DETAILED ACTION
Citation to the Specification will be in the following format: (S. # : ¶/L) where # denotes the page number and ¶/L denotes the paragraph number or line number. 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
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; Restriction
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (Claims 1-15) in the reply filed on 7/17/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are pending.
Claim(s) 16-20 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected system, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 7/17/2026.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 2/19/2024 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 § 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.
I. Claim(s) 1, 7, 11, and 12 – or as stated below - is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raja, et al., Selective Production of Hydrogen and Solid Carbon via Methane Pyrolysis Using a Swirl-Induced Point-Plane Non-thermal Plasma Reactor, Energy Fuels 2022; 36: 826-836 (hereinafter “Raja at __”) in view of:
(i) Saini, et al., Carbon Nanoparticles of Varying Shapes as Additives in Mineral Oil Assessment of Comparative Performance Potential, ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 2021; 13: 38844-38856 (hereinafter “Saini at __”).
With respect to Claim 1, this claim requires “pyrolyzing at least a portion of a methane from a methane containing stream to form a product stream comprising at least hydrogen and carbon nanoparticles.” Methane is pyrolyzed. (Raja at 828, col. 2: “CH4 pyrolysis”). The filter separates the carbon nanoparticles from the hydrogen. Id., see also (Raja Abstract, note figure depicting H2 and C) and (Raja at 832, Fig. 9 – carbon nanoparticles).
Claim 1 further requires “contacting at least a portion of the carbon nanoparticles with a liquid to form a composition comprising the liquid and the carbon nanoparticles.” References teaching the addition of various nanoparticles to liquids are legion. Saini is but one example. (Saini at 38846, col. 2 – 2. Materials and Methodology). One of skill would be motivated to contact the nanoparticles of Raja with the mineral oil of Saini to make a lubricant. (Saini, entire reference). Note especially the teachings, suggestions and motivations related to nanoparticles ability to “enhance[] the contact surface area, and thus, the applied pressure is distributed more uniformly that eventually reduces friction and wear,” etc. (Saini at 38845, col. 1). One of skill in the art would be motivated to select the nanoparticles of Raja based on their high purity. (Raja at 832, col. 1: “A high purity of solid carbon is evident…,” passim).
As to Claim 7, separation with a filter is taught. (Raja at 828, col. 2: “A 5 μm filter was placed at the exit of the discharge reactor to filter out the solid carbon particles from CH4 pyrolysis.”).
As to Claim 11, mineral oil is taught. (Saini at 38846, col. 2: “selected particles as an additive in mineral oil group III,” Title). The suspension is interpreted as a slurry. Id. (“the formulated oil suspension”).
As to Claim 12, mineral oil is taught. (Saini at 38846, col. 2: “selected particles as an additive in mineral oil group III,” Title).
II. Claim(s) 4-6 – or as stated below - is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raja, et al., Selective Production of Hydrogen and Solid Carbon via Methane Pyrolysis Using a Swirl-Induced Point-Plane Non-thermal Plasma Reactor, Energy Fuels 2022; 36: 826-836 (hereinafter “Raja at __”) in view of:
(i) Saini, et al., Carbon Nanoparticles of Varying Shapes as Additives in Mineral Oil Assessment of Comparative Performance Potential, ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 2021; 13: 38844-38856 (hereinafter “Saini at __”), and in further view of:
(ii) US 7,258,169 to Fripp, et al.
The discussion accompanying “Rejection I” above is incorporated herein by reference.
As to Claim 4, Raja discusses hydrogen-based energy production (Raja at 826, col. 1), but does not explicitly teach what to do with that energy (watch television, run an air conditioner, power wellbore equipment, etc.). This difference does not impart patentabilty. As Applicant Halliburton has recognized in other patent filings (which were not provided on the IDS), wellbore equipment requires energy. (Fripp 1: 21-22: “Electrical power is generally required to power such downhole tools.”). Applicants have also recognized that “using energy storage devices such as batteries, fuel cells, or capacitors to power downhole tools is considered a better alternative to the use of power generators.” (Fripp 1: 28-31). The Applicant goes on to teach that fuel cells require hydrogen, etc. (Fripp 4: 46 et seq.; passim). One of skill in the art would be motivated to use something needed to make energy (hydrogen, per Raja) to make energy (Fripp) in equipment that requires energy (Fripp). Note again the obvious statements Applicant has made elsewhere related to oil drilling requiring power, etc. It is obvious to use power from any source (solar, wind, tidal, coal, natural gas, nuclear, etc.) in a process that requires power. Fripp states as much. (Fripp 3: 11-37).
As to Claim 5, fuel cells are taught. (Fripp 4: 42 et seq.; passim).
As to Claim 6, engines are equally known for powering wellbore equipment. (Fripp 3: 11-37, Claim 2; passim).
