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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 3, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which they depend.
Regarding claims 3, 17, and 18, the recitations in the respective claims merely relate to the carbon-containing products produced by the claimed apparatus. Thus claims 3, 17, and 18 do not impart any particular structural limitation to the claimed apparatus.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 1-3, 14, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ando et al. (US 2012/0009344).
Regarding claim 1, the reference Ando et al. discloses a reactor system (1) that is configured to produce carbon-containing material by exposure of carbon-containing reaction gas (V) to catalyst particles (P) (see Abstract; para. [0089]; Fig. 1), the reactor system (1) comprising:
a rotary tube reactor (10);
a furnace (7) outside of the rotary tube and configured to heat a heated interior volume (12a, 12b) of the rotary tube reactor (10) to a reaction temperature, wherein the reactor (10) is configured such that the reaction gas (V) is first exposed to the catalyst particles (P) in the heated interior volume (12a) of the reactor (see paras. [0099]-[0102]; Fig. 1);
at least one reaction gas entry port (44, 46) that is configured to introduce the reaction gas into the rotary tube (10) (see para. [0105]; Fig. 1);
a catalyst feed tube (34) that is at least in part located in the heated interior volume (12a) of the reactor (10) and is configured to convey catalyst particles (P) from outside the reactor (10) into the heated interior volume (12a) of the reactor (10), wherein the catalyst feed tube (34) has an opening (38) through which the catalyst particles pass out of the tube (34) into the heated interior volume (12a) (see paras. [0040]; [0041]; [0101]-[0102]; Fig. 1);
wherein the feed tube (34) has a length within the heated interior volume (12a) of the reactor (10) that is sufficient to allow the catalyst particles (P) to be heated to approximately the reaction temperature while they are conveyed through the tube in the heated interior volume (11a) of the reactor before they pass out of the catalyst feed tube (34) and first come into contact with the reaction gas (V) in the heated interior volume (12a) (see paras. [0040]; [0041]; [0101]-[0102]; Fig. 1);
wherein the reaction gas entry port (44, 46) is located such that the reaction gases flow along a length of the reactor (10) from the entry port (44, 46), through the heated interior volume (11, 12), and to a reactor outlet (14) (see para. [0041]); and
wherein the opening (38) of the catalyst feed tube (34) is in the heated interior volume (12a)(see paras. [0040]; [0041]; Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 2, the reference Ando et al. discloses the reactor system, wherein the furnace is configured to establish a reaction temperature that is configured to produce at least one of carbon nanotube-containing material, carbon nanotube-hybrid material, and carbon nanotubes (see para. [0099]).
Regarding claim 3, as no structural distinction is seen between the instantly claimed reactor system and that of the reactor system of Ando et al., the reactor system of Ando et al. is considered capable of producing the carbon-containing material recited in claim 3.
Regarding claim 14, the reference Ando et al. discloses teaches that reaction volume (12) and the catalyst can be heated to at least 650 oC (see paras. [0099]-[0101]; [0109]). As regards to the recitation with respect to a residence time of the catalyst, the recitation merely relates to the manner in which the claimed apparatus is intended to be employed, and does not impart any particular structure to the claimed apparatus.
Regarding claim 16, the reference Ando et al. discloses the reactor system, wherein the furnace is configured to establish a reaction temperature that is configured to produce carbon nanotubes (CNT) (see para. [0099]).
Regarding claim 17, as no structural distinction is seen between the instantly claimed reactor system and that of the reactor system of Ando et al., the reactor system of Ando et al. is considered capable of producing the carbon-containing material as recited in claim 17.
Regarding claim 18, as no structural distinction is seen between the instantly claimed reactor system and that of the reactor system of Ando et al., the reactor system of Ando et al. is considered capable of producing the carbon-containing material as recited in claim 18.
Regarding claim 19, the reference Ando et al. discloses that the heated interior volume (12a, 12b) and the catalyst (P) can be heated to at least about 650 oC (see paras. [0040]; [0041]; [0099]-[0101]; [0109]). As regards to the recitation with respect to the composition of the reaction gas, the recitation merely relates to the manner in which the claimed apparatus is intended to be employed, and does not impart any particular structure to the claimed apparatus.
Regarding claim 20, the reference Ando et al. discloses that the heated interior volume (12a, 12b) and the catalyst (P) can be heated to at least about 950 oC (see paras. [0040]; [0041]; [0099]-[0101]; [0109]). As regards to the recitation with respect to the composition of the reaction gas, the recitation merely relates to the manner in which the claimed apparatus is intended to be employed, and does not impart any particular structure to the claimed apparatus.
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.
Claims 5, 6, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ando et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Koveal et al. (2015/0246813).
