DETAILED ACTIONNotice 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 .
Response to Election/Restriction
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species A, a sand supported metal catalyst, in the reply filed on July 6, 2026 is acknowledged. Claims 1-12, 14-17 and 20 are considered to read upon the elected species.
Claims 13 and 18-19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
The election of species requirement is thereby made FINAL.
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.
Claims 3-7, 15 and 16 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.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the air" in line 2. However, Claim 1 recites “oxygen” in line 4. Therefore, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of compact prosecution, “the air” in claim 3 shall be construed as “the oxygen”.
Claims 4-7 are rejected due to their dependence on Claim 3.
Regarding claims 15 and 16, the phrase "the like" renders the claims indefinite because the claims include elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by "the like"), thereby rendering the scope of the claim(s) unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3-6, 8, 12, 14-15, 17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yang et al. (“Natural sand as a non-conventional catalyst for hydrogen production by methane thermo-catalytic decomposition”).
With regard to Claims 1, 3-4, 8, 12 and 20, Yang teaches a method comprising introducing a hydrocarbon comprising methane to a reactor containing a natural sand catalyst (Fig. 1; Page 11627, in this study, we report on using natural sand as a catalyst for methane decomposition).
Yang teaches the method wherein the reactor is substantially absent of air, oxygen and water through purging the reactor with nitrogen gas (Fig. 1; Page 11627, Ultra-high purity N2 was purged through the reactor during a preheating step).
Yang teaches reacting the methane over the catalyst in a methane decomposition process to collect solid carbon and hydrogen gas (Page 11628, Catalytic performance, a higher methane conversion corresponded to a greater H2 concentration and indicated the sand had higher catalytic activity at higher reaction temperatures; Page 11630, After testing for 2.5 h, tubular growths probably of carbon were found to have been deposited on the sand surface… it is expected that iron oxide surface species on the sand may be the most likely site that could catalyze methane decomposition and, simultaneously, cause tubular carbon growth).
With regard to Claims 5 and 6, Yang teaches heating the reactor using an electric furnace (Page 11627, The performance of sand during methane decomposition was investigated using a bench-scale, fixed bed reactor…The reaction tube was quartz with an I.D. of 10.5 mm; the tube was heated in an electric furnace (Thermolyne 21100)).
With regard to Claims 14 and 15, Yang teaches the sand supported metal catalyst comprising silica sand, iron in the form of an oxide, and aluminum oxide as a further catalyst support (Page 11627, Table 2).
With regard to Claim 17, Yang discloses temperatures of the reactor of 850°C, 900°C, and 950°C (Fig. 3; Page 11628, Fig. 3 depicts the catalytic performance of the sand during methane decomposition at 850, 900 and 950 °C).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yang, as evidenced by Sheng et al. (“Mesoporous/microporous silica materials: Preparation from natural sands and highly efficient fixed-bed adsorption of methylene blue in wastewater”) and Zhao et al. (“The role of potassium promoter in surface carbon hydrogenation on Hägg carbide surfaces”).
With regard to Claim 16, while Yang does not explicitly disclose components of sand other than SiO2, Fe2O3, and Al2O3, Sheng, which is incorporated by reference, discloses silica sands comprising K2O (Page 11 of Sheng, Table 1). K2O has utility as a promoter in catalytic applications, as evidenced by Zhao (Page 68 of Zhao, Introduction; K2O promotion has been proposed to modify the Fe crystallite morphology in stabilizing the more active facets… Among all alkali metals, potassium promoter has the highest activity for both FTS and WGS).
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 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 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang in view of Dunker et al. (“Production of hydrogen by thermal decomposition of methane in a fluidized-bed reactor—Effects of catalyst, temperature, and residence time”).
With regard to Claim 2, Yang is silent to a fluidized bed reactor, instead teaching a fixed bed reactor (Page 11627, The performance of sand during methane decomposition was investigated using a bench-scale, fixed bed reactor).
Dunker, in a method for production of hydrogen by methane decomposition, teaches a fluidized bed (Fig. 1). Dunker notes that fluidized beds are cost-effective and allow for easier temperature control (Page 474, 2.1. Reactor; One of the main advantages of fluidized-bed reactors is the ease of temperature control… fluidized beds offer cost advantages over fixed-bed reactors).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention for Yang to disclose a fluidized bed reactor, as taught in Dunker, as fluidized beds are cost-effective and allow for easier temperature control.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Yang as applied to claim 6 above.
With regard to Claim 7, while Yang does not explicitly disclose electrical energy for heating the reactor sourced from a renewable generation source, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use renewable energy sources as an obvious expedient to combat climate change.
Claims 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang in view of Sánchez-Bastardo et al. (“Methane Pyrolysis for Zero-Emission Hydrogen Production: A Potential Bridge Technology from Fossil Fuels to a Renewable and Sustainable Hydrogen Economy”), of record in the information disclosure statement received September 12, 2023.
With regard to Claims 9-11, Yang is silent to collecting solid carbon using a cyclonic separator. Yang is further silent to separating the hydrogen gas from the solid carbon and remaining hydrocarbon, wherein the separating uses a separation membrane.
Sánchez-Bastardo, in a method for production of hydrogen via methane pyrolysis, teaches filtering carbon particles using a cyclonic separator (Figure 8A, Page 11672, The outlet gas, which is composed of unconverted methane and hydrogen, is passed first through a cyclone to remove the possible entrained carbon particles).
Sánchez-Bastardo teaches a separation membrane wherein hydrogen and methane are separated (Figure 8A, Page 11672, Afterward, the gaseous product stream flows through a membrane to separate methane and hydrogen). Sánchez-Bastardo notes that the separation of carbon particles and hydrogen improves overall reaction efficiency through the production of pure methane recycled into the reactor (Page 11672, The recovered methane is recirculated and fed back to the reactor together with a fresh natural gas stream).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention for Yang to disclose collecting solid carbon using a cyclonic separator, and separating the hydrogen gas from the solid carbon and remaining hydrocarbon, wherein the separating uses a separation membrane, as taught in Sánchez-Bastardo, to improve overall reaction efficiency.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Zhan et al. (US 2024/0199424 A1) teaches the direct conversion of methane to carbon particles and product gas comprising hydrogen. The reference does not disclose the method wherein the reactor is substantially absent of oxygen and water.
Noda et al. (US 2012/0219490 A1) teaches a method for simultaneous production of carbon nanotubes and hydrogen. The reference does not disclose a sand supported metal catalyst.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABDUL-RAHMAN YUSUF WALEED SMARI whose telephone number is (571)270-7302. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:30-5, F 7:30-4.
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 Zimmer can be reached at 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 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.
/ABDUL-RAHMAN YUSUF WALEED SMARI/Examiner, Art Unit 1736
/RICHARD M RUMP/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights