CTNF 18/559,306 CTNF 82967 DETAILED ACTION Citation to the Specification will be in the following format: (S. # : ¶) where # denotes the page number and ¶ denotes the paragraph number of the pre-grant publication corresponding to the application, US 2024/0228289. Citation to patent literature will be in the form (Inventor # : LL) where # is the column number and LL is the line number. Citation to the pre-grant publication literature will be in the following format (Inventor # : ¶) where # denotes the page number and ¶ denotes the paragraph number. Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Status of Application The preliminary amendment dated 11/6/2023 has been received and will be entered. Claim(s) 1-2, 4-12, 17-22, and 24-26 is/are pending. Claim(s) 3, 13-16, and 23 is/are acknowledged as cancelled. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 2/17/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA 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. 07-34-01 I. Claim 8 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 8 recites “the conformal carbon coating.” This language lacks antecedent basis. MPEP 2173.05(e). Claim Rejections - 35 USC §§ 102-103 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-20-02-aia AIA 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. I. Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 19, 20, 21, 24, and 25 – or as stated below - is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by KR 102008423 to Kim, et al. (08-08-2019; B01J 19/0026, cited by Applicants). Citation is to the machine translation accompanying the copy filed with the 2/17/2026 IDS. With respect to Claim 1 , this claim requires “flowing gaseous hydrocarbon onto a porous substrate in a reaction zone.” Methane (a gaseous hydrocarbon) is flowed onto a porous reaction layer in a reaction zone. (Kim [0012]-[0014]; [0036]-[0041]; [0044]; [0046]; [0052]-[0057]; passim ). Claim 1 further requires “exposing the porous substrate to a concentrated solar irradiation in the reaction zone such that the porous substrate and gases surrounding the porous substrate absorb the concentrated solar irradiation producing heat.” The substrate is exposed to concentrated solar irradiation. (Kim [0032]-[0039]; [0075]; passim ). Claim 1 further requires “wherein the heat decomposes the gaseous hydrocarbon into hydrogen gas and carbon.” Decomposition into hydrogen and carbon black is taught. (Kim [0067]). As to Claim 2 , what is construed as “photocatalysis” is taught. (Kim [0012]). As to Claim 4 , notwithstanding the issues above, the methane of Kim (see discussion of Claim 1) is interpreted as ““high”” purity. As to Claim 5 , a carrier gas is mixed with methane. (Kim [0052]). As to Claim 7 , a porous substrate and carbon black are taught. See e.g. (Kim [0039]). As to Claim 8 , what is interpreted as “coalesc[ing]” is taught. Id . As to Claim 9 , electrochemical energy storage devices are taught. (Kim [0020]). As to Claim 10 , the sun is taught. (Kim [0009], [0012]). As to Claim 19 , ceramics are taught. (Kim [0038]). As to Claim 20 , various reflectors are taught. (Kim Fig. 1.). As to Claim 21 , what is understood as an elliptical or parabolic reflector is taught. Id. As to Claim 24 , multiple directions of light are taught. (Kim Fig. 1). As to Claim 25 , natural gas is taught. (Kim [0057]). II. Claim(s) 22 – or as stated below - is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 102008423 to Kim, et al. (08-08-2019; B01J 19/0026, cited by Applicants) in view of: (i) KR 101008500 to Kang, et al. (01-14-2011; F24J2/04). Citation to Kim is to the machine translation accompanying the copy filed with the 2/17/2026 IDS. Citation to Kang is to the machine translation accompanying the office action. The discussion accompanying “Rejection I” above is incorporated herein by reference. As to Claim 22 , note that Kim refers to and incorporates by reference another Korean patent document. Kim states: “An example of a solar heat collecting device that can be linked to the methane pyrolysis solar reactor of the present invention is shown in FIG. 1, the description of which is described in Korean Patent No. 10-1008500, which is incorporated herein.” (Kim [0034]). To the extent it is improper to rely on a document incorporated by reference, it is an explicit literal teaching, suggestion and/or motivation to consult the document. Kang teaches that the solar collector is adjustable. See (Kang at 2: “The solar concentrating system includes a heliostat configured by providing at least one plane reflector on a front surface of a frame whose azimuth angle and altitude are controlled by an azimuth angle adjusting means and an altitude angle adjusting means … A light amount controller installed between the condenser and the Heliostat to adjust the amount of light reflected from the Heliostat to the condenser.”). This is the evidence to show inherency. Alternatively or additionally, one of skill would be motivated to make the solar collector adjustable, as Kim instructs them to use an adjustable solar collector. III. Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 10, 19, 20, 25, and 26 – or as stated below - is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2006/0140848 to Weimer, et al. With respect to Claim 1 , this claim requires “flowing gaseous hydrocarbon onto a porous substrate in a reaction zone.” Hydrocarbons are flowed. (Weimer 2: [0020]). A porous substrate is taught. (Weimer 2: [0015]). Reaction zones are taught. (Weimer 3: [0030] et seq ., “Figs,”). Claim 1 further requires “exposing the porous substrate to a concentrated solar irradiation in the reaction zone such that the porous substrate and gases surrounding the porous substrate absorb the concentrated solar irradiation producing heat.” Exposure to solar irradiation is taught. (Weimer 3: [0030] et seq ., Fig. 1). Claim 1 further requires “wherein the heat decomposes the gaseous hydrocarbon into hydrogen gas and carbon.” The hydrocarbon is decomposed, and carbon is produced. See e.g. (Weimer 1: [0013]: “In the methods of the invention where hydrocarbon containing gases are dissociated, fine carbon black particles are also produced.”). As to Claim 2 , what is interpreted as photocatalysis is taught. (Weimer 3: [0030] et seq .; passim ). As to Claim 4 , methane is taught. (Weimer 2: [0020]; passim ). As to Claim 5 , a carrier gas is so mixed. (Weimer 5: [0063]; 6: [0072]). As to Claim 6 , hydrogen is taught. (Weimer 6: [0072]). As to Claim 10 , sunlight is taught. (Weimer 2: [0015]). As to Claim 19 , the refractor material is understood to be a ceramic. (Weimer 2: [0015]). As to Claim 20 , a reflector is taught. (Weimer 5: [0060]). As to Claim 25 , natural gas is taught. (Weimer 2: [0020]). As to Claim 26 , recycling the gas is taught. (Weimer 6: [0070]). IV. Claim(s) 21-22 and 24 – or as stated below - is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2006/0140848 to Weimer, et al. in view of: (i) KR 101008500 to Kang, et al. (01-14-2011; F24J2/04). The discussion accompanying “Rejection III” above is incorporated herein by reference. As to Claims 21-22 , Weimer teaches a generic solar concentrator. (Weimer 5-6: [0074], Figs. 2-3). Solar concentrators with the various reflectors, adjustability, etc. are old and known. Official notice is taken. Kang (discussed above) is offered as evidence. Use of known components/apparatus to achieve predictable results does not impart patentabilty. MPEP 2143; KSR . As to Claim 24 , different directions are taught. (Kang Fig. 9). V. Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 24, and 25 – or as stated below - is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2017/0057823 to Hart, et al. in view of: (i) Yeheskel, et al., Thermolysis of methane in a solar reactor for mass-production of hydrogen and carbon nano-materials , Carbon 2011; 49: 4695-4703 (cited by Applicants, hereinafter “Yeheskel at __”). With respect to Claim 1 , this claim requires “flowing gaseous hydrocarbon onto a porous substrate in a reaction zone.” A hydrocarbon is flowed onto a substrate. (Hart 4: [0081]). A porous substrate is taught. (Hart 9: [0112]). Claim 1 further requires “exposing the porous substrate to a concentrated solar irradiation in the reaction zone such that the porous substrate and gases surrounding the porous substrate absorb the concentrated solar irradiation producing heat.” Hart teaches any number of methods of exposing the substrate / gas to heat/energy. (Hart 8: [0101]-[0102]). Hart would not appear to teach exposure to solar irradiation. These techniques are known. Official notice is taken. As but one example, Yeheskel is provided. (Yeheskel at 4696 et seq . – 2. Experimental). Substitution of one method of applying energy ( i.e. any of those taught by Hart) for another (solar irradiation, per Yeheskel) reflects application of known techniques