal process (see page 1, lines 65-80; Figure);
a heating assembly comprising one or more heating elements (16) and configured to heat the retort chamber (see page. 1, lines 81-84; Figure); and
a vessel housing (1) positioned around the retort chamber and the one or more heating elements and configured to maintain a pressure within the retort chamber (see page 1, lines 57-65; Figure).
Regarding claim 2, the reference Somermeier discloses the thermal process system, wherein the retort assembly is configured to form a concentration or partial pressure boundary for the one or more gases in the retort chamber, and wherein the vessel housing is configured to form a pressure boundary between an interior volume of the vessel housing and an external environment (see page 1, lines 43-56; Figure).
Regarding claim 3, the reference Somermeier discloses the thermal process system, wherein the retort assembly further comprises a removable retort lid (10) configured to contact a wall (8) of the retort chamber at a sealing interface (13), and wherein the sealing interface (13) between the retort lid (10) and the retort chamber is configured to form a contact seal (see page 1, lines 72-80; Figure).
Regarding claim 4, the reference Somermeier discloses the thermal process system, wherein the contact seal is non-hermetic and does not include a gasket (see page 1, lines 50-55 and lines 72-80; Figure).
Regarding claim 5, the reference Somermeier discloses the thermal process system, wherein each of the retort lid and the retort chamber comprises a refractory material, which encompasses a ceramic (see page 1, lines 72-80).
Regarding claim 8, the reference Somermeier discloses the thermal process system, wherein the vessel housing further comprises a preload assembly (14) configured to directly or indirectly exert force on the retort lid (10) (see page 1, lines 72-80; Figure).
Regarding claim 9, the reference Somermeier discloses the thermal process system, wherein the retort assembly further comprises: an inlet (18) configured to discharge an inlet gas mixture into the retort chamber; and an outlet (20) configured to receive an outlet gas mixture from the retort chamber, wherein the inlet and the outlet are configured to define flow through the retort chamber from the inlet to the outlet (see page 1, lines 85-95; Figure).
Regarding claim 11, the reference Somermeier discloses the thermal process system, wherein the one or more heating elements (16) comprise electrical contacts (17) configured to deliver a current to the retort chamber to generate resistive heat in the retort chamber (see page 1, lines 81-84; Figure).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Somermeier (US 1,286,135) as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Methling (US 2016/0040074).
Regarding claim 6, the reference Somermeier is silent with respect to each of the retort lid and the retort chamber comprising a ceramic coating. However, as evidenced by the reference Methling (see para. [0101]), it is known in the art to provide a ceramic coating on interior walls and internals of a reaction vessel to avoid coke formation on interior surfaces of the reaction vessel. Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide ceramic coating as suggested by Methling, and claimed by applicant, on the interior surface of the retort lid and the retort chamber of Somermeier, since the reference Methling teaches that such a modification advantageously reduces coking on interior surfaces of the retort chamber (see para. [0101]).
Claims 7 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Somermeier (US 1,286,135) as applied to claims 1 and 3 above, and further in view of Dijkstra et al. (US 3,842,181).
Regarding claim 7, the reference Somermeier is silent with respect to the thermal process system including insulation material defining an inner insulated region, wherein the contact seal is enclosed within the inner insulated region.
The reference Dijkstra et al. teaches a thermal process system comprising a retort assembly (2, 2a) comprising: a retort chamber (1); a heating assembly (3) comprising one or more heating elements and configured to heat the retort chamber (1); and a vessel housing (15) positioned around the retort chamber (1) and the one or more heating elements (3), wherein the retort assembly further comprises a removable retort lid (2a) configured to contact a wall (2) of the retort chamber at a sealing interface, and wherein the sealing interface between the retort lid and the retort chamber is configured to form a contact seal (see col. 1, line 50 to col. 2, line 8; Figure). The reference Dijkstra et al. further teaches an insulation material (7, 7a) defining an inner insulated region, wherein the contact seal is enclosed within the inner insulated region (see col. 1, line 50 to col. 2, line 8; Figure).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the thermal process system of Somermeier to include a heat insulation material as taught by Dijkstra et al. around the retort assembly of Somermeier so as to limit the flow of heat away from the retort chamber, as doing so would amount to nothing more than a use of a known device for its intended use in a known environment to accomplish an entirely expected result.
