DETAILED ACTION
Citation to the Specification will be in the following format: (S. # : ¶) where # denotes the page number and ¶ denotes the paragraph number of the pregrant publication corresponding to the application: US 2023/0357021. 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; Restriction
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group II (Claims 8-16 and 40-43) in the reply filed on 4/23/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim(s) 8-11, 14-15, 40, 43-55 is/are pending.
Claim(s) 8, 10, 11, 14, 15, 40, and 43 is/are currently amended.
Claim(s) 44-55 is/are new.
Claim(s) 1-7 (i.e. Group I), 12-13, 16-39, and 41-42 is/are acknowledged as cancelled.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on:
1/21/2026 (5 pages)
1/17/2025 (70 pages)
are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR §§1.97-1.98, subject to the discussion below:
An excessive number of references have been filed. The 1/17/2025 IDS is nearly twice as long as the Specification. A quick count of the US patent literature totals over 5600 pages, which is over 150 times the length of the Specification. Many of the references appear irrelevant to the claims and the disclosure. For example, U.S. Patent Document Cite No. 381 is US 2023/0257260 to Kacem, et al. Kacem itself was published on August 17, 2023. Assuming full support in the provisional, this application has priority to October 5, 2020. Kacem is not prior art. Non-prior art, i.e. references that do not antedate the earliest effective filing date, are relevant in only limited circumstances. See MPEP 2124. If it is Applicants contention that one of these situations applies in relation to any non-prior art cited on the IDS, they are invited to address this. Likewise, limited time exists for examining patent applications, let alone Information Disclosure Statements. If Applicants believe any of the 700+ references cited on the various IDS are particularly relevant, they are invited to call these out on the record.
Information which complies with the IDS requirements, but which is in a non-English language has been considered in view of the concise explanation submitted (see MPEP 609.04(a), subsection III.) and insofar as it is understood on its face, e.g., drawings, chemical formulas, in the same manner that non-English language information in Office search files is considered by examiners in conducting searches.
Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
I. Title.
The title is objected to.
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: Method of making carbon black.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
112(a)
I. Claim(s) 40 – or a stated below – is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 40 recites “using at least one computer processor to calculate an adjusted ratio of the carbon-14 atoms to the carbon-12 atoms, wherein the adjusted ratio of the carbon-14 to the carbon-12 atoms comprises (i) the ratio of the carbon-14 atoms to the carbon-12 atoms present within the carbonaceous product and (ii) one or more digital carbon-14 credits of biomethane or biofuel.” MPEP 714.02 states: “Applicant should also specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure.” Applicants did not comply with this portion of the MPEP. (Remarks of 4/23/2026 at 5). There is no support for the “one or more digital carbon-14 credits of biomethane or biofuel” language. If Applicants disagree, a claim chart reading the claim on the Specification would be helpful in withdrawing the rejection.
II. Claims 8-11, 14-15, 40, 43-55 – or all claims – is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
The analysis for determining whether a claim is supported by the disclosure is cast in terms of whether “undue experimentation” is necessary to practice the invention. See MPEP 2164.01. In examining the claims in light of the supporting disclosure, the Federal Circuit has provided a non-exclusive list of factors to consider in determining whether a disclosure is enabling. See generally In re Wands, 858 F.2d 731, 737, 8 USPQ2d 1400, 1404 (Fed. Cir. 1988). These factors include:
The breadth of the claims;
The nature of the invention;
The state of the prior art;
The level of one of ordinary skill;
The level of predictability in the art;
The amount of direction provided by the inventor;
The existence of working examples; and
The quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the invention based on the content of the disclosure
Id. “Whether undue experimentation is needed is not a single, simple factual determination, but rather is a conclusion reached by weighing many factual considerations.” Id. The Examiner has considered all factors in light of all claims rejected makes the following findings of fact:
In lieu of a protracted treatment of the Wands factors, the Examiner will stipulate that those parts of the claims related to plasma pyrolysis of hydrocarbons to make carbon black are enabled. The prior art (Hardman, applied below) appears to be that of the Applicant; presumably the Applicant would agree that their process “works,” contains an enabling disclosure, etc. The level of skill is reasonably inferred to be a bachelor’s level (or higher) chemical engineer.
The parts of the claim that are not enabled are all “substitutions” of ““digital carbon credits”” for real carbon, adjusting the ratio, using a computer, etc. Note especially Claims 40, 45, and 49. All claims can apparently / arguably be construed to not require carbon-14 (S. 1: [0004]), so it is understood that this adjustment/substitution applies to all claims.
