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 7/18/2023 has been received and will be entered.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-10, 15-17, 20, 22, and 25 is/are pending.
Claim(s) 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 15, 16, 17, 20, and 22 is/are currently amended.
Claim(s) 4, 11-14, 18-19, 21, 23-24, and 26-30 is/are acknowledged as cancelled.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on:
3/25/2025
8/14/2024
3/26/2024
7/18/2023
are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Untranslated documents have been considered only to the extent the statement of relevance indicates.
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, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 22, and 25 – or as stated below - is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticiapted by Zhang, et al., Studies on the decomposing carbon dioxide into carbon with oxygen-deficient magnetite I. Preparation, characterization of magnetite, and its activity of decomposing carbon dioxide, Material Chemistry and Physics 2000; 62: 44-51 (hereinafter “Zhang I at __”).
With respect to Claim 1, this claim requires “a carbon generation step of causing carbon dioxide to react with a reducing agent to generate carbon.” Zhang teaches causing carbon dioxide to react with a reducing agent. (Zhang I at 45 - 2.3. Decomposition reaction of carbon dioxide and
analysis of the products).
Claim 1 further requires “as the reducing agent, an oxygen-deficient iron oxide represented by Fe3O4-δ (where δ is 1 or more and less than 4), which is obtained by reducing magnetite while maintaining a crystal structure, or an oxygen-completely deficient iron (δ = 4) which is obtained by completely reducing magnetite is used.” Reducing magnetite is taught. (Zhang I at 45 – 2.1 Preparation of magnetite). Oxygen deficient magnetite is taught. (Zhang I at 48 - Table 4, 3.3. Reactivity of decomposition of CO2 with the oxygen deficient magnetite; passim). Stoichiometric magnetite (i.e. where δ = 4, in the equation of the claim) is taught. (Zhang I at 48, col. 1; 49, col. 1; passim). Zhang I teaches a crystal lattice, which is interpreted as addressing the crystal structure language of the claim.
As to Claim 2, magnetite is reduced. (Zhang I at 45 - 2.1. Preparation of magnetite: “Twenty grams of above-mentioned magnetite samples were reduced by H2 at a rate of 40 ml/min at 573 K for different time, so the magnetites with different oxygen-deficient degree were prepared.”).
As to Claim 3, reduction in hydrogen at the claimed temperatures is taught. Id.
As to Claim 6, the particle size is reasonably suggested given the particle size of the magnetite. (Zhang I at 49, Table 5; passim)
As to Claim 7, the temperatures are taught. (Zhang I at 49 - 3.3.3. Relation between reactivity of CO2 decomposition and reaction temperature; Fig. 6-7).
As to Claim 8, the pressures are taught. (Zhang I at 49 - 3.3.4. Correlation of reactivity of CO2 decomposition to δ-value of oxygen deficient degree of Fe3O4-δ).
As to Claim 22, a carbon material is taught. (Zhang I at 48 - 3.3.1. Decomposing activity of CO2 and its relation of particle size of sample and reduction time).
With respect to Claim 25, this claim requires “[a] reducing agent that includes at least one of an oxygen-deficient iron oxide represented by Fe3O4-δ (where δ is 1 or more and less than 4), which is obtained by reducing magnetite while maintaining a crystal structure, and an oxygen-completely deficient iron (δ = 4) which is obtained by completely reducing magnetite.” Zhang I teaches stoichiometric magnetite (i.e. where δ = 4, in the equation of the claim). (Zhang I at 48, col. 1; 49, col. 1; passim).
II. Claim(s) 5 and 20 – or as stated below - is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang, et al., Studies on the decomposing carbon dioxide into carbon with oxygen-deficient magnetite I. Preparation, characterization of magnetite, and its activity of decomposing carbon dioxide, Material Chemistry and Physics 2000; 62: 44-51 (hereinafter “Zhang I at __”).
The discussion accompanying “Rejection I” above is incorporated herein by reference.
As to Claim 5, Zhang I teaches dissolving the magnetite with an acid. (Zhang I at 45, col. 2). To the extent this occurs at a different stage does not impart patentabilty. Separation of the catalyst from the carbon reflects use of known techniques (acid) to achieve predictable results (dissolving the catalyst / magnetite). MPEP 2143; KSR.
As to Claim 20, the magnetite of Zhang I is smaller. (Zhang I at 45, Table 1). Changes in size do not impart patentability. MPEP 2144.04 IV. A.
III. Claim(s) 9-10 – or as stated below - is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang, et al., Studies on the decomposing carbon dioxide into carbon with oxygen-deficient magnetite I. Preparation, characterization of magnetite, and its activity of decomposing carbon dioxide, Material Chemistry and Physics 2000; 62: 44-51 (hereinafter “Zhang I at __”) in view of:
(i) US 2010/0230830 to Farsad, et al.