Regarding claim 5, the reference Ando et al. discloses the reactor system, wherein the reactor (10) comprises an outlet (10b) for the carbon-containing material that is produced in the reactor, unreacted reaction gas, and reaction by-products, and further comprising a gas/solid separator (i.e., the downstream section of chamber 11 which is defined between the downstream cover 4 and opening 10b) that is coupled to the reactor outlet (10b) and is configured to separate the carbon-containing material from the unreacted reaction gas and reaction by-products (see paras. [0089]; [106]; [0108]; Fig. 1). The reference Ando et al. is, however, silent with respect to the reactor system further comprising a gas/liquid separator that is configured to separate by condensation compounds produced by thermal decomposition of the carbon source from the unreacted reaction gas and reaction by-products.
The reference Koveal et al. teaches a reactor system that is configured to produce carbon-containing material by exposure of carbon-containing reaction gas to catalyst particles, the reactor system comprising: a reactor (110; 318; 610) that contains a heated reaction volume wherein the reaction gas is exposed to the catalyst particles (see paras. [0055]-[0056]); at least one reaction gas entry port (108; 316; 604) that is configured to introduce the reaction gas into the reaction volume (see paras. [0056]; [0078]; Figs. 1A, 3, 4, 6); and at least one catalyst particle entry (not labeled) that is configured to introduce the catalyst particles into the reaction volume (see paras. [0080]-[0081]; Fig. 6). The reference Koveal et al. further teaches that the reactor (110; 316; 610) comprises an outlet (114; 320) for the carbon-containing material that is produced in the reactor, unreacted reaction gas, and reaction by-products (see paras. [0046]; [057]; [0080]; Figs. 3, 4, 6). The reference Koveal et al. further teaches a gas/solid separator (322; 418; 620) that is coupled to the reactor outlet and is configured to separate the carbon-containing material from the unreacted reaction gas and reaction by-products (see paras. [0057]; [0065]; [0080]; Figs. 3, 4, 6). The reference Koveal et al. further teaches a gas/liquid separator (118; 332) that is configured to separate by condensation compounds produced by thermal decomposition of the carbon source from the unreacted reaction gas and reaction by-products (see para. [0058]; Figs. 3, 4).
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 Ando et al. and Koveal et al., and modified the reactor system of Ando et al. to include a gas/liquid separator as taught by Koveal et al. downstream of the gas/solid separator section of Ando et al. to separate by condensation condensable compounds from the unreacted reaction gas and reaction by-products discharged from the reactor (10) of Ando et al., 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. Furthermore, the reference Ano et al. teaches that the carbon-containing reaction gas can be a vaporized liquid material containing a vaporized alcohol-based solvent (see paras. [0030]; [0072]). Thus, such a modification can advantageous provides for recovery of condensable compounds from the unreacted reaction gas and reaction by-products discharged from the reactor (10) of Ano et al..
Regarding claim 6, the reference Ando et al. does not specifically disclose a gas recycling system as recited in claim 6. However, as evidence by the reference Koveal et al., it is typical in the art to provide a gas recycling system (124) that is configured to return at least some of unreacted reaction gas (304) to a reactor (318), wherein the gas recycling system comprises a gas separator (348) that is configured to separate unreacted reaction gas (304) from reaction by-products (350) (see paras. [0041]; [0059]; [0118]; Figs. 3, 4; 15). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a gas recycling system as taught by Koveal et al., and claimed by applicant, to the reactor of Ando et al., modified in view of Koveal et al., because, as evidence by the reference Koveal et al. (see paras. [0041]; [0059]; [0118]; Figs. 3, 4; 15), it is typical in the art to provide a gas separator downstream of a reactor for separating unreacted reaction gas from gaseous reaction by-products recovered from the reactor, and thereafter, recycle at least a portion of the unreacted reaction gas to the reactor.
Regarding claim 8, the references Ando et al. and Koveal et al. teach that the reactor system can include a product vessel that is configured to hold carbon-containing material separated by the gas/solid separator, wherein the product vessel is flushed with inert gas (see Koveal et al.: paras. [0113]-[0115]; Fig. 4).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ando et al. in view of Koveal et al. as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Muradov (US 2007/0111051).
Regarding claim 7, the references Ando et al. and Koveal et al., do not specifically disclose wherein the reaction by-products comprise hydrogen.
The reference Muradov teaches a reactor system that is configured to produce carbon-containing material by exposure of carbon-containing reaction gas to catalyst particles (see Abstract; Fig. 1), the reactor system comprising: a reactor (1) that contains a heated reaction volume wherein the reaction gas is exposed to the catalyst particles (see para. [0022]; Fig. 1); at least one reaction gas entry port that is configured to introduce the reaction gas into the reaction volume (see para. [0022]; Fig. 1); and at least one catalyst particle entry that is configured to introduce the catalyst particles into the reaction volume (see para. [0023]); wherein the catalyst particles are heated before they contact the reaction gas in the reaction volume (see para. [0024]). The reference Muradov further teaches that the reactor (1) comprises an outlet for the carbon-containing material that is produced in the reactor, unreacted reaction gas, and reaction by-products (see para. [0022]; Fig. 1). The reference Muradov further discloses a gas/solid separator (2) that is coupled to the reactor outlet and is configured to separate the carbon-containing material from the unreacted reaction gas and reaction by-products (see para. [0022]; Fig. 1). The reference Muradov further discloses a gas recycling system that is configured to return at least some of the unreacted reaction gas to the reactor (1), wherein the gas recycling system comprises a gas separator (4) that is configured to separate unreacted reaction gas from reaction by-products, and wherein the reaction by-products comprise hydrogen (see paras. [0022]; [0026]; Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, in view of the teachings Muradov, to provide a gas separator (4) as taught by Muradov to the reactor system of Ando et al. and Koveal et al. in application where it is desired to recover hydrogen as a by-product from the reaction by-products produced by thermal decomposition of a carbon-containing reaction gas within the reactor (10) of Ando et al. and Koveal et al., 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.