The most relevant portions of the Specification are reproduced below:
[0004] The present disclosure provides, for example, a carbonaceous product having a ratio of carbon-14 atoms to carbon-12 atoms greater than about 3*10^−13. The carbonaceous product may be carbon black. Carbon atoms in the carbonaceous product may be exposed to temperatures in excess of about 1,000° C. during conversion of a hydrocarbon feedstock to the carbonaceous product. The conversion of the hydrocarbon feedstock may comprise conversion of biomethane and/or additive hydrocarbon feedstock to the carbonaceous product. The carbonaceous product may be solid. Carbon-14 content may be achieved through securing digital carbon-14 credits of biomethane, and physical carbon-14 may not be present in the carbonaceous product as made.
[0080] As described in greater detail elsewhere herein, processes in accordance with the present disclosure may be, or may use (e.g., be configured to use) or be coupled with green processes es (e.g., see FIG. 4 and FIG. 5). For example, biofuel or biomethane, and/or recyclable products, may be provided (e.g., directly and/or indirectly) as input to the processes described herein. Alternatively, or in addition, green processes may be incorporated through credits from a (e.g., resultant or underlying) green process such as, for example, biomethane production. The resultant carbonaceous output of such a green process may have digital carbon-14 credits. For example, the biomethane manufacturer may use the digestion process described elsewhere herein and then deliver the biomethane to the local pipeline and receive payment in excess of the normal cost of natural gas. The user of the biomethane may pay a credit that matches the price paid or is in excess of the price paid by the purchaser/seller of the biomethane that now acts as a middleman between the manufacturer of the biomethane and the user of the biomethane. The delivery vehicle of the biomethane may be the pipeline that connects the supplier to the purveyor of the technology using the biomethane; however, the individual methane molecules that the buyer of the biomethane receives may not have a given (e.g., proper) amount of carbon-14 as if the biomethane had been delivered by the actual producer of the biomethane. In some examples, this may be the most efficient method to deliver the biomethane to the final end user and may result in the least amount of CO2 emitted into the atmosphere due to inefficiencies in the delivery of the biomethane to remote consumers of the biomethane. Biofuel or biomethane, or any other feedstock(s) with a ratio of carbon-14 atoms to carbon-12 atoms of, for example, greater than or equal to about 10^−20 or higher (e.g., as described elsewhere herein), may be greater than or equal to about 0%, 1%, 5%, 10%, 15%, 20%, 25%, 30%, 35%, 40%, 45%, 50%, 55%, 60%, 65%, 70%, 75%, 80%, 85%, 90%, 95% or 100% of total feedstock provided to a process in accordance with the present disclosure. Alternatively, or in addition, the biofuel or biomethane, or any other feedstock(s) with a ratio of carbon-14 atoms to carbon-12 atoms of, for example, greater than or equal to about 10^−20 or higher (e.g., as described elsewhere herein), may be, for example, less than or equal to about 100%, 95%, 90%, 85%, 80%, 75%, 70%, 65%, 60%, 55%, 50%, 45%, 40%, 35%, 30%, 25%, 20%, 15%, 10%, 5% or 1% of total feedstock provided to a process in accordance with the present disclosure. Fossil fuel-generated feedstock(s) (e.g., with a ratio of carbon-14 atoms to carbon-12 atoms of less than about 10^−20) offset by carbon-14 credits may be greater than or equal to about 0%, 1%, 5%, 10%, 15%, 20%, 25%, 30%, 35%, 40%, 45%, 50%, 55%, 60%, 65%, 70%, 75%, 80%, 85%, 90%, 95% or 100% of total feedstock and/or of total non-fossil fuel-generated feedstock provided to a process in accordance with the present disclosure. Alternatively, or in addition, the fossil fuel-generated feedstock(s) (e.g., with a ratio of carbon-14 atoms to carbon-12 atoms of less than about 10^−20) offset by carbon-14 credits may be, for example, less than or equal to about 100%, 95%, 90%, 85%, 80%, 75%, 70%, 65%, 60%, 55%, 50%, 45%, 40%, 35%, 30%, 25%, 20%, 15%, 10%, 5% or 1% of total feedstock and/or of total non-fossil fuel-generated feedstock provided to a process in accordance with the present disclosure.
