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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 31 March 2026 has been entered.
Claims 1-15 and 18-23 are pending.
The previous rejections have been updated as necessitated by amendments to the claims. The updated rejections follow.
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted claims 22-23 are directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons: Claims 22-23 are drawn to composition claims, which are distinguished by product properties. The originally claimed invention is drawn to method claims, which are distinguished by process steps. Such differences would result in different classifications, and thus different areas of search.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 22-23 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
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 1-15 and 18-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsuji (JP 3678251, see ip.com English Translation).
Regarding claims 1-7 and 13-15, Tsuji teaches mixing hydrocarbon feeds with ammonium sulfate or ammonium persulfate with sulfuric acid in the presence of oxidizing gas at a temperature of 200-600˚C to produce activated carbon/carbon fiber products (solids) (pages 2-3). Tsuji teaches activation times of 3 hours [0027]. Tsuji teaches that a rotary type device may be used in order to uniformly heat [0018]. In this regard, Examiner considers Tsuji to teach that the components may be subject to stirring.
Tsuji does not explicitly disclose (1) stirring until the hydrocarbon becomes solid (2) the softening point of the products.
Regarding (1), Tsuji teaches producing activated carbon/carbon fibers, which are solids. In this regard, it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art to have selected appropriate conditions in order to obtain the desired solid products. It is further expected that the same decomposition of the catalyst would occur, since the same ammonium sulfate compositions are utilized.
Regarding (2), Tsuji teaches the same process steps at the same conditions using the same catalyst to produce the same carbon fiber/activated carbon compositions.
Therefore, it is expected that the activated carbon/carbon fibers of Tsuji would have the same or similar properties. It is not seen where Applicant has distinguished the process steps in this regard.
Regarding claims 8-9, it appears that the claims are simply splitting the heating into multiple steps. Examiner notes that duplication of steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results.
Regarding claims 10-12, while Tsuji does not disclose cooling of the products, it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art to have cooled the products after the activation time, so that they may be transported and used for their intended purpose.
Regarding claims 18-19, Tsuji teaches the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Further, Tsuji teaches that the dosage of chemical additive is selected appropriately in order to obtain the desired products (page 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art to have selected an appropriate amount of the additive for the benefit of achieving the desired products.
Regarding claims 20-21, Tsuji teaches various feedstocks including petroleum pitch, tar, and heavy oils [0009], which could be obtained from solvent deasphalting/and contain asphaltenes.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered and are addressed by the updated rejections as necessitated by amendments to the claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Moretta (EP 1,103,299) – previously relied upon, teaches oxidation of hydrocarbons
Uemura (US 4,474,617) – previously relied upon, teaches sulfur containing catalysts
Broadhead (GB 334,380) – teaches ammonium sulphate catalyst at temperatures of 100-200˚C, which is lower than the claimed temperature
Shiiki (US 4,273,675) – teaches increasing softening point with SO3
Harrison (US 2,247,371) -teaches production of asphalt using oxygen and SO2
Hampton (US 2,115,306) – teaches producing asphaltic material with a mixture of air and sulfur
Tadashi (US 3,718,574) – teaches oxidation with SO3
Wombles (US 4,456,524) -teaches oxidizing to increase softening point using catalysts
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHELLE STEIN whose telephone number is (571)270-1680. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 AM-5:00 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, Prem C Singh can be reached at 571-272-6381. 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.
/MICHELLE STEIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771
Prosecution Insights