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
This office action is in response to the papers as filed 7/14/2024.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are pending.
Drawings
I. Prior Art Label
Figure 7 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Paragraph [0017] states:
[0017] FIGS. 7A-7C depict a non-limiting illustration of an apparatus for manufacturing carbon fiber. FIG. 7A depicts an electrolytic cell as well as various suitable anode and cathode materials. FIG. 7B is an image of carbon nanotubes bearing a ZnO coating. FIG. 7C is an image of carbon nanotubes bearing without a coating.
(S. 3: 3-6]). No discussion of “prior art” is in the Specification. This is Figure 7, from this application:
PNG
media_image1.png
662
906
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(S. “Fig. 7”). It would appear to be an exact copy of Figures 5-7 from US 2019/0315624 to Douglas, et al.:
PNG
media_image2.png
676
544
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(Douglas “Fig. 7”).
The only difference between the two appears to be the various figure designators. It is “irregular” to pass off the work of another as “a non-limiting illustration of an apparatus for manufacturing carbon fiber.” (S. 3: 3-4).
Any other figure showing the prior art should be labeled prior art. This should be understood as a standing objection to all prior art shown and not labeled as such.
Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
II. Reference numeral obscured.
The drawings are objected to because what would appear to be a reference numeral is obscured in Figure 1:
PNG
media_image3.png
630
912
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(S. Fig. 1) (annotations added). Whatever is behind what is understood to be the anode tip should be visible.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Information Disclosure Statement; Request for Information
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 1/12/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, except as noted below: The Wang document cited on the IDS does not correspond to the Wang document submitted. It is crossed off. Note however the Wang document that was actually submitted is cited on the 892, and will appear on any patent issuing from this application. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
As discussed above, what appears to be a figure from the prior art has been presented as the work of the Applicants in this application. This reference, US 2019/0315624 to Douglas, et al. was not listed on the IDS.
The Examiner would view prior art teaching the reactors shown in Figs. 1-4 as material to patentability. If Figs. 1-4 came from the prior art, that prior art should be submitted. Stated differently, the Examiner requests a copy of any non-patent literature, published application, or patent (U.S. or foreign) that was used to draft the application. See 37 C.F.R. 1.105(a)(1)(iv).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
I. Claim(s) 13-15 – or as stated below - is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticiapted by US 2019/0315624 to Douglas, et al.
With respect to Claim 13, this claim requires “a molten salt electrolysis cell.” Douglas teaches a molten salt electrolysis cell. (Douglas “Fig. 5,” 9: [0157] et seq., entire reference).
Claim 13 further requires “an exterior casing.” An exterior casing is taught. Id.
Claim 13 further requires “a cathode.” Cathodes are taught. Id.
Claim 13 further requires “a screw-shaped anode having a threaded region and a tapering region ending in an anode tip.” Screw-shaped electrodes are taught. (Douglas 14: [0183]; “Fig. 49”). Here, “electrode” – while generic - is sufficient to anticipate the claim, as one of skill in the art would envisage “anodes” and “cathodes” within the context of Douglas.
As to Claim 14, the CO2 electrolysis and CO2 capture language, along with the entirety of the disclosure, suggests fluidic communication with a source of carbon dioxide-containing gas. (Douglas 14: [0183]).
As to Claim 15, Douglas teaches an alumina crucible, understood to be non-conductive. (Douglas 8: [0152]).
Allowable Subject Matter
I. Claims 1-12 are allowed.
II. Dependent upon a rejected base claim.
Claims 16-20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Claim 1 recites a “extruding the elemental carbon to form the carbon material,” and a “molten salt electrolysis cell” that comprises inter alia “a screw-shaped anode having a threaded region and a tapered region ending in an anode tip.” This is depicted in Fig. 1:
PNG
media_image4.png
630
912
media_image4.png
Greyscale
While the claims don’t explicitly require it, the carbon material is understood to be extruded through the tapered region ending in an anode tip by the screw-shaped anode. Claim 13 contains parallel language regarding the screw-shaped anode and tapering region ending in an anode tip, however does not recite the limitations related to extrusion until dependent claim 16. Stated differently, there is a lack of consonance between apparatus and method claims. The apparatus claim is broader, giving rise to the rejection above.
