DETAILED ACTION Citation to the Specification will be in the following format: (S. # : ¶/L) where # denotes the page number and ¶/L denotes the paragraph number or line number. Citation to patent literature will be in the form (Inventor # : LL) where # is the column number and LL is the line number. Citation to the pre-grant publication literature will be in the following format (Inventor # : ¶) where # denotes the page number and ¶ denotes the paragraph number. 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. Status of Application The preliminary amendment dated 5/24/2023 has been received and will be entered. Claim(s) 1-18 is/are pending. Claim(s) 4 is/are currently amended. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on: 11/5/2025 11/12/2024 10/31/2023 5/24/2023 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. 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. I. Claim 14 – or as stated below – is/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. Claim 14 recites “ranging from or 0.6 to 0.7” (emphasis added). This language is unclear and suggests another alternative was intended in the claim. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § § 102 -103 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. 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. I. Claim(s) 1 , 9, 10, 13, and 15 – or as stated below - is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shen, et al., Synthesis of Ni and Ni-Cu supported on carbon nanotubes for hydrogen and carbon production by catalytic decomposition , Applied Catalysis B: Environmental 2015; 164: 61-69 (hereinafter “Shen at __”). Citation is for the convenience of the reader, assumed to be of skill in the art. The rejection should be understood as being over the entire reference, and not just those portions called out in the rejection below. With respect to Claim 1 , this claim requires “ contacting a methane composition with a catalyst system at a reaction temperature ranging from 500 ° C to 700 ° C to produce H 2 and a carbon co-product .” Reaction of methane with a catalyst system to product hydrogen and a carbon product is taught. (Shen at 62 – 2.3. Characterization of catalysts, et seq ., 63, col. 2: “ Fig. 3 shows the carbon yield rates and hydrogen formation rates of the catalysts as a function of temperature. ,” and Shen at 64, Fig. 3). Claim 1 further requires “ the catalyst system comprises ( i ) a Ni- Cu alloy catalyst comprising Ni and Cu .” Ni-Cu catalyst systems are taught. (Shen at 62 – 2.2 Sample preparation; Fig. 3; Table 2; Fig. 7; entire reference ) Claim 1 further requires ““[ the catalyst system comprises …] (ii) a support, wherein the Ni and Cu are present at a Ni:Cu mass ratio ranging from greater than zero to 4.5. ” The ratios are tau ght. See e.g. (Shen at 63, Table 1). Note 50:50 Ni:Cu is a 1:1 ratio, etc. As to Claim 9 , the temperatures and conversion rates are taught. (Shen at 64, Fig. 6). The times are taught. (Shen at 64, Fig. 5). As to Claim 10 , the temperatures and conversion rates are taught. (Shen at 64, Fig. 6). The times are taught. (Shen at 64, Fig. 5). As to Claim 13 , the ratios are taught. (Shen at 63, Table 1). As to Claim 15 , the ratios are taught. (Shen at 63, Table 1). The temperatures are taught. (Shen at 64, Fig. 6; passim ). II. Claim(s) 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, and 14 – or as stated below - is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shen, et al., Synthesis of Ni and Ni-Cu supported on carbon nanotubes for hydrogen and carbon production by catalytic decomposition , Applied Catalysis B: Environmental 2015; 164: 61-69 (hereinafter “Shen at __”). The discussion accompanying “Rejection I” above is incorporated herein by reference. As to Claim 2 , other claims (Claim 4) require use of the carbon co-product as the support of the catalyst. Shen doesn’t explicitly recite separating the catalyst from the carbon product produced. Shen does teach separating catalyst from the carbon products used as catalysts supports. (Shen at 62 – 2.1 Purification of multiwalled carbon nanotubes). Use of the carbon products produced by the process of Shen is an obvious expedient. Any number of motivations are present, for example economic / saving money on catalyst supports by making your own. Removing the catalyst from the carbon product would be viewed as obvious, as Shen carries this out in the context of commercially produced nanotube. Id . As to Claim 3 , contacting with an acid solution and separating is taught. (Shen at 62 – 2.1 Purification of multiwalled carbon nanotubes). As to Claim 4 , Shen teaches using carbon products as a catalyst support. Id . As to Claim 5 , the support is treated with an acid prior to depositing the Ni and Cu on it. Id . As to Claim 6 , the temperatures are taught. The Office does not have the capability to carry out Raman spectroscopy on the products of Shen. However as the gas (methane) temperatures and catalyst compositions are all taught, it is expected that the Id/Ig ratios, etc. are