[0082] A carbonaceous product may have a ratio of carbon-14 atoms to carbon-12 atoms greater than about 3*10^−13 (e.g., the ratio may be more than about 3*10^−13:1 C14 to C12) and less than about 1.40*10^−12 (e.g., the carbonaceous product may possess less than about 1.40*10^−12:1 carbon-14 atoms compared to carbon-12 atoms). The carbonaceous product may be carbon black. Carbon atoms in the carbonaceous product may be exposed to temperatures in excess of about 1,000° C. or about 1,500° C. (e.g., as the reaction temperature) during the conversion process of biomethane and/or additive hydrocarbon feedstock to solid, carbonaceous product. Although physical carbon-14 may not be present in the carbonaceous product as made, the carbon-14 content of the carbonaceous product may be secured (e.g., achieved through purchase) of digital carbon-14 credits of biomethane. A green production process wherein for every ton of input natural gas in a green production process in accordance with the present disclosure, CO2 emissions of the carbonaceous product and all other products may be reduced by more than about 3 tons when compared to incumbent processes. For every 1 ton of carbonaceous product that is produced in a green production process in accordance with the present disclosure, at least about 2.0 tons of CO2 may be removed from the atmosphere and sequestered within a carbonaceous product and the carbon component (e.g., from the CO2) may now be part of the as-manufactured carbonaceous product. Manufacture of the carbonaceous product (e.g., carbon black) may effectively sequester CO2 out of the atmosphere. A combination of biomethane, plasma technology (e.g., plasma process as described herein), and ammonia technology (e.g., ammonia process such as an ammonia conversion process described herein) may be provided in one location (e.g., working or operating simultaneously). Wind energy or other renewable energy may be used to generate plasma in pyrolytic dehydrogenation of methane. Raw feed of tire crumb of less than about 10 mm by 10 mm size may be provided into the plasma process as a co-feed with biomethane, biofuel and/or natural gas. A method of converting tires and carbon black to methane may be provided. The method may further comprise using the methane to produce carbonaceous product. The carbonaceous product may be carbon black. A rubber article may have a ratio of carbon-14 atoms to carbon-12 atoms from about 3*10^−13 to about 1.40*10^−12 (e.g., the rubber article may possess from about 3*10^−13 to about 1.40*10^−12 carbon-14 atoms for every 1 carbon-12 atom). A tire may have a ratio of carbon-14 atoms to carbon-12 atoms from about 3*10^−13 to about 1.40*10^−12 (e.g., the tire may possess from about 3*10^−13 to about 1.40*10^−12 carbon-14 atoms for every 1 carbon-12 atom). A feed of biomethane may possess about 60% or greater content of methane derived from a biological source; the remainder of gas by volume may be impurities from digestion process or co-feedstocks that may or may not be bio-based.
[0082] A carbonaceous product may have a ratio of carbon-14 atoms to carbon-12 atoms greater than about 3*10^−13 (e.g., the ratio may be more than about 3*10^−13:1 C.sup.14 to C.sup.12) and less than about 1.40*10^−12 (e.g., the carbonaceous product may possess less than about 1.40*10^−12:1 carbon-14 atoms compared to carbon-12 atoms). The carbonaceous product may be carbon black. Carbon atoms in the carbonaceous product may be exposed to temperatures in excess of about 1,000° C. or about 1,500° C. (e.g., as the reaction temperature) during the conversion process of biomethane and/or additive hydrocarbon feedstock to solid, carbonaceous product. Although physical carbon-14 may not be present in the carbonaceous product as made, the carbon-14 content of the carbonaceous product may be secured (e.g., achieved through purchase) of digital carbon-14 credits of biomethane. A green production process wherein for every ton of input natural gas in a green production process in accordance with the present disclosure, CO2 emissions of the carbonaceous product and all other products may be reduced by more than about 3 tons when compared to incumbent processes. For every 1 ton of carbonaceous product that is produced in a green production process in accordance with the present disclosure, at least about 2.0 tons of CO.sub.2 may be removed from the atmosphere and sequestered within a carbonaceous product and the carbon component (e.g., from the CO2) may now be part of the as-manufactured carbonaceous product. Manufacture of the carbonaceous product (e.g., carbon black) may effectively sequester CO.sub.2 out of the atmosphere. A combination of biomethane, plasma technology (e.g., plasma process as described herein), and ammonia technology (e.g., ammonia process such as an ammonia conversion process described herein) may be provided in one location (e.g., working or operating simultaneously). Wind energy or other renewable energy may be used to generate plasma in pyrolytic dehydrogenation of methane. Raw feed of tire crumb of less than about 10 mm by 10 mm size may be provided into the plasma process as a co-feed with biomethane, biofuel and/or natural gas. A method of converting tires and carbon black to methane may be provided. The method may further comprise using the methane to produce carbonaceous product. The carbonaceous product may be carbon black. A rubber article may have a ratio of carbon-14 atoms to carbon-12 atoms from about 3*10^−13 to about 1.40*10^−12 (e.g., the rubber article may possess from about 3*10^−13 to about 1.40*10^−12 carbon-14 atoms for every 1 carbon-12 atom). A tire may have a ratio of carbon-14 atoms to carbon-12 atoms from about 3*10^−13 to about 1.40*10^−12 (e.g., the tire may possess from about 3*10^−13 to about 1.40*10^−12 carbon-14 atoms for every 1 carbon-12 atom). A feed of biomethane may possess about 60% or greater content of methane derived from a biological source; the remainder of gas by volume may be impurities from digestion process or co-feedstocks that may or may not be bio-based.