Regarding claim 12, the reference Somermeier is silent with respect to the provision of an insulation material surrounding the retort chamber. However, as evidenced by the reference of Dijkstra et al. (see col. 1, line 50 to col. 2, line 8; Figure), it is conventional in the art to provide an insulation material around a retort chamber (1). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the thermal process system of Somermeier to include an insulation material around the retort chamber so as to limit the flow of heat away from the retort chamber because, as evidenced by the reference of Dijkstra et al. (see col. 1, line 50 to col. 2, line 8; Figure), it is conventional in the art to provide an insulation material around a retort chamber (1), and doing so would amount to nothing more than a use of a known device for its intended use in a known environment to accomplish an entirely expected result.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Somermeier (US 1,286,135) as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Yates et al. (US 2018/0319660).
Regarding claim 10, the reference Somermeier is silent with respect the retort assembly including one or more substrates within the retort chamber in a spatial arrangement defining channels between and around the one or more substrates, and wherein the inlet and the outlet are configured to define flow of the gas mixtures through the channels.
The reference Yates et al. teaches a pyrolysis assembly (106) for generating hydrogen and carbon by pyrolysis of methane (see para. [0031]; Fig. 1). The reference Yates et al. further teaches that the pyrolysis assembly may include a disposable pre-form insert have a high surface area on which carbon can grow by carbon vapor deposition/infiltration (see paras. [0024]; [0034]; Fig. 3A-C). The reference Yates et al. further teaches that the pre-form can be composed of a high surface area material, such as a loosely woven or unwoven fabric or highly porous solid (see para. [0034]; 3A-C).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Somermeier and Yates et al., and arranged one or more substrates within the retort chamber in a spatial arrangement defining channels between and around the one or more substrates, as claimed by applicant, since the reference Yates et al. teaches for inclusion of a disposable pre-form insert have a high surface area on which carbon can grow by carbon vapor deposition/infiltration during pyrolysis of methane to generate hydrogen gas (see paras. [0031]-[0034]; Fig. 3A-C).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Somermeier (US 1,286,135) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of McIntyre (US 2018/0163996).
Regarding claim 14, the reference Somermeier is silent with respect to a radiative foil at least partially surrounding the retort chamber. However, as evidenced by the reference McIntyre (see paras. [0004]; [0007]-[0009]; [0032]; Fig. 3), it is typical in the art to provide a radiative foil against a wall of a reaction vessel so as to limit radiative and conductive heat transfer through the wall of the reaction vessel.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the thermal process system of Somermeier to include a radiative foil at least partially surrounding the retort chamber, as claimed by applicant, because, as evidenced by the reference McIntyre (see paras. [0004]; [0007]-[0009]; [0032]; Fig. 3), it is conventional in the art to provide a radiative foil against a wall of a reaction vessel so as to limit radiative and conductive heat transfer through the wall of the reaction vessel.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Somermeier (US 1,286,135).
Regarding claim 15, the claim depends from claim 1 such that the reasoning applied to claim 1 above is applied herein for the dependent portion of the claim. The reference Somermeier does not specifically disclose a cooling duct positioned around at least a portion of the vessel housing (1) and configured to flow cooling air across an outer surface of the vessel housing. However, the reference Somermeier teaches that an outer surface of the vessel housing (1) may suitably be cooled by contact with air (see page 2, lines 31-39). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the thermal process system of Somermeier to include a cooling duct positioned around at least a portion of the vessel housing and configured to flow cooling air across an outer surface of the vessel housing, since the reference Somermeier teaches that the vessel housing (1) may suitably be cooled by contact with air (see page 2, lines 31-39).
Claims 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Somermeier (US 1,286,135) in view of Yates et al. (US 2018/0319660).
Regarding claim 16, the reference Somermeier teaches an apparatus, suitable for generating hydrogen gas (see page 1, lines 12-30), comprising:
a pyrolysis reactor configured to generate the hydrogen gas from a hydrocarbon through pyrolysis (see page 1, lines 31-101]; Figure), wherein the pyrolysis reactor comprises:
a retort assembly comprising a retort chamber and configured to: substantially contain the hydrocarbon and the hydrogen gas in the retort chamber during the pyrolysis (see page 1, lines 65-80; Figure);
a heating assembly comprising one or more heating elements (16) and configured to heat the retort chamber (see page. 1, lines 81-84; Figure); and
a vessel housing (1) positioned around the retort chamber and the one or more heating elements and configured to maintain a pressure within the retort chamber (see page 1, lines 57-65; Figure).
