DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-10 were subject to restriction requirement mailed on 05/07/2026.
Applicant filed a response, and elected Group II, claims 6-9, and withdrew claims 1-5 and 10, without traverse on 07/07/2026.
Claims 1-10 are pending, and claims 1-5 and 10 are withdrawn.
Claims 6-9 are rejected.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 6-9 in the reply filed on 07/07/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-5 and 10 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Groups, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 07/07/2026.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 6, line 7, recites a phrase “carbon black having high crystallinity”. The examiner interprets that the phrase refers to carbon black with any crystallinity that meets claim 1.
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 applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 8 is 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 8, line 4, recites a phrase “high-temperature combustion gas”. However, it is unclear what is considered “high-temperature”. The examiner interprets that the phrase refers to combustion gas of any temperature. Interpretation is speculative. Clarification is requested.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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) 6-7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bonacchi et al., WO 2019/016322A1 (Bonacchi) (provided in IDS received on 01/10/2025) in view of Ullmann’s Encyclopedia of Industrial Chemistry, 6.4.1 Furnace Black Process, 1988 (Ullmann) (provided in Third-Party Submission received on 03/02/2026).
Regarding claims 6-7, Bonacchi teaches carbon black materials provided include carbon black particles characterized by a crystallite size Lc of about 3.5 nm to about 7.5 nm, or about 4.5 nm to 6.5 nm, wherein the material is further characterized by either an oil absorption (OAN) in the range of about 100 ml/100g to 250 ml/100 g, or of about 150 ml/100g to 220 ml/100 g; or a BET SSA of about 40 to 75 m2/g, or of about 50 to 65 m2/g (Bonacchi, [0016]);
an exemplary method for producing such carbon black materials as described herein comprises subjecting a carbon black starting material in particulate form to a temperature of between 1600°C and 3500°C in the absence of reactive gases (Bonacchi, [0018]);
in some embodiments of this aspect, the carbon black starting material used in this process may be characterized by
i) a crystallographic Lc value of about 1 to about 3 nm; and/or
ii) an oil absorption number (OAN) of less than about 200 ml/100g, or of less than about 150 ml / 100g, or of less than about 100 ml/100g; and/or
iii) a BET SSA of less than about 70 m2/g, or a BET SSA of less than about 50 m2/g, a BET SSA of less than about 30 m2/g, or a BET SSA of less than about 20 m2/g (Bonacchi, [0059]), which overlap the ranges of the presently claims.
As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Further regarding claim 6, Bonacchi does not explicitly disclose the carbon black starting material is furnace black.
With respect to the difference, Ullmann teaches furnace black process (i.e., to produce furnace carbon black or furnace black) (Ullmann, page 1, 1st paragraph).
As Ullmann expressly teaches, furnace black process meets the high economic and ecological requirements of our times (Ullmann, page 1, 1st paragraph).
Ullmann is analogous art as Ullmann is drawn to furnace black process
In light of the motivation of using furnace black process to produce carbon black, as taught by Ullmann, it therefore would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use furnace black process to produce the carbon black starting material of Bonacchi, i.e., finance black as the carbon black starting material of Bonacchi, in order to use a carbon black starting material that meets the high economic and ecological requirements of our times, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bonacchi in view of Ullman as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Gravley et al., US 4,822,588 (Gravley) (provided in IDS received on 09/05/2025).
Regarding claim 8, as applied to claim 6, Bonacchi in view of Ullman does not explicitly disclose wherein the furnace black in the (a) is prepared using a carbon black preparation apparatus, wherein the carbon black preparation apparatus includes:(i) at least one supply unit having an air supply and a fuel supply; (ii) a reactor into which high-temperature combustion gas introduced via the supply unit flows; (iii) a throat extending from the reactor and having a smaller diameter than a diameter of the reactor; (iv) a neck extending from the throat and having a larger diameter than a diameter of the throat; and (v) a casing extending from the neck and having a diameter larger than a diameter of the neck, wherein the carbon black preparation apparatus satisfies following conditions (1) and (2): - condition (1): [(neck length L)/(neck diameter D)]> 3 - condition (2): [(throat diameter D')/(neck diameter D)] <0.6
With respect to the difference, Gravley teaches a carbon black reactor (Gravley, Abstract). Gravley specifically teaches the reactor in Figure 2 (also shown below); the reaction zone (reading upon a reactor) has a cross sectional dimension in the range of 1.2 to 3 throat diameters (reading upon a throat extending from the reactor and having a smaller diameter of the throat;) (corresponding to [(throat diameter D’//(neck diameter D)] of 1/3 to 1/1.2=0.3 to 0.8); the reaction zone has a length in the range of from 2 to 6 throat diameter (corresponding to [(neck length L)/(neck diameter D)] of 2 to 6) (Gravley, column 1, bottom paragraph).
PNG
media_image1.png
845
436
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 2 of Gravley
As Gravley expressly teaches, the carbon reactor provides high yields of carbon black product and provides a carbon black reactor and process which operates in a stable manner and provides low grits levels in the final product (Gravley, column 1, lines 40-47).
Gravley is analogous art as Gravley is drawn to a carbon black reactor.
In light of the motivation of using the carbon reactor to produce carbon black, as taught by Gravley, it therefore would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use the reactor of Gravley, to produce the furnace black of Bonacchi in view of Ullman, wherein the reaction zone (reading upon a reactor) has a cross sectional dimension in the range of 1.2 to 3 throat diameters (reading upon a throat extending from the reactor and having a smaller diameter of the throat;) (corresponding to [(throat diameter D’//(neck diameter D)] of 1/3 to 1/1.2=0.3 to 0.8); the reaction zone has a length in the range of from 2 to 6 throat diameter (corresponding to [(neck length L)/(neck diameter D)] of 2 to 6) (Gravley, column 1, bottom paragraph), which overlap the ranges of the presently claimed, in order to provides high yields of carbon black product and provides a carbon black reactor and process which operates in a stable manner and provides low grits levels in the final product.
As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Further regarding claim 8, as applied to claim 6, Bonacchi in view of Ullman and Gravley teaches the reactor has at least two oil injectors (reading upon a fuel supply) (Gravley, column 3, 2nd paragraph); hot combustion gases caused to flow from the combustion zone (reading upon a reactor into which high-temperature combustion gas introduced via the supply unit flows) and is combusted with air from air source (reading upon an air supply) (Gravley, column 3, 2nd paragraph; column 4, 2nd paragraph).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KELING ZHANG whose telephone number is (571)272-8043. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 9:00am-5:00pm 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, Ching-Yiu Fung 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.
/KELING ZHANG/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1732
Prosecution Insights