[0089] In another aspect, the present disclosure provides a method of determining an adjusted ratio of carbon-14 to carbon-12. The method may comprise providing a feedstock and a heated gas. The feedstock and the heated gas may be mixed to form the carbonaceous product. At least one computer processor may be used to calculate the adjusted ratio of carbon-14 to carbon-12. The adjusted ratio may comprise a combination of a physical ratio of carbon-14 to carbon-12 atoms present within the carbonaceous product and digital carbon-14 credits of biomethane.
[0113] Carbonaceous products may have an adjusted ratio of carbon-14 to carbon-12 atoms even if a physical ratio of carbon-14 to carbon-12 atoms is different from the adjusted ratio. For example, a feedstock used to generate a carbonaceous product can be a combination of feedstocks sourced from different suppliers. A first supplier can generate the feedstock via a fossil fuel route, and the resulting feedstock can have a low ratio of carbon-14 to carbon-12 atoms. A second supplier can generate the feedstock via a renewable route (e.g., digestion of plants, etc.), and the resulting feedstock can have a high ratio of carbon-14 to carbon-12 atoms. The first and second suppliers can supply their respective feedstocks to a pipeline, where the feedstocks are mixed, and the resultant mixture has a lower ratio of carbon-14 to carbon-12 atoms (e.g., less than 3*10^−13. The mixture may comprise more of the first feedstock than the second feedstock, which may result in the lower ratio.
[0114] The supplier of the renewable feedstock can provide environmental credits that denote the renewable nature of the feedstock. For example, the environmental credits can be digital credits related to the renewable nature of the feedstock. Examples of digital credits include, but are not limited to, certificates, non-fungible tokens, other blockchain based tokens, or the like. The supplier of the renewable feedstock can exchange or sell the credits. The recipient of the credits can, in turn, attest that they have purchased renewable feedstock, even if the feedstock delivered from the pipeline contains a mixture of renewable and non-renewable feedstocks.
[0115] The feedstocks can then be used to generate a carbonaceous product. The carbonaceous product can have a physical ratio of carbon-14 to carbon-12 atoms that is less than the ratio found in the renewable feedstock. To calculate an adjusted ratio of carbon-14 to carbon-12 atoms, the physical ratio can be determined, and the ratio can be adjusted using any credits purchased by the producer of the carbonaceous product. For example, one ton of carbonaceous product with a physical ratio of carbon-14 to carbon-12 atoms of 5*10^−14 produced by a producer with the equivalent of one ton of renewable feedstock credits at a ratio of carbon-14 to carbon-12 atoms of 1.5*10^−13 can have an adjusted ratio of 1*10^−13.
The 112(b) issues below are interrelated. That discussion is incorporated herein by reference. As noted there, apparently a method claim calling for a specific “carbonaceous product” doesn’t actually require the specifics of the claim (i.e. the 14C content). See (S. [0004], [0082]). These can be substituted / secured with “digital carbon credits,” and somehow this effects the product produced by an ostensibly real chemical process. A computer is also apparently involved or “used.”
The Specification does not enable this. The Examples are noted, but do not describe this. The examples do not use the past tense, so it is understood that Applicants haven’t actually carried out whatever is being claimed with the digital credits, etc.
Arguably infinite, but certainly undue experimentation is needed to practice this hybrid business method / process chemistry.
112(b)
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.
I. Claims 8-11, 14-15, 40, and 43-55 - or all pending claims – is/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.
Independent Claim 8 and Claim 46 recite “the carbonaceous product has a ratio of carbon-14 atoms to carbon-12 atoms.” The Specification states: “Although physical carbon-14 may not be present in the carbonaceous product as made, the carbon-14 content of the carbonaceous product may be secured (e.g., achieved through purchase) of digital carbon-14 credits of biomethane.” (S. 11-12: [0082]). This raises any number of indefiniteness issues.
