DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-25 were subject to restriction requirement mailed on 02/26/2026.
Applicant filed a response, and elected Group I, claims 1-12, and withdrew claims 13-25, without traverse on 05/20/2026.
Claims 1-25 are pending, and claims 13-25 are withdrawn.
Claims 1-12 are rejected.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-12, in the reply filed on 05/20/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 13-25 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 05/20/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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(s) 1-7 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Soane et al., US 2021/0245133 A1 (Soane) (provided in IDS received on 01/12/2024) in view of Kogyo et al., GB 2066228A (Kogyo) (provided in IDS received on 01/12/2024).
Regarding claims 1 and 4, Soane teaches a gas processing system for transforming a hydrocarbon-containing inflow gas (reading upon a first feed stream) into outflow gas products; where the system includes a gas delivery subsystem, a plasma reaction chamber, and a microwave subsystem, with the gas delivery subsystem in fluid communication with the plasma reaction chamber, so that the gas delivery subsystem directs the hydrocarbon-containing inflow gas into the plasma reaction chamber, and the microwave subsystem directs microwave energy into the plasma reaction chamber to energize the hydrocarbon-containing inflow gas, thereby forming a plasma in the plasma reaction chamber, which plasma effects the transformation of a hydrocarbon in the hydrocarbon-containing inflow gas into the outflow gas products (reading upon activating microwave pyrolysis in the plasma reactor), which comprise acetylene and hydrogen (reading upon an acetylene-containing feed stream) (Soane, Abstract);
whereby the acetylene-rich stream ultimately arrives at the acetylene decomposition reactor, which separates acetylene into the component products of acetylene black and hydrogen (reading upon activating decomposition of the acetylene-containing feed stream into hydrogen) (Soane).
However, Soane does not explicitly disclose that the decomposition reactor is a refractor or further comprising delivering a second feed stream to the refractor.
With respect to the differences, Kogyo teaches the production of acetylene black by the thermal decomposition of acetylene (Kogyo, page 4, 1st paragraph). Kogyo specifically teaches it proves particularly effective, when it is carried out in furnaces of a thermally insulated construction such as those built of refractory bricks and insulating bricks (Kogyo, page 7, 3rd paragraph).
As Kogyo expressly teaches, acetylene gas is fed to a zone of thermal decomposition together with exothermally decomposable hydrocarbon to produce acetylene black and the acetylene black is excellent in electric resistance (Kogyo, Abstract); the addition of the unsaturated hydrocarbon ensured stable supply of acetylene black of high quality and also offers a significant advantage that the carbon present in the unsaturated hydrocarbon being used for the adjustment of the product quality can be recovered as part of the carbon black (Kogyo, page 6, 5th paragraph).
Kogyo is analogous art as Kogyo is drawn to the production of acetylene black by the thermal decomposition of acetylene.
In light of the motivation of conduct thermal decomposition of acetylene gas together with exothermally decomposable hydrocarbon, as taught by Kogyo, particularly when it is carried out in furnaces of a thermally insulated construction such as those built of refractory bricks and insulating bricks, it therefore would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to conduct thermal decomposition of acetylene gas together with exothermally decomposable hydrocarbon (reading upon a second feed stream) in Soane, and particularly have it carried out in furnaces of a thermally insulated construction such as those built of refractory bricks and insulating bricks (reading upon a refractory), in order to product acetylene black that is excellent in electric resistance, to ensure stable supply of acetylene black of high quality, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 2-3, as applied to claim 1, Soane in view of Kogyo further teaches purified hydrocarbon feedstock such as methane, ethane, propane and butane and combinations thereof (Soane, [0010]).
Regarding claims 5-6, as applied to claim 1, Soane in view of Kogyo further teaches the aromatic unsaturated hydrocarbons is for example benzene (Kogyo, page 6, 2nd paragraph, Table 1).
Regarding claim 7, as applied to claim 1, Soane in view of Kogyo further teaches the temperature of the thermal decomposition in the range of 1700˚C to 2400˚C (Kogyo, Abstract), wherein 1700˚C reads upon about 1600 ˚C.
Regarding claim 11, as applied to claim 1, Soane in view of Kogyo for the ethylene decomposition, it is thermally decomposed to produce a acetylene black and hydrogen gas (Kogyo, page 5, 1st paragraph).
