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 .
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.
Status of Application
Claims 1-11 are pending and presented for examination. Claims 8-11 were elected with traverse in the response dated 9 January 2026. As such claims 1-7 are withdrawn by the Examiner as they are non-elected.
The traversal is that “examining the relevant inventions does not appear to impose a severe burden on the Examiner. Specifically, examination of claims 8-11 necessarily results in examination of claims 1-7”. This is not persuasive as a proper lack of unity has been proven as Applicants did not traverse over such. Furthermore, as noted there is no requirement in claim 8 that a first or second port be present and, if anything, they can be injected from the same port and there is nothing specifically tying the reactor to being applicable to just fullerene production which further presents that there would be a search burden. Lastly, the method of claim 8 is not “performed using the fullerene manufacturing apparatus of Group I”. As such, THIS RESTRICTION REQUIREMENT IS MADE FINAL.
Applicants are also requested to ensure the claims are in proper form for US practice (i.e., removal of “characterized by”, etc.).
Priority
Acknowledgement is made of applicant's request for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. §119(a)-(d). Certified copies of the priority documents have been received.
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.
Claims 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kume (cited in the Restriction Requirement) in view of US PG Pub No. 20050232846 to Noguchi et al. (hereinafter, “Noguchi at __”) and US PG Pub No. 20060140845 to Takehara.
Regarding claim 8, Kume discloses a method for producing fullerenes by including a step of generating fullerenes in a reacting furnace through incomplete combustion of a material gas containing a hydrocarbon (Kume at [0014] & [0017]) wherein the step of generating fullerenes the raw material gas and a first oxygen-containing gas (waste oil which is injected and heated to produce the gas) and an oxygen-containing gas is injected (pure oxygen, Kume at [0013]) to form a first combustion flame for incomplete combustion (Kume at [0011]),
An auxiliary gas containing a hydrocarbon that is the same as or different from the raw material gas (again waste oil which is turned into a gas) which is mixed with a second oxygen-containing gas which is then also combusted to form a second combustion flame having complete combustion to heat the reactor (Kume at [0012] & “Fig. 1”).
However, Kume does not disclose usage of a first ratio of a hydrocarbon gas per se nor a ratio of the carbon atoms in the raw material vs oxygen atoms between 0.6 and 2 and a ratio of the number of atoms in the carbon auxiliary gas vs the oxygen containing second gas is between 0.3 and the first ratio.
Noguchi in a method of forming fullerenes (Noguchi at “Abstract”) discloses usage of a raw material gas of toluene (C7H8) and a C/O atomic ratio of 7:6 (1.167 from 1 mol of C7 to 3 mols of O2, Noguchi at [0299]) which results in in complete combustion).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention to perform the method of Kume in view of the gas and ratio of Noguchi. The teaching or suggested motivation in doing so being avoid production of too much carbon dioxide versus fullerenes (Noguchi at [0055]).
Takehara discloses a method of making fullerenes comprising toluene and pure oxygen (Takehara at [0080]) for complete combustion having a ratio of 1.08-1.23:1 which lies between 0.3 and 1.167 as it overlaps the range which is prima facie obvious (see MPEP 2144.05).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention to perform the method of Kume in view of the gas and ratios of Takehara for complete combustion. The teaching or suggested motivation in doing so being reduction in soot production (Takehara at [0084]).
Given these combinations the ratio for A1 would be 1.08-1.23 and that of A2 would be 1.16 such that the value for A2 overlaps as 1.16 is between 1.08 and 1.23 (so 1.08<x<=1.16) and greater than 0.3 such that a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05).
As to claim 9, the temperature is 1600-1900 C (Takehara at [0089]).
With respect to claims 10 and 11, the pressure is a vacuum at 5.32 kPa (Noguchi at [0299]).
Claims 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN102757032 to Yu (citations to the attached English machine translation) in view of Noguchi and Takehara.
Regarding claim 8, Yu discloses a method of generating fullerenes (Yu at “Abstract”) by including a step of generating fullerenes in a reacting furnace through incomplete combustion of a raw material gas containing a hydrocarbon (Yu at “Fig. 1” & 5) wherein the step of generating fullerenes has the raw material gas (toluene, Yu at 6) and an oxygen-containing gas (pure oxygen, Id.) which is injected and partially combusted (Yu at 2, in the first reaction chamber) and an auxiliary gas containing a hydrocarbon and pure oxygen (Yu at 3) which is fully combusted to produce a flame and heat the reactor (Yu at 5).
However, Yu does not disclose usage of a first ratio of a hydrocarbon gas per se nor a ratio of the carbon atoms in the raw material vs oxygen atoms between 0.6 and 2 and a ratio of the number of atoms in the carbon auxiliary gas vs the oxygen containing second gas is between 0.3 and the first ratio.
Noguchi in a method of forming fullerenes (Noguchi at “Abstract”) discloses usage of a raw material gas of toluene and a C/O atomic ratio of 7:6 (1 mol of C7 to 3 mols of O2, Noguchi at [0299]) which results in in complete combustion in the second reaction chamber which then heats the third).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention to perform the method of Yu in view of the gas and ratio of Noguchi. The teaching or suggested motivation in doing so being avoid production of too much carbon dioxide versus fullerenes (Noguchi at [0055]).
Takehara discloses a method of making fullerenes comprising toluene and pure oxygen (Takehara at [0080]) for complete combustion having a ratio of 1.08-1.23.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention to perform the method of Yu in view of the gas and ratios of Takehara for complete combustion. The teaching or suggested motivation in doing so being reduction in soot production (Takehara at [0084]).
Given these combinations the ratio for A1 would be 1.08-1.23 and that of A2 would be 1.16 such that the value for A2 overlaps as 1.16 is between 1.08 and 1.23 (so 1.08<x<=1.16) and greater than 0.3 such that a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05).
Concerning claim 9, the temperature is 1400-1800 C (Yu at 2).
With respect to claims 10 and 11, a vacuum is applied such that the pressure is 20-80 mmHg (2.66-10.66 kPa, Id.).
Conclusion
Claims 8-11 are rejected.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICHARD M RUMP whose telephone number is (571)270-5848. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 06:45 AM to 04:45 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, Duane Smith can be reached at 571-272-1166. 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.
RICHARD M. RUMP
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1759
/RICHARD M RUMP/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759