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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 6/11/26 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 2-15, filed 6/11/26, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 2-18 under the final have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of the reference below.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 7, 11, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (CN 101503525) and in view of JP 4046209 and in view of Wang (CN 210419828), EPO translation.
Zhang describes a method for depolymerizing and regeneration of rubber (title). The regeneration is performed using a supercritical CO2 (abstract). Zhang explains that the volcanized rubber is processed to remove the carbon black from the rubber, where it is then treated in a high pressure reaction vessel (page 2, second to last para). The reaction temperature is gradually heated to 150-170 degrees C (page 3, para. 1 and Claim 2).
Zhang describes use of a high pressure reaction kettle, but does not describe applying a pressure of 150-350 bar.
JP ‘209 describes a method of recycling a vulcanized rubber (title). The process is used to regenerate volcanized rubber used with a supercritical CO2 (para. 7). The process can be performed by adding the rubber to supercritical CO2 operated at an elevated temperature of 150-250 degrees C for 80-800 atm (see para. 11).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to increase the pressure of the reaction conditions to a range of 80-800atm, as taught by JP ‘209 for use with the process of recycling vulcanized rubber of Zhang because JP ‘209 explains that treatment of rubber to regenerate the waste using supercritical rubber is effective at a greater pressure range of 80-800atm.
Zhang describes that their method desulfurizes and depolymerizes and regenerates (abstract), but Zhang does not disclose removing polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons.
Wang describes a method for processing carbon black (para. 2) by removing polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons from the composition (para. 6). Wang explains that it is known in the prior art to employ carbon black in rubber (para. 4).
The process feeds the carbon black to a device (para. 16) that combines it with liquid carbon dioxide under high temperatures (para. 17) that removes polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon from the carbon black (para. 17).
Although Zhang does not specifically state that polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon is removed from the carbon black, since Wang states that carbon black is known to contains polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon and it is known to use carbon black in rubber, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the process of Zhang and JP ‘209 removes polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, as taught by Wang because Wang explains that carbon black is known to contain these contaminants and that the use of CO2 at elevated temperature is known to remove those contaminants from carbon black.
As to Claim 4, Zhang teaches that the extractant used is CO2 (see above), but does not describe the inclusion of other composition in their extracting agent. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that about 100% of the extracting agent is CO2.
As to Claim 7, Wang teaches that the CO2 liquid is added with circulating inert gas to the reactor (para. 21), which is used to treat carbon black (para. 28).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the CO2 stream can be considered a “flow”, as required by Claim 7.
As to Claim 11, Wang teaches that the reactor works continuously and that the by-products removed are recycled continuously (para. 39, 19).
Therefore, since the device used operates continuously and the recycling step is operated continuously, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the process is operated continuously.
The other features of this claim are optional.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang, JP ‘209 and Wang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Reck (US Pat.: 4435378).
Wang teaches the presence of PAH in the carbon black, but does not recite the presence of one of the other compounds in Claim 1.
Reck describes features of carbon black prior to treatment (col. 3, lines 36-40). Specifically, Reck describes carbon black that contains furnace black and gas black (col. 3, lines 36-38). After an initial heat treatment at 950 degrees C, the DIN 53552 is shown (col. 4, lines 24-34) to be 6.6 % volatiles (col. 4, lines 55-60). The carbon black is treated to remove contaminants (abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ carbon black with the characteristics described by Reck in the CO2 supercritical treatment of Zhang, JP ‘209 and Wang because Reck explains that these compounds are known to be used in purification treatments for the removal of contaminants.
Although Reck does not state that the DIN is 1977, since this reference is published in 1984, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that it would refer to the latest edition of the standards set.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang, JP ‘209 and Wang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Rumpf (US Pub.: 2013/0231423).
The references do not describe that the PAH content is determined as the PAH22 content.