Regarding claim 12, as applied to claim 4, Soane in view of Kogyo teaches the carbon present in the unsaturated hydrocarbon being can be recovered as part of the carbon black (Kogyo, page 6, 5th paragraph).
Given that for the ethylene decomposition, it is thermally decomposed to produce a acetylene black and hydrogen gas (Kogyo, page 5, 1st paragraph). Therefore, it is clear that similarly, the decomposition of the unsaturated hydrocarbon would also produce hydrogen in addition to the carbon black.
Alternatively, given that Soane in view of Kogyo teaches an identical or essentially identical process, i.e., ethylene decomposition process into acetylene black and hydrogen gas, with that of the presently invention (claim 1), therefore, it is clear that the , the decomposition of the unsaturated hydrocarbon would also produce hydrogen in addition to the carbon black.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Soane in view of Kogyo as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Muradov, CO2-free production of hydrogen by catalytic pyrolysis of hydrocarbon fuel, Energy & Fuels, 1998 (Muradov).
Regarding claim 8, as applied to claim 7, Soane in view of Kogyo does not explicitly disclose wherein the temperature within the refractory is at about 1000 °C to about 1300 °C.
With respect to the difference, Muradov teaches production of hydrogen by pyrolysis of hydrocarbon (Muradov, Title and Abstract). Muradov specifically teaches catalysts are used in the decomposition of light hydrocarbons (Muradov, page 3, left column, bottom paragraph).
As Muradov expressly teaches, catalysts can be used to reduce the maximum temperature of the decomposition of light hydrocarbons (Muradov, page 3, left column, bottom paragraph).
Muradov is analogous art as Muradov is drawn to production of hydrogen by pyrolysis of hydrocarbon.
In light of the motivation of using catalysts in the decomposition of light hydrocarbon, as taught by Muradov, it therefore would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use catalyst in the ethylene decomposition process of Soane in view of Kogyo, in order to lower the maximum temperature of the decomposition.
Soane in view of Kogyo and Muradov further teaches that process temperature (i.e., decomposition temperature) is a factor for reaction kinetics of the decomposition reaction (Muradov, page 1, right column).
Although there are no disclosures on the amounts of temperature as presently claimed, it has long been an axiom of United States patent law that it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges of result-effective variables by routine experimentation. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ("The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages."); In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 276 (CCPA 1980) ("[D]iscovery of an optimum value of a result effective variable in a known process is ordinarily within the skill of the art."); In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456 (CCPA 1955) ("[W]here 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."). "Only if the 'results of optimizing a variable' are 'unexpectedly good' can a patent be obtained for the claimed critical range." In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (quoting In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 620 (CCPA 1977)).
At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to vary the amounts of temperature, including over the amounts presently claimed, in order to achieve desired energy saving and process efficiency (i.e., lower temperature) and desired reaction kinetics, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Soane in view of Kogyo as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Muradov.
Regarding claim 9, as applied to claim 1, Soane in view of Kogyo does not explicitly disclose wherein a catalyst is present in the refractory or wherein the catalyst is solid carbon.
With respect to the difference, Muradov teaches production of hydrogen by pyrolysis of hydrocarbon (Muradov, Title and Abstract). Muradov specifically teaches catalysts are used in the decomposition of light hydrocarbons (Muradov, page 3, left column, bottom paragraph).
As Muradov expressly teaches, catalysts can be used to reduce the maximum temperature of the decomposition of light hydrocarbons (Muradov, page 3, left column, bottom paragraph).
Muradov is analogous art as Muradov is drawn to production of hydrogen by pyrolysis of hydrocarbon.
In light of the motivation of using catalysts in the decomposition of light hydrocarbon, as taught by Muradov, it therefore would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use catalyst in the ethylene decomposition process of Soane in view of Kogyo, in order to lower the maximum temperature of the decomposition, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 10, as applied to claim 9, Soane in view of Kogyo in view of Muradov further teaches carbon-based catalysts, including graphite, carbon black, and activated carbon (Muradov, page 4, right column, bottom paragraph).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KELING ZHANG whose telephone number is (571)272-8043. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 9:00am-5:00pm 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, Ching-Yiu Fung can be reached at 571-270-5713. 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.
/KELING ZHANG/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1732
Prosecution Insights