First, if “physical carbon-14” does not have to be present, then under one reasonable interpretation (the interpretation where this is a chemical process that makes something real), the 14C/12C ratio is zero (“0”). Zero is not greater than 3*10^-13. Stated differently: 0.0000000000003 > 0.0000000000000. Second, “Physical carbon-14” and “digital carbon-14” are not the same thing. It is not understood how one can be substituted for another in an ostensibly “real” process for making carbon black. The Specification states: “Examples of digital credits include, but are not limited to, certificates, non-fungible tokens, other blockchain based tokens, or the like.” (S. 15: [0114]). Tokens, etc. do not decay into Nitrogen-14. Furthermore, so-called “certificates,” “non-fungible tokens,” “other blockchain based tokens” – as understood - are variable “objects” (pieces of computer code, paper, etc.). Reference to an object that is variable renders the claim indefinite. MPEP 2173.05(b).
In sum, it is unclear what is actually required of the product of all of these claims. Is this process chemistry? Is this a business method? If it is the latter, it seems to be missing a number of steps. Blending hydrocarbons, running pure fossil fuels, etc. is not the same as buying some digital carbon coin (or whatever) for accounting purposes. Dependent claims not specifically addressed import the issues of the claims from which they depend.
Claim 40 recites “using at least one computer processor to calculate an adjusted ratio of the carbon-14 atoms to the carbon-12 atoms, wherein the adjusted ratio of the carbon-14 to the carbon-12 atoms comprises (i) the ratio of the carbon-14 atoms to the carbon-12 atoms present within the carbonaceous product and (ii) one or more digital carbon-14 credits of biomethane or biofuel.” First, “using” is indefinite insofar as it does not recite any actual process steps. See MPEP 2173.05(q). Second, the terms “adjusted ratio” and “digital carbon-14 credits” are indefinite in view of the disclosure. The Specification does not actually describe what this “adjustment” is, or how it is done. The specification uses vague words like “calculate,” “determine,” and “adjust.” No actual examples of this are present. The portions called out below do not use the past tense, which is indicative of a prophetic example (i.e. something that hasn’t actually been done). MPEP 2164.02. It is unclear if this “adjustment” means anything in terms of the part of the process might be real. Is this just running a process and then carrying out a calculation?
Claim 49 recites “the ratio of carbon-14 to carbon-12 atoms is secured at least in part through purchase of digital carbon-14 credits of biomethane.” It is unclear what “securing” the ratio means. The Specification states: “Although physical carbon-14 may not be present in the carbonaceous product as made, the carbon-14 content of the carbonaceous product may be secured (e.g., achieved through purchase) of digital carbon-14 credits of biomethane.” (S. 11-12: [0082]). This makes no sense. How can something that is not present in the product be secured?
Claim 51 recites “uses renewable energy.” “Uses” is indefinite insofar as it does not recite any actual process steps. See MPEP 2173.05(q).
Any language identified in the context of one claim but inadvertently omitted from discussion in the context of another claim should be considered so rejected.
Discussion – 14C
Wilson, Isotope Ratio Measurements in the Classification of Carbonaceous Fuels, accessed online at https://eprenewable.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Carbon-Isotope-Ratio-White-Paper-010815.pdf on 22 July 2026 (hereinafter “Wilson at __”), which appears to be an industry white paper, is made of record. The URL might suggest Wilson was online in 2019. The “footer” of the document might suggest the document is even older, dating to 2016. (Wilson at 1, footer: “EPR Doc. 2016/4-C-14”). The “Wayback Machine” or “Internet Archive” indexed this URL in 2022. Regardless, Wilson is offered to show a scientific truism, and need not antedate the filing date. MPEP 2124 (“In certain circumstances, references cited to show a universal fact need not be available as prior art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention. In re Wilson, 311 F.2d 266, 135 USPQ 442 (CCPA 1962). Such facts include the characteristics and properties of a material or a scientific truism.”). Radiocarbon dating was developed in the 1940s. This information is present in numerous sources. Wilson was selected, as it deals with carbonaceous fuel, and is relevant to the disclosure. Furthermore, note that Wilson is largely cumulative to the discussion of carbon-14 in the Specification. (S. 8: [0059]).