Rumpf explains that carbon black that contain some PAHs have the potential to cause adverse effects (para. 4). Therefore, the trend to make lower PAH carbon black is desirable (para. 7). In order to determine the PAH levels, Rumpf describes measuring PAH22 levels in their carbon black (para. 16).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine the PAH levels by measuring the PAH22 levels in carbon black, as taught by Rumpf for use with the carbon black purification process of Zhang, JP ‘209 and Wang because this is an effective way to purify carbon black.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang, JP ‘209 and Wang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Alkhalidi (US Pub.:2019/0345307).
The references do not teach that the extracting agent contains one or more auxiliary extraction agent.
Alkhalidi describes a method of recycling rubber using supercritical water (title). The reference explains that the rubber compound contains carbon black (para. 23). The supercritical water used may include a second supercritical compound, which can be CO2 (para. 28). The additional CO2 reactant facilitates the dissociation of rubber material (para. 31) and the use of additional reactants may be used in combination together to improve the reaction (para. 31).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include another supercritical agent, such as water, as taught by Alkahalidi for use with the carbon black treatment process of Zhang, JP ‘209 and Wang explains that combining supercritical CO2 with other reagents improve the reaction in dissociating rubber.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang, JP ‘209 and Wang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Alkhalidi (US Pub.: 2019/0345307) and in view of McCarthy (US Pub.: 2019/0071607).
Zhang teaches that the operating temperature is 150-170 degrees C (see above). JP ‘209 teaches that the temperature is from 150-250 degrees C for 80-800 atm (see para. 11).
The references do not specifically teach how long the extraction step is performed for.
McCarthy describes a method for recycling tires (title) using supercritical reactants (para. 8). The tires include carbon black (para. 14, 21, 22). The reference shows in Fig. 2, which they explain in para. 41 that a pressure curve may be used to cause the supercritical reactants to alternately enter the tire material into a supercritical state where it breaks chemical bonds and later breaks up tire material through explosive forces (para. 41).
As to the time, McCarthy shows that these pressure curves are performed at timed intervals, which include one pressure cycle being about 30 mins (see Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to operate the reaction of Alkhalidi for about 30 minutes, as taught by McCarthy for use with the process of recycling Zhang, JP ‘209 and Wang because reacting the compounds for this amount of time fulfills a pressure cycle that are effective to breaks chemical bonds and later breaks up tire material through explosive forces.
Claim(s) 8, 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang, JP ‘209 and Wang as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Kwon et al. “Utilizing CO2 as a reaction Medium to Mitigate Production of PAH from the thermal decomposition of Styrene Butadiene Rubber”, attached.
The references disclose the removal of PAH using supercritical CO2, but they do not disclose how much PAH is removed from carbon black.
Kwon describes use of CO2 as a reaction medium for the removal of PAH from rubber (title). Kwon explains that the use of CO2 reduces the PAH by about 50% at higher temperatures (see last para on page 10756). Various analysis shows that different temperatures can be used to remove specific PAH compounds (see Fig. 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to remove at least 50% of PAH from rubber, as taught by Kwon for use with the process of Zhang, JP ‘209 and Wang because use of CO2 at elevated temperatures is known to effectively remove PAH from rubber.
Although Kwon does not specifically state that the PAH is PAH22, but since the PAH described by Kwon are various and Kwon lists these chemicals (see abstract, chemicals listed in the top right corner), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the PAH in Kwon includes all PAHs and equate to PAH22.
As to Claim 9, Kwon teaches that that the different PAH chemicals are removed at different elevated temperature ranges (see Fig. 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7). Generally, the PAH in general, is removed at about 50% under a CO2 atmosphere (abstract). Although Kwon does not specifically state that the PAH is PAH22, but since the PAH described by Kwon are various and Kwon lists these chemicals (see abstract, chemicals listed in the top right corner), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the PAH in Kwon includes all PAHs and equate to PAH22.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang, JP ‘209 and Wang I as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wang (CN 111574858) and in view of Kwon et al. “Utilizing CO2 as a Reaction Medium to Mitigate Production of PAH from the Thermal Decomposition of Styrene Butadiene Rubber”.