The discussion accompanying “Rejection I” above is incorporated herein by reference.
As to Claim 9, steel plants are known to have waste streams that contain carbon dioxide. Official notice is taken. Farsad is offered as evidence. (Farsad 14: [0120]: “The nature of the industrial plant may vary, the industrial plants including, but not limited to, power plants, chemical processing plants, mechanical processing plants, refineries, cement plants, steel plants, and other industrial plants that produce CO2 as a by-product of fuel combustion or another processing step (e.g., calcination by a cement plant).”). The combination reflects use of waste CO2 from a known source in a known process that calls for waste CO2 (Zhang I at 44, col. 1) to achieve predictable results, i.e. fixation of carbon / carbon sequestration. This does not impart patentability. MPEP 2143; KSR.
As to Claim 10, the temperatures are taught. (Zhang I at 49 - 3.3.3. Relation between reactivity of CO2 decomposition and reaction temperature; Fig. 6-7). The “using waste heat” language is broad and generic. As noted above, Farsad teaches “fuel combustion,” which would generate heat. Reclaiming heat to use in other processes is obvious to the skilled artisan, with “heat transfer” classes standard in most engineering curriculums. The claim requires no actual step of doing this, but suffice it to say, many types of heat exchangers are old and known. Official notice is taken. Documentary evidence will be supplied if requested.
IV. Claim(s) 15 – or as stated below - is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang, et al., Studies on the decomposing carbon dioxide into carbon with oxygen-deficient magnetite I. Preparation, characterization of magnetite, and its activity of decomposing carbon dioxide, Material Chemistry and Physics 2000; 62: 44-51 (hereinafter “Zhang I at __”) in view of:
(i) US 2010/0230830 to Farsad, et al. and
(ii) Tate, et al., History of Iron and Steel Making Technology in Japan – Mainly on the smelting of iron sand by Tatara, Tetsu-to-Hagane 2005; 91: 2-10 (hereinafter “Tate at __”).
The discussion accompanying “Rejection III” above is incorporated herein by reference.
As to Claim 15, the “is used in” language is broad and generic, and is so construed. Iron sand is common in iron making in Japan. (Tate “Abstract”). Use of iron from known sources of iron is not inventive. It is being a consumer. This does not impart patentability. MPEP 2143.
V. Claim(s) 16 – or as stated below - is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang, et al., Studies on the decomposing carbon dioxide into carbon with oxygen-deficient magnetite I. Preparation, characterization of magnetite, and its activity of decomposing carbon dioxide, Material Chemistry and Physics 2000; 62: 44-51 (hereinafter “Zhang I at __”) in view of:
(i) US 2010/0230830 to Farsad, et al. and
(ii) Dobrescu, et al., Hematite. Processing and Applications, The Annals of “Dunarea De Jos” University of Galati Fascicle IX. Metallurgy and Materials Science 2019; 1: 19-24 (hereinafter “Dobrescu at __”).
The discussion accompanying “Rejection III” above is incorporated herein by reference.
As to Claim 16, hematite is a known raw material for steel making. (Dobrescu at 21 – 3. Applications). Use of known materials consistent with their known uses does not impart patentability. MPEP 2143; KSR.
VI. Claim(s) 17 – or as stated below - is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang, et al., Studies on the decomposing carbon dioxide into carbon with oxygen-deficient magnetite I. Preparation, characterization of magnetite, and its activity of decomposing carbon dioxide, Material Chemistry and Physics 2000; 62: 44-51 (hereinafter “Zhang I at __”) in view of:
(i) US 2010/0230830 to Farsad, et al. and
(ii) Echterhof, Review on the Use of Alternative Carbon Sources in EAF Steelmaking, Metals 2021; 11: 222, pages 2-15 (27 January 2021, hereinafter “Echterhof at __”).
The discussion accompanying “Rejection III” above is incorporated herein by reference.
As to Claim 17, those of skill in the art are using alternative sources of carbon in steel making. (Echterhof, entire reference). Use of the carbon of Zhang I reflects use of known materials (carbon) in known processes (steel making) to achieve predictable results (steel). This does not impart patentability. MPEP 2143; KSR.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Zhang, et al., Studies on the decomposing carbon dioxide into carbon with oxygen-deficient magnetite II. The effects and properties of magnetite on activity of decomposition CO2 and mechanism of the reaction, Material Chemistry and Physics 2000; 62: 52-61 (hereinafter “Zhang II at __”). Zhang II would appear to be the second part of the Zhang article applied above.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL C. MCCRACKEN whose telephone number is (571) 272-6537. The examiner can normally be reached on 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 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