The reference Somermeier is, however, silent with respect the retort assembly including one or more fibrous substrates defining a deposition surface for carbon generated from the pyrolysis.
The reference Yates et al. discloses an environmental control system comprising: a carbon dioxide source (101); a compressor (102) downstream of the carbon dioxide source (101); a Sabatier reactor (103) downstream of the compressor (102), wherein the Sabatier reactor reacts carbon dioxide with hydrogen to generate hydrocarbons and water; a water separator (104) downstream of the Sabatier reactor (103), wherein the water separator separates hydrocarbons (111) from water (108), wherein the hydrocarbons (111) include methane and ethane; a pyrolysis assembly (106) downstream of the water separator (104) and upstream of the compressor (102), wherein the pyrolysis assembly includes a pre-form that adheres carbon, wherein the pyrolysis assembly (106) pyrolyzes methane to generate hydrogen gas (112) and carbon; and an oxygen generating assembly (OGA) (105) downstream of the water separator (104), wherein the OGA electrolyzes water to generate oxygen (109) and hydrogen (110) (see paras. [0009]; [0025]-[0030]; Fig. 1). The reference Yates et al. further teaches that the pyrolysis assembly (106) may include a disposable pre-form insert have a high surface area on which carbon can grow by carbon vapor deposition/infiltration (see paras. [0024]; [0034]; 3A-C). The reference Yates et al. further teaches that the pre-form can be composed of a high surface area material, such as a loosely woven or unwoven fabric or highly porous solid (see para. [0034]; 3A-C).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Somermeier and Yates et al., and utilized the apparatus taught by Somermeier as the pyrolysis assembly in the system of Yates et al., since the reference Somermeier teaches that the disclosed apparatus advantageously provides for a simple furnace construction which can easily be taken apart for maintenance (see page 1, lines 31-42). It also would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrange one or more fibrous substrates within the retort chamber of Somermeier, since the reference Yates et al. teaches for inclusion of a disposable pre-form insert have a high surface area on which carbon can grow by carbon vapor deposition/infiltration during pyrolysis of methane to generate hydrogen gas (see paras. [0031]-[0034]3A-C).
Regarding claim 17, the references Somermeier and Yates et al. teach the system, wherein the pyrolysis reactor is configured to maintain a temperature of the retort chamber greater than about 850°C during pyrolysis, and wherein the vessel housing is configured to maintain a pressure of the retort chamber less than about 100 torr during pyrolysis (see para. [0031]).
Regarding claim 18, the references Somermeier and Yates et al. teach the system, wherein the hydrocarbon is methane, wherein the pyrolysis reactor is configured to generate carbon and a first portion of hydrogen gas from the methane, and wherein the system further comprises: a Sabatier reactor configured to: receive the first portion of hydrogen gas from the pyrolysis reactor and a second portion of hydrogen gas from an oxygen generation system; generate the methane and water from carbon dioxide and the first and second portions of hydrogen gas; and discharge the methane to the pyrolysis reactor; and an oxygen generation system configured to: receive the water from the Sabatier reactor; generate oxygen and the second portion of hydrogen gas from the water; and discharge the second portion of hydrogen gas to the Sabatier reactor (see Yates et al. paras. [0025]-[0030]; Fig. 1).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 13 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. The claim would be allowable because the prior art of record does not disclose or fairly suggest the feature: wherein the vessel housing comprises: a top end cap configured to be detached from a remainder of the vessel housing; and a bottom end cap configured to be detached from a remainder of the vessel housing, and wherein the insulation material comprises: a top portion configured to be removed from the vessel housing to provide access to the retort lid; and a bottom portion configured to be removed from the vessel housing to access the one or more heating elements without accessing the retort lid, as recited in claim 13.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-4, 7, 9, 12, and 16-18 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-7 and 9-16 of copending Application No. 17/937,352 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the thermal process system recited in claims 1-4, 7, 9, and 12 of the instant application is taught by claims 1-7, 9, and 10 of copending Application No. 17/937,352; and the system of generating hydrogen gas recited in claims 16-18 is taught by claims 11-16 of copending Application No. 17/937,352.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Lessanework T Seifu whose telephone number is (571)270-3153. The examiner can normally be reached M-T 9:00 am - 6:30 pm; F 9:00 am - 1:00 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, Claire Wang can be reached at 571-270-1051. 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.
/LESSANEWORK SEIFU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1774
Prosecution Insights