Wilson states:
Cosmic rays entering earth's upper atmosphere create free neutrons that can react with abundant Nitrogen‐14 (14N) atoms. These atoms can eject a proton from the nucleus to form Carbon‐14 (14C). 14C is unstable, with a half life of 5730 years, and eventually decays to 14N. Carbon in atmospheric CO2 has a 14C / 12C ratio of approximately 1.3 x 10‐12/1. This ratio is fairly constant in the atmosphere over geological time and is reflected in the carbon isotope content of terrestrial organisms, since they continually take up carbon from the biosphere. Upon the death of the these organisms, uptake stops and the 14C / 12C ratio begins to change due to beta decay of the 14C back to 14N. Eventually, the radioactive 14C will have decayed to the point that none can be detected in the remains of the dead organism. This aspect of the carbon cycle underlies radiocarbon dating methods. The terms radiocarbon dating and carbon isotope ratio dating refer to the same general method. 14C can be measured directly by detecting its radioactive decay, or the 14C / 12C Ratio can be determined by mass spectrometry (MS).
Because the time required to form fossil fuels from organic matter is thousands of 14C half lives, fossil fuels contain essentially no 14C. In contrast, carbon from renewable resources such as wood and other biomass will have been fixed within the last few hundred years, and therefore its 14C to 12C ratio will very nearly reflect that of the CO2 currently in the earth's atmosphere. As described below, 14C / 12C ratios can be determined by using liquid scintillation counting (LSC) or isotope ratio MS.
(Wilson at 1-2) (emphasis added). Stated differently, biofuels are understood to have 14C to 12C ratios that very nearly reflect the 14C to 12C ratios of the atmosphere, i.e. 1.3 x 10-12. This discussion is made once for brevity’s sake, and for clarity in the rejections that follow. To the extent this discussion is needed to support a rejection, it is expressly incorporated therein by reference.
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) 8, 9, 10, 11, 14, 15, 46, 50 – or as stated below - is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticiapted by WO 2018/195460 to Hardman, et al. (10-25-2018; C09C 1/56) in view of:
(i) Wilson, Isotope Ratio Measurements in the Classification of Carbonaceous Fuels, accessed online at https://eprenewable.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Carbon-Isotope-Ratio-White-Paper-010815.pdf on 22 July 2026 (hereinafter “Wilson at __”) to show a state of fact.
Citation is for the convenience of the reader, assumed to be of skill in the art. The rejection should be understood as being over the entire reference, and not just those portions called out.
With respect to Claim 8, this claim requires “ (a) providing a hydrocarbon feedstock and a heated gas, wherein the feedstock has a ratio of carbon-14 atoms to carbon-12 atoms greater than about 3*10^-13.” Hardman teaches providing a hydrocarbon. See e.g. (Hardman 60-61: [00092]: “The hydrocarbon feedstock may include any chemical…”). Hardman teaches providing a heated gas. See e.g. (Hardman 57: [00089] – 60: [00091] – thermal transfer gas). Hardman may not explicitly recite the C14/C12 ratio. However, Hardman explicitly teaches “bio-oil, bio-diesel, other biologically derived hydrocarbons, and the like).” (Hardman 60: [0092]). By explicitly reciting “… or any combination thereof,” Hardman is understood to be referring to pure, i.e. non-blended (or otherwise mixed) biofuels / biologically derived hydrocarbons. Id. Note also that 100% concentration feedstocks are explicitly sought. Id. (“Alternatively, or in addition, the feedstock may comprise the given feedstock at a concentration (e.g., in a mixture of feedstocks) less than or equal to about 100%.”). As discussed above, biologically derived hydrocarbons have a C14/C12 ratio of 1.3 x 10-12. See (Discussion – 14C), supra. 1.3 x 10-12 (i.e. 0.0000000000013) is greater than “about 3*10^-13.” (i.e. 0.0000000000003).
Claim 8 further requires “(b) heating a thermal transfer gas to generate a heated plasma gas.” The thermal transfer gas is heated. See e.g. (Hardman 57: [00089]: “The process may include heating a thermal transfer gas (e.g., a plasma gas) with electrical energy (e.g., from a DC or AC source).”
Claim 8 further requires “(c) mixing the hydrocarbon feedstock and the heated plasma gas in a reactor to effect conversion of the hydrocarbon feedstock to form the carbonaceous product, wherein the carbonaceous product has a ratio of carbon-14 atoms to carbon-12 atoms greater than about 3*10^-13 and a carbon content of at least about 97% by weight.” The hydrocarbon and plasma are mixed. (Hardman 57: [0089]: “The process may further include mixing injected feedstock with the heated thermal transfer gas (e.g., plasma gas) to achieve suitable reaction conditions.”). The C14/C12 ratio has been discussed above. As Hardman teaches using a pure, 100% biologically derived hydrocarbons, it is expected that the product contains the claimed C14/C12 ratio. The carbon content is taught. (Hardman 70: [00112]: “97%”).