Wang I teaches separating PAH from the extracting agent by cooling (see the rejection to Claim 1).
Wang II describes a method of removing contaminants from carbon black (title). The reference explains that prior to processing carbon black, the material is first dried in order to reduce the water content to less than 30% (see page 2, step A, Drying). The carbon black is then treated in a furnace with a weak oxidant (see page 2, step B). The weak oxidant can include CO2 (see page 3, lines 7-9).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to dry the carbon black, as taught by Wang II prior to the process of separation, as taught by Wang I for use with the process of purifying carbon black in Zhang, JP ‘209 and Wang I because removing water prior to treatment is known to predictably remove PAH from the carbon black material.
As to the detecting feature, Kwon teaches Kwon describes use of CO2 as a reaction medium for the removal of PAH from rubber (title). Kwon explains that the use of CO2 reduces the PAH by about 50% at higher temperatures (abstract). Various analysis shows that different temperatures can be used to remove specific PAH compounds (see Fig. 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to analyze the PAH removed, as taught by Kwon for use with Zhang, JP ‘209 and Wang I in order to determine and adjust the types of PAH removed in the carbon black based on the preferences of the user.
Although Kwon does not specifically state that the PAH is PAH22, but since the PAH described by Kwon are various and Kwon lists these chemicals (see abstract, chemicals listed in the top right corner), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the PAH in Kwon includes all PAHs and equate to PAH22.
Claim(s) 12, 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang, JP ‘209 and Wang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Huang (CN 106189379) and in view of Rumpf (US Pub.: 2013/0231423) and in view of Kwon et al. “Utilizing CO2 as a reaction Medium to Mitigate Production of PAH from the thermal decomposition of Styrene Butadiene Rubber”.
Wang describes a method of removing polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons from a carbon black source using CO2 (para. 11), but Wang does not state that some of this PAH include nitro-PAH8 or that the amount of removal is less than 200ppm.
Huang describes a method for removing PAHs from carbon black (title). Huang explains that polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) can includes PAHs with nitrogen in their compound (page 2, para. 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that PAHs of Zhang, JP ‘209 and Wang I ainclude nitro-PAHs because Huang explains that PAHs include those with nitrogen-containing compounds.
As to PAH8, Rumpf describes the presence of PAHs in carbon lack (para. 3). The reference explains that PAH can be defined as PAH22 (para. 43), but can also be used to describe the PAH8 content (para. 56).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the term PAH is known to be inclusive of nitrogen-modified PAHs as well as PAH8, as taught by Zhang, JP ‘209 and Wang I ain the process of Wang.
As to the concentration of the PAHs, Kwon describes use of CO2 as a reaction medium for the removal of PAH from rubber (title). Kwon explains that the use of CO2 reduces the PAH by about 50% at higher temperatures (last para). Various analysis shows that different temperatures can be used to remove specific PAH compounds (see Fig. 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7). Kwon explains that the concentration profiles of contaminants vary at different bond dissociation energies (page 10755, left col, lines 1-5).
The reference shows that in some embodiments, various PAHs fall below 200 ppmv (see Fig. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7) based on the temperature of the process.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have determined the optimum values of the relevant process parameters through routine experimentation in the absence of a showing of criticality. In re Aller, USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have determined the optimum value of a cause effective variable such as the reduction of each PAH species through routine experimentation in the absence of a showing of criticality. In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to reduce the PAH by adjusting the temperature of removal, as taught by Kwon for use with the process of Zhang, JP ‘209 and Wang I abecause Kwon explains that PAH removal can be adjustable by altering the temperature of carbon black treatment.
As to Claim 13, the references disclose the removal of PAH using supercritical CO2, but they do not disclose how much PAH is left in the carbon black.