Molten salt electrolysis methods for making carbon materials – as a general matter – are old and known. In addition to the Douglas reference applied above, the following are made of record to show the state of the art:
Wang, et al., Exploration of alkali cation variaton on the synthesis of carbon nanotubs by electrolysis of CO2 in molten carbonates, Journal of CO2 Utilzation 2019; 34: 393-312 (cited by Applicants).
Liu, et al., Controlled Growth of Unusual Nanocarbon Allotropes by Molten Electrolysis of CO2, Catalysts 2022; 12: 125, pp. 1-28
Liu, et al., Controlled Transition Metal Nucleated Growth of Carbon Nanotubes by Molten Electrolysis of CO2, Catalysts 2022; 12: 137, pp. 1-21
Novoselova, et al., Electrolytic synthesis of carbon nanotubes from carbon dioxide in molten salts and their characterization, Physica E 2008; 40: 2231-2237
Ren, et al., One-Pot Synthesis of Carbon Nanofibers from CO2, Nano Lett. 2015; 15: 6142-6148
As it pertains to the screw-shaped anode limitations, the following were identified:
US 6,210,461 to Elliot – Elliot teaches a molten salt apparatus and method for processing metals. Elliot depicts some manner of what appears to be a screw to remove titanium that has been processed by the apparatus. (Elliot Fig. 3 – “Ti removal system,” “motor drives Ti removal”). As understood, there is no evidence that Ti removal system functions or has the electrical connectivity to function as an anode, as claimed.
US 5,505,823 to Rendall – Rendell teaches a molten salt apparatus and method for smelting aluminum. Rendell teaches “inlet 134 forming a tube holding a feeder (e.g. injection, screw, etc.) for introducing fresh feed into pool 152.” (Rendell 6: 32-33; “Fig. 5”). Figure 5 depicts a positive terminal or connection close to reference numeral 134, but – as understood – this is the connectivity for “positive electrode 132 serving as anode,” which is “submerged in and in electrical contact with molten sulfate pool 152.” (Rendell 6: 56-57). Stated differently, the screw is not understood to be or have the connectivity to function as the anode, as claimed.
US 2008/0296151 to Lee, et al. – Lee teaches a uranium refining device that employs molten salts. (Lee 2: [0041] et seq.; Fig. 1). Cathodes, anodes and a screw-shaped agitator are taught. (Lee 2: [0021]). As understood, there is no evidence that the screw agitator functions or has the electrical connectivity to function as an anode, as claimed.
CN 112301380 to Li (C25C 3/34; 02-02-2021). Citation is given to the machine translation accompanying the action. Li teaches a molten salt method and apparatus for preparing rare earth metals through electrolysis. Li teaches screw feeder 16. (Li at 4; Fig. 1). Li also teaches various reciprocating screws. (Li at 3 et seq; Fig. 1 – reference numerals 11, 28). As understood, all of these screw mechanisms are mechanical devices driving gears etc. (Li at 3) and feeding metal to be processed. (Li at 4). As understood, none of the screws function as or have the connectivity to function as an anode, as claimed.
As would be understood by one of skill in the art, electrolysis broadly refers to passing current through an electrolyte to carry out various chemical reactions through oxidation and reduction at the anode and cathode. The claim terms have been so construed. Thus, while many processes and apparatus employ “screw-shaped things” not all of them have the electrical connectivity to function as cathodes, as claimed. Douglas, discussed above, uses a literal screw (which has a tapered region or a point, to facilitate “screwing” things together) as an anode, and was so rejected.
The search generally did not teach the screw-shaped anode with the tapered region ending in a tip, required by Claim 1, and the similar but reworded language in Claim 16.
The Examiner reserves the right to make any rejections deemed appropriate in response to the request for information.
Conclusion
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