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 .
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 13 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.
The term “substantially” in claim 13 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Therefore, the dosage rate has been rendered indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 non-obviousness.
Claims 1 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Licht (US Patent Application Publication no. 2019/0039040) in view of Stuart (CA 3052483).
Regarding claim 1, Licht discloses a method of producing carbon material from one or more carbon- containing feedstock gases (abstract; paragraph 44), the method comprising the following steps:
(a) melting one or more electrolytes inside a reactor chamber (paragraphs 8-9, 44),
(b) adding a catalyst (an agent selected from nickel, cobalt, chromium, iron and vanadium which also act as catalysts) to the molten electrolyte (paragraphs 5, 43, 53, 99). Licht further teaches that the length of the carbon nanotubes is based on the dosage rate at which these agents are added (paragraph 70). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have conduct routine experimentation to determine the optimum concentration and dosage rate of the catalyst added to the electrolyte of Licht in order to obtain the desired length of carbon nanotubes. It has been held by the courts that generally, differences in concentration not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration is critical. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In reAller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955);
(c) adding one or more feedstock gases, i.e. CO2, to the molten electrolyte (paragraphs 42, 44);
(d) applying a direct current density within the range from 100 A m-2 up to 20 000 A m-2 (from 50-1000 mA/cm2) to one or more anodes and one or more cathodes in contact with the molten electrolyte (paragraph 65).
Licht fails to teach wherein the feedstock gas is added at a flow rate of at least 4.2 standard cm3 min-1 A-1 mass equivalent of CO2.
Stuart teaches a method for producing carbon nanomaterials comprising the steps of providing a carbonate electrolyte into an electrolytic cell, heating the carbonate electrolyte to a molten state and adding carbon dioxide as a feedstock gas at a flow rate of 76 liter/minute for a 200kg daily transformation of carbon dioxide to carbon nanomaterials (paragraphs 64-65).
One having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have found it obvious to select the optimum flow rate of CO2 as the feedstock gas in Licht, as taught by Stuart, in order to maintain a constant mass of electrolyte and promote the desired transformation of carbon dioxide to carbon nanomaterials.
Regarding claim 2, the catalyst of Licht is from nickel, iron, cobalt, chromium and combinations thereof (paragraph 43).
Regarding claim 3, Licht suggests the use of iron oxides in the electrolyte (paragraph 94).
Regarding claim 4, the electrolyte of Licht includes a carbonate-group (paragraphs 8-9, 40).
Regarding claims 5 and 6, the electrolyte of Licht includes Li2CO3, (paragraphs 40, 106).
Regarding claim 7, Licht further teaches wherein the one or more electrolytes is heated to a temperature of 730°C (paragraph 54).
Regarding claim 8, the electrolyte of Licht comprises about 99% carbonate-group-containing electrolyte (paragraph 89).
Regarding claims 9 and 10, the feedstock gas of Licht is CO2 (paragraphs 42, 44).
Regarding claim 11, Licht discloses removing the carbon material from the one or more cathodes (paragraphs 73-74).
Regarding claim 12, Licht teaches wherein the feedstock gas, CO2, is bubbled into the molten electrolyte (paragraphs 72, 103).
Regarding claim 13, Stuart discloses wherein the dosage rate is substantially linear/constant (paragraphs 64-65 – a mass flow controller is also provided to adjust the flow rate as desired).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZULMARIAM MENDEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-9805. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-4:30p.
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, James Lin can be reached at 571-272-8902. 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.
/ZULMARIAM MENDEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1794
Prosecution Insights