Kwon describes use of CO2 as a reaction medium for the removal of PAH from rubber (title). Kwon explains that the use of CO2 reduces the PAH by about 50% at higher temperatures (last para). Various analysis shows that different temperatures can be used to remove specific PAH compounds (see Fig. 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7). Kwon explains that the concentration profiles of contaminants vary at different bond dissociation energies (page 10755, left col, lines 1-5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have determined the optimum values of the relevant process parameters through routine experimentation in the absence of a showing of criticality. In re Aller, USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have determined the optimum value of a cause effective variable such as the reduction of each PAH species through routine experimentation in the absence of a showing of criticality. In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to reduce the PAH by adjusting the temperature of removal, as taught by Kwon for use with the process of Zhang, JP ‘209 and Wang I abecause Kwon explains that PAH removal can be adjustable by altering the temperature of carbon black treatment.
Although Kwon does not specifically state that the PAH is PAH22, but since the PAH described by Kwon are various and Kwon lists these chemicals (see abstract, chemicals listed in the top right corner), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the PAH in Kwon includes all PAHs and equate to PAH22.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang, JP ‘209 and Wang, Rumpf and Kwon as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Riebel (US Pat.: 8003069).
The references explain that carbon black is produced, but they do not describe further mixing and processing the carbon black for other uses.
Riebel describes a method of making carbon back (title). The reference explains that after formation, the carbon back can be used as a filler, reinforcing filler or as pigment (col. 5, lines 25-27).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the purified carbon black as a filler, reinforced filler or as a pigment, as taught by Riebel for use with the carbon black purification method of Zhang, JP ‘209 and Wang, Rumpf and Kwon because Riebel explains that carbon blacks are known for use in these purposes.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang, JP ‘209 and Wang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Reck (US Pat.: 4435378).
The reference does not teach an initial PAH22 content of 10ppm or more or a nitro-PAH8 content of 1ppm or more.
Reck describes features of carbon black prior to treatment (col. 3, lines 36-40). In analysis, Reck describes the presence of volatiles can be about 7.4wt% (see col. 5, lines 40-45).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to treat a carbon black that has a volatile content of 7.4wt%, as taught by Reck for use with the carbon black of Zhang, JP ‘209 and Wang because these are known to be treated to remove pollutants from the carbon black.
As to the waste being in the form of PAH22, although Reck does not specifically state that the PAH is in the form of PAH22, but since the contaminants described is in the form of volatiles, which is a broader category of contaminants, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that PAH22 is within the category of volatiles described by Reck.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang, JP ‘209 and Wang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of McCarthy (US Pub.: 20190071607).
The reference does not disclose that the process of extracting contaminants includes reducing the pressure and then recycling the extracting agent for reuse.
McCarthy describes a method of recycling tires (title) that contains carbon black (para. 14). The process employs a supercritical stream (abstract) under heat to break down the waste product (para. 24).
After breakdown, rapid depressurizing the reactants causes more physical destruction and recycling these compounds are effective in these process (para. 24).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to rapidly depressurize the reactants and then recycling the reactants, as taught by McCarthy for use with the process of reducing waste carbon black in Zhang, JP ‘209 and Wang because these are known to cause more physical destruction of the waste and makes the process of breaking down the waste more effective.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang, JP ‘209 and Wang as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Gao (CN 107522898).
The references do not disclose the average flow rate of the extraction agent per unit of carbon black.
Gao describes a method for recycling rubber material (title) waste (abstract). The process involves feeding rubber wastes in a supercritical reactor where supercritical CO2 is fed into the reactor at a flow rate of 10-30 L/min (“Invention Content”, para. 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to operate the supercritical CO2 at a rate of 10-30 L/min, as taught by Gao for use with the process of Zhang, JP ‘209 and Wang because feeding supercritical CO2 at this rate is known to produce expected and predictable results.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHENG HAN DAVIS whose telephone number is (571)270-5823. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5:30.
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, Fung Coris can be reached at 571-270-5713. 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.
/SHENG H DAVIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1732 August 19, 2026
Prosecution Insights