As to Claim 9, carbon black is taught throughout. (Hardman 12: [00031] et seq.; passim).
As to Claim 10, the temperatures are taught. (Hardman 69: [000110]).
As to Claim 11, the “bio-oil, bio-diesel, other biologically derived hydrocarbons, and the like)” discussed above is interpreted as, at least “biofuel.” (Hardman 60: [0092]).
As to Claim 14, the oxygen content is taught. (Hardman 72-73: [0119]: “ For example, oxygen may be excluded or dosed at a controlled amount of, for example, less than about 5% by volume in the enclosed process.”).
As to Claim 15, heating with electrical energy is taught. (Hardman 69: [00110]: “The thermal transfer gas may be electrically heated to such temperatures by the thermal generator (e.g., the thermal generator may be driven by electrical energy).”)
With respect to Claim 46, this claim requires “(a) in a reactor, electrically heating a thermal transfer gas by a plasma generator to a temperature of at least 1,000 °C to generate a heated gas.” Heating with electrical energy is taught. (Hardman 69: [00110]: “The thermal transfer gas may be electrically heated to such temperatures by the thermal generator (e.g., the thermal generator may be driven by electrical energy).”). Thermal transfer gasses are taught. (Hardman 57: [00089] et seq.). The temperature is taught. (Hardman 62-63: [00096]).
Claim 46 further requires “(b) in the reactor, adding a hydrocarbon feedstock to the heated gas to produce the carbonaceous product by pyrolytic decomposition of the hydrocarbon feedstock, wherein the carbonaceous product has a ratio of carbon-14 atoms to carbon-12 atoms greater than 3*10^-13 and a carbon content of at least 97% by weight.” Hardman teaches providing a hydrocarbon. See e.g. (Hardman 60-61: [00092]: “The hydrocarbon feedstock may include any chemical…”). Hardman teaches providing a heated gas. See e.g. (Hardman 57: [00089] – 60: [00091] – thermal transfer gas). Hardman may not explicitly recite the C14/C12 ratio. However, Hardman explicitly teaches “bio-oil, bio-diesel, other biologically derived hydrocarbons, and the like).” (Hardman 60: [0092]). By explicitly reciting “… or any combination thereof,” Hardman is understood to be referring to pure, i.e. non-blended (or otherwise mixed) biofuels / biologically derived hydrocarbons. Id. Note also that 100% concentration feedstocks are explicitly sought. Id. (“Alternatively, or in addition, the feedstock may comprise the given feedstock at a concentration (e.g., in a mixture of feedstocks) less than or equal to about 100%.”). As discussed above, biologically derived hydrocarbons have a C14/C12 ratio of 1.3 x 10-12. See (Discussion – 14C), supra. 1.3 x 10-12 (i.e. 0.0000000000013) is greater than “about 3*10^-13.” (i.e. 0.0000000000003). As Hardman teaches using a pure, 100% biologically derived hydrocarbons, it is expected that the product contains the claimed C14/C12 ratio. The carbon content is taught. (Hardman 70: [00112]: “97%”).
As to Claim 50, the discussion of Claim 46 is relied upon.
II. Claim(s) 8, 9, 10, 11, 14, 15, 46-48, and 50-51 – or as stated below - is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2018/195460 to Hardman, et al. (10-25-2018; C09C 1/56) in view of:
(i) Wilson, Isotope Ratio Measurements in the Classification of Carbonaceous Fuels, accessed online at https://eprenewable.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Carbon-Isotope-Ratio-White-Paper-010815.pdf on 22 July 2026 (hereinafter “Wilson at __”) to show a state of fact.
The discussion accompanying “Rejection I” above is incorporated herein by reference. To the extent reliance on the “bio-oil, bio-diesel, other biologically derived hydrocarbons, and the like” (Hardman 60: [0092]) teachings can be characterized as combining embodiments, selecting from lists, etc. (no such concession is made), any such combination/selection is obvious. The articulated rationale is that it reflects application of known techniques, materials, elements, etc. consistent with known methods to achieve predictable results. This does not impart patentability. MPEP 2143.
As to Claim 47-48, varying the ratio of carbon-14 to carbon-12 is understood to be the result of blending petroleum (with the 14C having decayed) with renewables. Hardman teaches blends. (Hardman 60-61: [00092]: “any combination thereof”). Arriving at the ratio is a matter of application of known techniques (mixing/blending) to achieve predictable results (changing levels of 14C). This does not impart patentability. MPEP 2143.
