DETAILED ACTION
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 . The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action. The RCE is accepted.
Claims 27-28 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.
Claims 27-28 are unclear as ‘upper’ and ‘lower’ imply a required orientation. While this may seem trivial, it implies a particular method and thus the terms are doing ‘heavy lifting’ in the claims, as further discussed below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 21-24, 26-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kowlgi et al. 20130244023.
Kowlgi teaches, especially in the examples and para 38, making crystalline carbon using an emulsion. The figures show elongated structures (aspect ratio).
For claims 22-23, see para 18.
For claim 24, see para 66. No difference is seen in claim 26, since the concentration is within the range claimed.
This differs from claim 27 in not teaching injection at the ‘top’, however using a vertical reactor is an obvious expedient since an emulsion would go downwards and thus more effectively contact a gas (especially one flowing counter-currently) than being in a pool at the bottom. Para 54 teaches 700 C.
For claim 28, using combustion to heat the emulsion is obvious to create the desired temperature.
Double Patenting
Claims 13-28 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-7 of U.S. Patent No. 9617156. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they claim common subject matter.
Claims 21-26 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-13 of U.S. Patent No. 11859089. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they claim common subject matter.
Claims 13-20, 27, 28 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-15 of U.S. Patent No. 11098200. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they claim common subject matter.
Claims 13-28 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-13 of copending Application No. 18/254178 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they claim common subject matter.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Applicant's arguments filed 7/6/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Previous remarks are incorporated. Kowlgi clearly teaches a ‘network’ of ‘chemically connected’ carbon tubes because if they weren’t, they would not have the sizes depicted. Applicant appears to have a special meaning in ‘chemically interconnected’ and ‘network’ but have not made it clear how it differs from the materials of the reference. While Kowlgi depicts more of a ‘spaghetti’ style of product, nothing in the claims captures this visual difference. It is also unclear what applicant means by ‘morphologies’ (cubic, rhombohedral, etc.?) and there is nothing in the claims to indicate anything different from the product of Kowlgi. The argument that conventional carbon black processes are ‘not chemically connected’ and ‘do not have intraparticle porosity’ is not seen to be either relevant or true; carbon blacks are conventionally characterized by properties such as oil adsorption, oil adsorption after crushing (the difference between which is indicative of the degree of organized 3D structure), Iodine surface area and BET area- among other properties indicative of porosity. It is not seen how the circles show separate discrete particles being bridged, as seems to be argued. Does the enclosed figure show (only) 3 particles? If so, then a limitation of primary particle size would be appropriate. While each nanotube can have an aspect ratio of 100 or more, they can be clustered to form an overall particle which is somewhat spherical; see Kowlgi figs. 3 and 7C. The claims do not recite a ‘continuous furnace black manufacturing process’ because 1) the product is not carbon black and 2) conventional carbon black reactors are horizontal and not vertical. The argued inert environment and longer residence times (which are actually inconsistent with a gravity feed versus a horizontal reactor, all other things being equal) are not claimed; inert is only implied in claim 28. The ’top’ language implies a gravity feed, which is at the root of this issue and the difference between the present process and a conventional carbon black process and thus needs clarification either by explanation or amendment.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STUART L HENDRICKSON whose telephone number is (571)272-1351. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 9 to 5. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Anthony 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.
/STUART L HENDRICKSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1736
