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.
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 ‘top’ and ‘bottom’ imply a required orientation.
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 10/31/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant should provide references to support the features of the bicontinuous processes they argue as being old and known; quite a number of references on the IDS are to conventional furnace black processes that do not appear to be relevant to any of the claims. Comparisons to furnace black processes and products are not relevant to the rejections and are not persuasive to overcome them. Carbon black is an amorphous material, so applicants are not in fact making it; indeed, it appears that the term ‘crystalline’ was put into claim 21 in order to distinguish from carbon black. Further, it is the picture on the right (Kowlgi) that appears to be ‘continuous’ structure rather than the one on the left (present invention). Claim 21 is not a process claim, so arguments to process steps are not persuasive.The implied unexpected results have not been demonstrated. The summary of the ODP rejections is incorrect and incomplete. For ‘top’, it appears that ‘feed injection point’ is meant.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/STUART L HENDRICKSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1736
Prosecution Insights