to achieve predictable results. This does not impart patentability. MPEP 2143. Alternatively or additionally, one of skill in the art would be motivated to employ solar irradiation due to the high scalability and ability to achieve complete conversion of the methane. (Yeheskel at 4702, col. 1). Claim 1 further requires “wherein the heat decomposes the gaseous hydrocarbon into hydrogen gas and carbon.” Hart teaches methane (CH 4 ). (Hart 15: [0153]). Hart teaches carbon nanotubes (made of carbon). (Hart Title, Abstract, passim ). This more than reasonably suggests that it produces hydrogen as a byproduct. However, to the extent it somehow doesn’t, Yeheskel teaches the cracking mechanism and production of hydrogen. (Yeheskel at 4695, col. 1-2). As to Claim 2 , a photocatalytic effect is taught. (Yeheskel at 4696, col. 1: “Those findings suggest that there might be a photo-catalytic effect in the CNT formation and this may prove solar production more advantageous than processes that use a furnace, e.g. for CVD.”). As to Claim 4 , Hart teaches methane (CH 4 ). (Hart 15: [0153]). Yeheskel teaches methane. (Yeheskel at 4695, col. 1-2). As to Claim 5 , methane and a carrier gas is taught. (Hart 15: [0153]). As to Claim 6 , hydrogen is taught. (Hart 15: [0153]). As to Claim 7 , at least carbon nanotubes are taught. (Hart 12-13: [0135]; passim ). As to Claim 8 , the “coalescing” is taught. (Hart all Figs, accompanying text). As to Claim 10 , light from the sun is taught. (Yeheskel at 4697, Fig. 1(b)). As to Claim 17 , a roll-to-roll substrate is taught. (Hart 10: [0122] et seq ., Fig. 3). As to Claim 18 , the substrate is so operated. (Hart 10: [0122] et seq ., Fig. 3). As to Claim 19 , the alumina fiber cloth (Hart 16: [0163]) is interpreted as a metal mesh. As to Claim 20 , reflectors are taught. (Yeheskel at 4697 Fig. 1, accompanying text). As to Claim 21 , what is understood as a compound reflector and/or an elliptical reflector is taught. (Yeheskel at 4697 Fig. 1, accompanying text). As to Claim 22 , the photos of Yeheskel reasonably depict an adjustable reflector. (Yeheskel at 4697, Fig. 1). As to Claim 24 , multiple directions are depicted. (Yeheskel at 4697, Fig. 1). As to Claim 25 , to the extent methane (Hart 15: [0153]) is insufficient to teach natural gas, the use of natural gas in solar cracking processes is old and known. Official notice is taken. The references cited elsewhere (Kim, etc.) are offered as evidence. Use of known hydrocarbons to achieve predictable results (cracking/catalysis to carbon + hydrogen products) does not impart patentability. MPEP 2143; KSR . Allowable Subject Matter I. Dependent Upon Rejected Base Claim. Claims 11-12 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The references have been discussed above. While teaching various solar thermolysis techniques, they do not teach or reasonably suggest supplementing the solar energy with artificial light, as claimed. Citation of pertinent art 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure : Agrafiotis, et al., Hydrogen production in solar reactors , Catalysis Today 2007; 265-277 (hereinafter “Agrafiotis at __”). Agrafiotis summarizes various approaches to hydrogen generation from methane cracking with solar energy. See generally (Agrafiotis at 266, col. 2 et seq .). Agrafiotis is cited to show the state of the art. Any rejections that could have been crafted were considered cumulative to those above at this time . Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL C. MCCRACKEN whose telephone number is (571) 272-6537. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday (9-6). 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 J. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /DANIEL C. MCCRACKEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1736 Application/Control Number: 18/559,306 Page 2 Art Unit: 1736 Application/Control Number: 18/559,306 Page 3 Art Unit: 1736 Application/Control Number: 18/559,306 Page 4 Art Unit: 1736 Application/Control Number: 18/559,306 Page 5 Art Unit: 1736 Application/Control Number: 18/559,306 Page 6 Art Unit: 1736 Application/Control Number: 18/559,306 Page 7 Art Unit: 1736 Application/Control Number: 18/559,306 Page 8 Art Unit: 1736 Application/Control Number: 18/559,306 Page 9 Art Unit: 1736 Application/Control Number: 18/559,306 Page 10 Art Unit: 1736 Application/Control Number: 18/559,306 Page 11 Art Unit: 1736
Prosecution Insights