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ando et al. (US 2012/0009344).
Regarding claim 9, 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 Ando et al. discloses wherein the catalyst particle entry (38) comprises a catalyst feed tube (34) that passes from outside the reactor (10) into the reaction volume (12), and wherein the catalyst feed tube (34) extends along a length of the reactor up to the vicinity of the reaction zone (12) defined with the reactor (10) such that the catalyst particles (P) can be sufficiently heated to a desired temperature before they contact the reaction gas (V) in the reaction volume (12) (see paras. [0100]-[0101]; Fig. 1). The reference Ando et al. is, however, silent with respect to the catalyst feed tube (34) extending along from about 1/6 to about 1/3 of the length of the reactor. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to extend the catalyst feed tube (34) into the reactor (10) from about 1/6 to about 1/3 of the length of the reactor as claimed by applicant, since the reference Ando et al. suggests extending the catalyst feed tube (34) along the length of the reactor up to the vicinity of the reaction zone (12) defined with the reactor (10) such that the catalyst particles (P) can be sufficiently heated to a desired temperature before they contact the reaction gas (V) (see paras. [ [0100]-[0101]; Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 10, the claim depends from claim 9 such that the reasoning applied to claim 9 above is applied herein for the dependent portion of the claim. The reference Ando et al. further teaches that the reactor (10) can have an inner diameter (reaction volume diameter) from about 10 cm to about 100 cm, and a length of about 1 to 10 times that the inner diameter (see para. [0098]). The reference Ando et al., however, does not specifically specify wherein the catalyst feed tube (34) has a diameter of about 1/3 to about 1/2 the diameter of the reaction volume. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the catalyst feed tube (34) in any suitable dimensions, including in dimensions as claimed by applicant, sufficient to adequately supply the catalyst particles to the vicinity of the reaction zone (12) of Ando et al., since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ando et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Moy et al. (US 20030190277).
Regarding claim 13, the reference Ando et al. does not specifically wherein the temperature in the reaction volume is measured through a thermowell. However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a thermowell within the reactor of Ando et al. to measure the temperature in the reaction volume because, as evidence by the reference Moy et al. (see paras. [0036]-[0037]; Fig. 1), it is typical in the art to measure the temperature in a reaction volume through a thermowell.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11 and 12 are 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.
Regarding claims 11 and 12, the claims would be allowable because the prior art of record does not disclose or fairly suggest wherein the reactor system further comprises a catalyst feed system that is configured to feed catalyst into the feed tube and out of the feed tube into the reactor, wherein the catalyst feed system comprises a vibratory feeder that is configured to move catalyst along and out of the feed tube at a controllable rate, as required in claim 11.
Claim 22 is allowed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 24 January 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues:
In Ando the catalyst is provided through screw feeder 34 with opening 38, which is not in the heated zone (the heater is labeled number 7). Also, the reaction gas (the hydrocarbon) is provided through conduit 44 with opening 46, while the carrier gas (e.g., an inert gas) is provided at both locations 52 and 54 near both ends of the reactor. The gas exit is through vent 14 while the reacted solid exit is at collection vessel 62. A result of this reactor design is that the catalyst particles first contact the hydrocarbon reaction gas at location 38, which is in a part of the reactor that is not heated. Further, screw feeder 34 does not at all pass though the heated part of the reactor, so it is not possible for the catalyst to be heated to the reaction temperature before it first contacts the hydrocarbon gas from exit 46. (see Remarks, pages 1-2).
The examiner respectfully disagrees. Contrary to applicant assertion, the reference Ando et al. does, in fact, teach a configuration wherein the screw feeder 34 with opening 38 is disposed in the upstream region, 12a, of the reaction zone 12 (see paras. [0040]; [0041]; [0100]-[0102]; Fig. 1). Thus, according to the teachings of Ando et al., a result of the reactor configuration is that the CNT-supporting base material P (i.e., catalyst particles) first contact the reaction gas V in the upstream region 12a of the reaction zone 12 (i.e., the heated interior volume of the reactor 10). Thus, according to the teachings of Ando et al., the CNT-supporting base material P (i.e., catalyst particles) can suitably be heated to the desired reaction temperature before it first contacts the reaction gas V ( see paras. [0040]; [0041]; [0099]-[0101]; Fig. 1).
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 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