As to Claim 51, renewable energy (windmills, solar, etc.) is old and known. Official notice is taken. Use of whatever is coming from the grid – including renewables – is obvious.
III. Claim(s) 43-44 and 52-53 – or as stated below - is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2018/195460 to Hardman, et al. (10-25-2018; C09C 1/56) in view of:
(i) Wilson, Isotope Ratio Measurements in the Classification of Carbonaceous Fuels, accessed online at https://eprenewable.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Carbon-Isotope-Ratio-White-Paper-010815.pdf on 22 July 2026 (hereinafter “Wilson at __”) to show a state of fact, and further in view of:
(ii) Molino, et al., Biomethane production by anaerobic digestion of organic waste, Fuel 2013; 103: 1003-1009 (hereinafter “Molino at __”).
The discussion accompanying “Rejection I-II” above is incorporated herein by reference.
As to Claim 43, as noted above, Hardman teaches “bio-oil, bio-diesel, other biologically derived hydrocarbons, and the like).” (Hardman 60: [0092]) (emphasis added). Hardman also teaches methane. Id. This more than reasonably suggests ““biomethane.”” Biomethane is commonly made by anaerobic digestion. Official notice is taken. Molino is relied upon as evidence. (Molino entire reference). Use of known techniques (anaerobic digestion) to achieve predictable results (biomethane) does not impart patentability. MPEP 2143; KSR.
As to Claim 44, any number of feedstocks – like pig manure and fruit and vegetables (interpreted as agricultural residues, waste crops, crop residues, crops, waste groceries, spoiled food, etc.) are taught. (Molino at 1006).
As to Claim 52, as noted above, Hardman teaches “bio-oil, bio-diesel, other biologically derived hydrocarbons, and the like).” (Hardman 60: [0092]) (emphasis added). Hardman also teaches methane. Id. This more than reasonably suggests ““biomethane.”” Biomethane is commonly made by anaerobic digestion. Official notice is taken. Molino is relied upon as evidence. (Molino entire reference). Any number of feedstocks – like pig manure and fruit and vegetables (interpreted as agricultural residues, waste crops, crop residues, crops, waste groceries, spoiled food, etc.) are taught. (Molino at 1006).
As to Claim 53, Molino teaches carbon dioxide. (Molino “Abstract”). Hardman teaches sequestering the carbon dioxide in the carbon black.” (Hardman 76: [000129]).
IV. Claim(s) 54-55 – or as stated below - is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2018/195460 to Hardman, et al. (10-25-2018; C09C 1/56) in view of:
(i) Wilson, Isotope Ratio Measurements in the Classification of Carbonaceous Fuels, accessed online at https://eprenewable.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Carbon-Isotope-Ratio-White-Paper-010815.pdf on 22 July 2026 (hereinafter “Wilson at __”) to show a state of fact, and further in view of:
(ii) Jonusas, et al., Effect of the Pressure and Feedstock State on the Yield and Properties of Waster Tire Thermolysis Products, Energy Fuels 2014; 28: 2465-2471 (hereinafter “Jonusas at __”).
The discussion accompanying “Rejection I-II” above is incorporated herein by reference.
As to Claim 54, Hardman teaches a number of feedstocks, including methane. (Hardman 60: [0092]). Jonusas teaches methane is produced by thermolytic decomposition of tires. (Jonusas at 2467, col. 1: “The data show domination of gaseous alkanes with methane as the most abundant hydrocarbon…”). Use of methane from a known source (thermolysis of tires) in a process that calls for methane (Hardman) is an obvious expedient. It reflects application of a known process (tire thermolysis to make methane) to a process that calls for methane (Hardman) to achieve predictable results: carbon black.
As to Claim 55, carbon black is a well known rubber additive in tires. Hardman, among many others, teach this. (Hardman 11: [00030]). Use of a known material (carbon paritles/carbon black) consistent with their known uses (tires) reflects application of known techniques to achieve predictable results. MPEP 2143; KSR.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Fincke, et al., Plasma Pyrolysis of Methane to Hydrogen and Carbon Black, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2002; 41: 1425-1435 (hereinafter “Fincke at __”).
Gautier, et al., Direct decarbonization of methane by thermal plamsa for the production of hydrogen and high value-added carbon black, International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 2017; 42: 28140-28156 (hereinafter “Gauteir at __”).
Fincke and Gautier are made of record to show plasma processes for making carbon black.
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
Prosecution Insights