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 . The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action. The RCE is accepted.
Claims 18, 20, 21, 23-29, 32-42 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.
It is unclear how in claim 18 step c the filtering the carbon from the effluent stream (bag filter, for example) removes materials from the pores thereof. It appears that step d is what accomplishes this.
In step d, ‘downstream air processing equipment’ is unclear. Where did the air come from? Is air being processed? What are the components of this system? What does air have to do with a hydrogen plasma method for making carbon black from (presumably) methane/hydrocarbon? Is air added to the carbon after the treatment of step d?
Applicant's arguments filed 2/24/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
While the prior art rejections have been withdrawn due to the amendments, some discussion of the Declaration is warranted. It is unclear what ‘normalized/apples to apples’ means. Was there some manipulation of the data? Why would that be necessary? Declaration paragraphs 13-15 do not support (with data) the argument that the previously applied references would be unable to remove both H2 and PAHs. It is unclear why these paragraphs assume that H2 forms a solid phase. The argument in paragraph 16 seems to be that Yurovskaya wouldn’t treat the material made by the present process because it is already in compliance with their purity standards. However, it is also implied in the arguments that hydrogen in carbon black pores is a long-standing recognized safety problem. This implication has not been established (‘longfelt need’) and it would appear that, if true, it would have been the source of research efforts for many years, given the amount of carbon black used in tires each year and the number of companies throughout the world that make carbon black. Furthermore, it overlooks the well-known use of vacuum/low pressure to de-gas substances including carbon black. Are there numerous incidents of carbon black shipments exploding? Is sending carbon black to tire companies known to be dangerous? If this was a widespread problem, it would seem extremely obvious to use vacuum desorption to remove dangerous gases- assuming that the cause of the explosions was traced to the residual gases. Also, shipping carbon black in powder form would be inherently dangerous due to spontaneous explosion such as happens in grain silos. Is carbon black usually shipped in pelletized form? There needs to be more documents detailing the state of the art in carbon black distribution to get a better picture of the scope of this issue.
Paragraph 20 is essentially a ‘commercial success’ argument tangential (or unrelated) to the alleged safety problem/level of hydrogen. The ‘sustainability’ award appears to be unrelated to the issues at hand, since it refers to CO2 emissions. It is also not entirely clear that the ‘methane pyrolysis’ cited in the Goodyear announcement is the same as ‘H2-plasma of hydrocarbon’ and whether it is the low H2 in the pores that makes it an attractive material for ‘enhanced all-season traction, for the ultra-high performance’ specialty tire.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STUART L HENDRICKSON whose telephone number is (571)272-1351. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 9 to 5. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Anthony Zimmer, can be reached on 571-270-3591. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
/STUART L HENDRICKSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1736
Prosecution Insights