necessarily present. This is the rationale to show inherency. "[T]he PTO can require an applicant to prove that the prior art products do not necessarily or inherently possess the characteristics of his [or her] claimed product. Whether the rejection is based on ‘inherency’ under 35 U.S.C. 102, on ‘prima facie obviousness’ under 35 U.S.C. 103, jointly or alternatively, the burden of proof is the same." In re Best , 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433-34 (CCPA 1977) (footnote and citation omitted). The burden of proof is similar to that required with respect to product-by-process claims. In re Fitzgerald , 619 F.2d 67, 70, 205 USPQ 594, 596 (CCPA 1980) (citing Best, 562 F.2d at 1255). As to Claim 7 , temperatures are taught. (Shen at 64, Fig. 6). Hydrogen production rates are taught. Id . Shen would appear to teach a higher methane content. (Shen at 64, Fig. 3 and Fig. 5 caption). Shen teaches that carbon is deposited through the adsorption-diffusion-precipitation mechanism . (Shen at 64, col. 2). Shen teaches that “a balance between the dissociation rate and diffusion rate has to be achieved to maintain continuous growth of CNFs.” Changing the methane content is an obvious expedient to balance the diffusion and dissociation rates. As to Claim 8 , temperatures are taught. (Shen at 64, Fig. 6). Carbon yield is taught. (Shen at 65, Table 2). With the reported times (Shen at 65, Fig. 7), Shen appears to teach a higher conversion rate. Any difference is obvious , the result of optimization (or lack thereof) as taught by Shen. (Shen at 65, col. 2: “ It should be noted that the carbon yield of the catalyst can be further enhanced by optimization of the reaction process. ”). Optimization does not impart patentability. MPEP 2144.05. As to Claim 11 , Shen appears to teach larger particles sizes. (Shen at 63, Table 1). However, Shen teaches a variety of Ni:Cu ratios and its affect on particle size. Id . Stated differently, the Ni:Cu ratio is a result-effective variable, optimization of which does not impart patentability. MPEP 2144.05. As to Claim 12 , the change in size is reasonably suggested. Compare (Shen at 63, Table 1) (particle sizes) with (Shen Fig. 1, Figs. 8-10) (particles after growth). As to Claim 14 , Shen teaches a variety of Ni:Cu ratios and its affect on particle size. (Shen at 63, Table 1). Stated differently, the Ni:Cu ratio is a result-effective variable, optimization of which does not impart patentability. MPEP 2144.05. With respect to Claim 16 , this claim requires “ contacting a methane composition with a catalyst system at a reaction temperature ranging from 600 ° C to 650 ° C to produce H2 and a carbon nanotube .” The temperatures are taught. (Shen at 64, Fig. 6). Hydrogen and nano fibers are produced. (Shen at 61, Abstract; passim ). Note that “nanotube” as claimed is being interpreted broadly. The Specification would appear to refer to bamboo morphology nanofibers as nanotubes. See (S. 26: [0241]: “ bamboo-shaped CNT was the main morphology observed ”). Claim 16 further requires “ the catalyst system comprises ( i ) a Ni- Cu alloy catalyst comprising Ni and Cu .” Ni and Cu are taught. (Shen at 62 – 2.2. Sample preparation, et seq .). Claim 16 further requires “[ the catalyst system comprises …” (ii) a carbonaceous support .” Carbonaceous supports are taught. (Shen at 62 – 2.1 Purification of multiwalled carbon nanotubes). Claim 16 further requires “ wherein the Ni and Cu are present at a Ni:Cu mass ratio ranging from 0.6 to 0.7. ” Shen teaches a variety of Ni:Cu ratios and its affect on particle size. (Shen at 63, Table 1). Stated differently, the Ni:Cu ratio is a result-effective variable, optimization of which does not impart patentability. MPEP 2144.05. Allowable Subject Matter I. Claims 17-18 are allowed. Shen has been discussed above, and is relevant for depositing copper and nickel on nanotube supports. Baca, et al., Synthesis of Ni-Cu Catalysts by Impregnation to Obtain Carbon Nanofibers by Catalytic Decomposition of Methane , Rev Soc Quim Peru 2018; 84(1): 91-106 (cited by Applicants, hereinafter “Baca at __”) is noted. Baca teaches sequential deposition of metals, and provides a motivation to do so. (Baca at 93 – Experimental Details) (“In order to have a better control of the Cu and Ni depositions, the impregnations were done sequentially.”). Neither Shen nor Baca taught or reasonably suggested the heating protocol as claimed in Claim 17. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT DANIEL C. MCCRACKEN whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571) 272-6537 . The examiner can normally be reached on FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday-Friday (9-6) . 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, Anthony J. Zimmer can be reached on FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-270-3591 . The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair . Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /DANIEL C. MCCRACKEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1736