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
Claims 9-11 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected claim group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on July 6, 2026.
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-8 and 12-13 in the reply filed on July 6, 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.
Claims 1-8 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.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 1 recites the broad recitation "above 600°C", and the claim also recites "more preferably above 1100°C" which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 1 recites the broad recitation ", and the claim also recites "more preferably which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 2 recites the broad recitation "above 600, and the claim also recites "more preferably above 1100 which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 2 recites the broad recitation ", and the claim also recites "more preferably which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 6 recites the broad recitation "less than 5 seconds", and the claim also recites "preferably 10-500 milliseconds" which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1- 8 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Raalten (WO 2018002137 A1) in view of Volger et al. (US6056933).
Regarding claims 1 and 12, Van Raalten teaches a process of crystalline carbon nanofiber synthesis which involves reactor comprised of a reaction zone where a microemulsion containing oil and a metal catalyst nanoparticles is heated to a temperature between 600°C to 2000°C (Van Raalten[pg. 5 L1-24]) . The prior art also notes that there is a termination zone where quenching occurs using water to stop the formation of the crystalline nanofiber (Van Raalten[pg. 5 L34-35])
Therefore, the prior art meets the limitations set in the instant claims requiring the production of crystalline carbon nanofiber networks to come from the use of an emulsion contain oil, carbonizing in emulsion in a reactor, which contains a reaction zone, and a termination zone, by injecting a single-phase emulsion, being a micro-emulsion comprising pyrolysis oil and metal catalyst nanoparticles according to the invention into the reaction zone, which is at a temperature of above 600 °C and up to 2000 °C, to produce crystalline carbon nanofiber networks, transferring these networks e to the termination zone, and quenching or stopping the formation of crystalline carbon nanofiber networks in the termination zone by spraying in water.
Raalten teaches using carbon black feedstock oils with a BMC index (BMCI) of more than 120, but does not specifically teach pyrolysis oil as claimed.
However, pyrolysis oil was a known carbon black feedstock feedstock oil before the time of filing. Volger teaches carbon black production using carbon black oils (carbon black feedstock oils) including pyrolysis oil with a BMC index of over 130. See column 8, lines 43-51. Given the suggestion in Raalten to use carbon black feedstock oils with a BMC index over 120 and the teaching in Volger that pyrolysis oils is a carbon black feedstock with a BMC index over 130, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use they pyrolysis oil taught by Volger in the process of Raalten in order to predictably produce carbon black.
Regarding claims 2 and 13, Van Raalten teaches the use of a furnace carbon black apparatus which contains, along the axis of the reactor, a combustion zone, a reaction zone, and a termination zone, where hot waste gas in the combustion zone by burning a fuel a in an oxygen-containing gas goes into the reaction zone, spraying (atomizing) a single-phase emulsion in the reaction zone containing the hot waste gas, carbonizing said emulsion at increased temperature, and quenching or stopping the reaction in the termination zone by spraying in water, to obtain crystalline carbon structure networks (Van Raalten[pg.4 L27-35]). This disclosure meets the limitations set in the instant claim requiring the use of a carbon black manufacturing process where a combustion zone, a reaction zone, and a termination zone are places along the axis of the reactor, where hot waste gas in the combustion zone by burning a fuel a in an oxygen-containing gas goes into the reaction zone, spraying (atomizing) a single-phase emulsion in the reaction zone containing the hot waste gas, carbonizing said emulsion at increased temperature, and quenching or stopping the reaction in the termination zone by spraying in water, to obtain crystalline carbon structure networks.
Regarding claim 3, Van Raalten discloses that the emulsion has a carbon content of at least 50 wt.% (Van Raalten [pg.8 L9-11]), sulfur content below 2 wt.%(Van Raalten [pg.8 L36-37]), and a water content below 50 wt.% (Van Raalten [pg.9 L25-32]). Using the water content of the emulsion, the oxygen content can be calculated as oxygen is 88% the total mass of water, meaning that the oxygen content of the emulsion is 44%. This disclosure meets the limitations set in the instant claim requiring the emulsion to have a carbon content greater than 40 wt.%, a water content up to 50 wt.%, a sulfur content of 4 wt.%, and an oxygen content less than 50 wt.%.
Regarding claim 4, Van Raalten discloses the use of an emulsion comprising of 1mM metal catalyst nanoparticles with an average size between 1 to 100nm (Van Raalten[pg.6 L1-5]). This disclosure meets the limitations set in the instant claim requiring the emulsion to contain of 1mM of metal catalyst nanoparticles with an average size between 1 to 100nm.
Regarding claim 5, Van Raalten discloses the composition of a carbon feedstock, also called the emulsion, should include more than 50 wt.% oil content to allow for stability (Van Raalten[pg.10 L1-5]). Therefore, the prior art meets the limitations set in the instant claim requiring the carbon feedstock to contain more than 50 wt.% pyrolysis oil.
Regarding claim 6, Van Raalten discloses the residence time of an emulsion in the reactor as being between 10 to 100 milliseconds (Van Raalten[pg.8 L6-7]). This disclosure meets the limitations set in the instant claim requiring the residence time of the pyrolysis oil to be between 10-500 milliseconds.
Regarding claim 7, Van Raalten discloses the sulfur content of the emulsion supplied to the reactor to be below 2 wt.% (Van Raalten [pg.8 L36-37]) overlapping with the limitation set in the instant claim requiring the pyrolysis oil to contain between 0.5 to 4.0 wt. % of sulfur. The overlap between the range in the prior art and the range required by the instant claim forms a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 8, Van Raalten discloses the water content of the emulsion as up 50 wt.% (Van Raalten [pg.9 L25-32]), the oxygen content can be calculated from this. Since oxygen makes up is 88% the total mass of water the oxygen content of the emulsion is 44%. Therefore, the prior art meets the limitations set in the instant claim requiring the pyrolysis oil to contain between 10 to 50 wt. % of oxygen.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANNETTE H PHAN whose telephone number is (703)756-4520. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-6:30 EST.
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 Zimmer can be reached at 5712703591. 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.
/ANNETTE PHAN/Examiner, Art Unit 1736
/ANTHONY J ZIMMER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1736
Prosecution Insights