CTNF 18/362,740 CTNF 101396 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Election/Restrictions 08-06 AIA Claim s 12-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention , there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 5/29/2026 . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-20-02-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1-4 and 7-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yates 2019 (US 10486967 B2) in view of Hamzehlouia 2020 (US 20200223692 A1), both provided on the IDS filed 7/31/2023 . Regarding claim 1, Yates teaches a system for generating a gas (environmental control system, C1/L66) comprising a pyrolysis reactor configured to pyrolyze a hydrocarbon to generate hydrogen and carbon (C2/L8-12). Yates does not teach that the pyrolysis reactor is configured to contact the carbon with an agitated bed comprising substrate particles comprising a metal oxide to generate carbon-coated particles. However, Hamzehlouia teaches a bed particle being sized for use in a fixed bed reactor or a fluidized bed reactor and suitable for a gas-solid reactor (0013) wherein the particles are contacted with carbon from the thermal decomposition of methane (0110) and thereby coated with carbon, the core being a metal oxide having the identity of silicon dioxide (silica sand, 0110), and this contacting occurs in an agitated bed (heating-assisted fluidized bed, 0110, under bubbling conditions, 0110). It would be obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the invention of Yates by configuring the pyrolysis reactor to contact the product of the pyrolysis with the substrate particles, as taught by Hamzehlouia. One would be motivated to do so because the thermal decomposition of methane taught by Hamzehlouia is analogous to the pyrolysis of methane taught by Yates (title), and Hamzehlouia further discloses that the disclosed bed particles are advantageous for enhancing selectivity and yield of thermochemical conversions such as pyrolysis (0021). One skilled in the art would therefore arrive at the claimed invention prior to the effective filing date. Regarding claim 2, Yates and Hamzehlouia teach the system as applied to claim 1 above. Hamzehlouia further teaches the agitated bed comprising the fluidized bed (silica particles were under bubbling fluidization conditions, 0110). Regarding claims 3 and 4, Yates and Hamzehlouia teach the system as applied to claim 2 above. Yates further teaches a fluid inlet configured to introduced a stream of fluidizing gas, said gas being a hydrocarbon (methane inlet, C2/L32). Regarding claim 7, Yates and Hamzehlouia teach the system as applied to claim 1 above. Hamzehlouia further teaches a carbothermal reactor (DRM reactions conducted in a fluidized bed reactor as shown in Figure 10, 0170) wherein the carbothermal reactor is configured to thermally treat the carbon-coated particles to produce carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide (0107). Hamzehlouia does not teach that the carbothermal reactor is fluidically coupled to the pyrolysis reactor. It would be obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the invention of Yates and Hamzehlouia further by fluidically coupling the carbothermal reactor taught by Hamzehlouia to the pyrolysis reactor taught by Yates. One would be motivated to do so because the carbothermal reactor allows for the carbothermal treatment of the particles which Hamzehlouia teaches is advantageous for its production of syngas such as CO and H2 (0107); one would be motivated to use the carbothermal reactor and treatment taught by Hamzehlouia because of the taught advantage to obtain enhanced selectivity and conversion towards the primary products of the syngas reaction while reducing the kinetics of the secondary gas phase reactions (0109). Yates also teaches that all the components of the system of the invention are directly connected (claim 1), which would be obvious to one skilled in the art as necessarily meeting the limitation of a fluidic connection since all the materials are fluidic; it would therefore be obvious that the connection of the carbothermal reactor of Hamzehlouia to the invention of Yates and Hamzehlouia would be a fluidic connection. One skilled in the art would therefore arrive at the claimed invention prior to the effective filing date. Regarding claim 8, Yates and Hamzehlouia teach the system as applied to claim 7 above. Yates further teaches a Sabatier reactor fluidically coupled to the pyrolysis reactor, wherein the Sabatier reactor is configured to react one or both of the carbon monoxide or the carbon dioxide produced by the carbothermal reactor and the hydrogen produced by the pyrolysis reactor over a catalyst in the Sabatier reactor (carbon dioxide, Figure 1). Yates and Hamzehlouia do not teach the Sabatier reactor being fluidically connected to the carbothermal reactor. However, it would be obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the invention of Yates and Hamzehlouia by fluidically connecting the carbothermal reactor of Hamzehlouia to the Sabatier reactor of Yates; one would be motivated to do so in order to treat any remaining carbon dioxide contained in the product of the carbothermal reactor to produce methane and water, since Yates teaches the advantage of the Sabatier reactor providing the water to make oxygen for critical space missions (C1/L19-29). Yates also teaches that all the components of the system of the invention are directly connected (claim 1), which would be obvious to one skilled in the art as necessarily meeting the limitation of a fluidic connection since all the materials are fluidic; it would therefore be obvious that the connection of the carbothermal reactor of Hamzehlouia to the Sabatier reactor of Yates and Hamzehlouia would be a fluidic connection. One skilled in the art would therefore arrive at the claimed invention prior to the effective filing date. Regarding claim 9, Yates and Hamzehlouia teach the system as applied to claim 8 above. Yates further teaches a methane line fluidically coupling the Sabatier reactor to the pyrolysis reactor and configured to transport methane produced by the Sabatier reactor to the pyrolysis reactor (Figure 1; claim 1). Regarding claim 10, Yates and Hamzehlouia teach the system as applied to claim 8 above. Yates further teaches an electrolysis module fluidically coupled to the Sabatier reactor and configured to electrolyze the water produced by the Sabatier reactor to produce oxygen and hydrogen (Figure 1; claim 1). Regarding claim 11, Yates and Hamzehlouia teach the system as applied to claim 10 above. Yates further teaches a hydrogen line coupling the electrolysis module and the Sabatier reactor and configured to transport the hydrogen produced by the electrolysis unit to the Sabatier reactor (Figure 1; claim 1) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yates in view of Hamzehlouia as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Shen et al. 2017 (CN 107051338 A). A machine translation, provided with this office action, is cited herein . Regarding claim 5, Yates and Hamzehlouia teach the invention as applied to claim 1. Yates and Hamzehlouia do not teach that the pyrolysis reactor further comprises a stirrer configured to stir the substrate particles. However, Shen teaches an analogous fluidized bed reactor for biomass pyrolysis (0009) comprising a spiral stirring shaft at its center with a variable speed motor (0009; Figures 1 and 2). It would be obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the invention of Yates and Hamzehlouia with the structure taught by Shen; one would be motivated to do so because Shen teaches the advantage of setting different stirring speeds, so that various particulate solids and liquids can be reacted, improving the diversity of processing (0013). One skilled in the art would therefore arrive at the claimed invention prior to the effective filing date . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yates in view of Hamzehlouia, as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Wei (WO 2014008496 A1) . Regarding claim 6, Yates and Hamzehlouia teach the invention as applied to claim 1. Yates and Hamzehlouia do not teach that the system further comprises a motor configured to rotate the pyrolysis reactor. However, Wei teaches an analogous method for the use of a reactor for the pyrolysis of pyrolyzable matter (0018) wherein the pyrolysis reactor has a rotating drum to form a rotating fluidized bed reactor (0020, Figure 2), and the drum is moved by a motor (motor B, Figure 1, 0042). It would be obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the invention of Yates and Hamzehlouia with the structure taught by Wei; one would be motivated to do so in order to form a moving reactor for fast pyrolysis, which would advantageously reduce the size of the reactor, have less of a pressure gradient in the reactor, and simplify the process, ultimately reducing cost, as Wei teaches (0020). One skilled in the art would therefore arrive at the claimed invention prior to the effective filing date . Double Patenting 08-33 AIA The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg , 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman , 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi , 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum , 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel , 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington , 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA/25, or PTO/AIA/26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer. 08-36 AIA Claim s 1 and 2 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11746007 in view of Hamzehlouia . Claim 1 of ‘007 recites a system for generating hydrogen, comprising a pyrolysis reactor configured to pyrolyze a hydrocarbon to generate hydrogen and carbon. ‘007 does not recite a pyrolysis reactor configured to contact the carbon with an agitated bed comprising substrate particles comprising a metal oxide to generate carbon-coated particles. However, Hamzehlouia teaches a bed particle being sized for use in a fixed bed reactor or a fluidized bed reactor and suitable for a gas-solid reactor (0013) wherein the particles are contacted with carbon from the thermal decomposition of methane (0110) and thereby coated with carbon, the core being a metal oxide having the identity of silicon dioxide (silica sand, 0110), and this contacting occurs in an agitated bed (heating-assisted fluidized bed, 0110, under bubbling conditions, 0110). It would be obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the invention of claim 1 of ‘007 by configuring the pyrolysis reactor to contact the product of the pyrolysis with the substrate particles, as taught by Hamzehlouia. One would be motivated to do so because the thermal decomposition of methane taught by Hamzehlouia is analogous to the pyrolysis of methane claimed, and Hamzehlouia further discloses that the disclosed bed particles are advantageous for enhancing selectivity and yield of thermochemical conversions such as pyrolysis (0021). One skilled in the art would therefore arrive at instant claim 1 prior to the effective filing date. Hamzehlouia further teaches the agitated bed comprising the fluidized bed (silica particles were under bubbling fluidization conditions, 0110); skilled in the art would therefore arrive at instant claim 2 prior to the effective filing date. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Eileen Moudou whose telephone number is (571)272-1768. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8 AM - 4 PM 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, Sally Merkling can be reached at (571)272-6297. 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. /Eileen Moudou/Examiner, Art Unit 1738 /MICHAEL FORREST/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1738 Application/Control Number: 18/362,740 Page 2 Art Unit: 1738 Application/Control Number: 18/362,740 Page 3 Art Unit: 1738 Application/Control Number: 18/362,740 Page 4 Art Unit: 1738 Application/Control Number: 18/362,740 Page 5 Art Unit: 1738 Application/Control Number: 18/362,740 Page 6 Art Unit: 1738 Application/Control Number: 18/362,740 Page 7 Art Unit: 1738 Application/Control Number: 18/362,740 Page 8 Art Unit: 1738 Application/Control Number: 18/362,740 Page 9 Art Unit: 1738 Application/Control Number: 18/362,740 Page 10 Art Unit: 1738
Prosecution Insights