III. Claim(s) 1 and 15 – or as stated below - is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raja, et al., Selective Production of Hydrogen and Solid Carbon via Methane Pyrolysis Using a Swirl-Induced Point-Plane Non-thermal Plasma Reactor, Energy Fuels 2022; 36: 826-836 (hereinafter “Raja at __”) in view of:
(i) US 2005/0124504 to Zhang, et al.
The discussion accompanying “Rejection I” above is incorporated herein by reference.
With respect to Claim 1, this claim requires “pyrolyzing at least a portion of a methane from a methane containing stream to form a product stream comprising at least hydrogen and carbon nanoparticles.” Methane is pyrolyzed. (Raja at 828, col. 2: “CH4 pyrolysis”). The filter separates the carbon nanoparticles from the hydrogen. Id., see also (Raja Abstract, note figure depicting H2 and C) and (Raja at 832, Fig. 9 – carbon nanoparticles).
Claim 1 further requires “contacting at least a portion of the carbon nanoparticles with a liquid to form a composition comprising the liquid and the carbon nanoparticles.” References teaching the addition of various nanoparticles to liquids are legion. Zhang is but one example. (Zhang Abstract; passim). One of skill would be motivated to contact the nanoparticles of Raja with the liquids of Zhang to make a lubricant. Id. One of skill in the art would be motivated to select the nanoparticles of Raja based on their high purity. (Raja at 832, col. 1: “A high purity of solid carbon is evident…,” passim).
As to Claim 15, to the extent Raja and Saini may not teach the nanoparticle-oil based liquid-water emulsion/paste, Zhang teaches fluids so defined (Zhang 3: [0024]: “broadly defined to include pastes, gels, greases, and liquid crystalline phases in either organic or aqueous media, emulsions and microemulsions.”) with carbon nanoparticles. (Zhang 10: [0122] et seq.; passim). One of skill would be motivated to contact the nanoparticles of Raja with the compositions of Zhang to make a lubricant. (Zhang, entire reference). Note especially the teachings, suggestions and motivations related to thermal conductivity, etc. (Zhang 1: [0009]). One of skill in the art would be motivated to select the nanoparticles of Raja based on their high purity. (Raja at 832, col. 1: “A high purity of solid carbon is evident…,” passim).
IV. Claim(s) 1, 7, 13, and 14 – or as stated below - is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raja, et al., Selective Production of Hydrogen and Solid Carbon via Methane Pyrolysis Using a Swirl-Induced Point-Plane Non-thermal Plasma Reactor, Energy Fuels 2022; 36: 826-836 (hereinafter “Raja at __”) in view of:
(i) Kim, et al., Experimental investigation of dispersion characteristics and thermal conductivity of various surfactants on carbon based nanomaterial, International Communications in Heat and Mass Transfer 2018; 91: 95-102 (hereinafter “Kim at __”).
With respect to Claim 1, this claim requires “pyrolyzing at least a portion of a methane from a methane containing stream to form a product stream comprising at least hydrogen and carbon nanoparticles.” Methane is pyrolyzed. (Raja at 828, col. 2: “CH4 pyrolysis”). The filter separates the carbon nanoparticles from the hydrogen. Id., see also (Raja Abstract, note figure depicting H2 and C) and (Raja at 832, Fig. 9 – carbon nanoparticles).
Claim 1 further requires “contacting at least a portion of the carbon nanoparticles with a liquid to form a composition comprising the liquid and the carbon nanoparticles.” References teaching the addition of various nanoparticles to aqueous solutions with a surfactant/dispersant are legion. Kim is but one example. (Kim at 96, col. 2 – 2. Preparation of nanofluids). One of skill would be motivated to contact the nanoparticles of Raja with the aqueous solutions of Kim to make a nanofluid for heat transfer. (Kim at 95, col. 1). One of skill in the art would be motivated to select the nanoparticles of Raja based on their high purity. (Raja at 832, col. 1: “A high purity of solid carbon is evident…,” passim).
As to Claim 7, separation with a filter is taught. (Raja at 828, col. 2: “A 5 μm filter was placed at the exit of the discharge reactor to filter out the solid carbon particles from CH4 pyrolysis.”).
As to Claim 13, water and surfactants are taught. (Kim at 96, col. 2 – 2. Preparation of nanofluids).
As to Claim 14, at least SDS is taught. (Kim at 96, col. 2 – 2. Preparation of nanofluids).
V. Claim(s) 1, 2, 3, 11, and 12 – or as stated below - is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Konno, et al., Direct Preparation of Hydrogen and Carbon Nanotubes by Microwave Plasma Decomposition of Methane over Fe/Si Activated by Biased Hydrogen Plasma, Green and Sustainable Chemistry 2013; 3: 19-25 (hereinafter “Konno at __”) in view of:
(i) Saini, et al., Carbon Nanoparticles of Varying Shapes as Additives in Mineral Oil Assessment of Comparative Performance Potential, ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 2021; 13: 38844-38856 (hereinafter “Saini at __”).
With respect to Claim 1, this claim requires “pyrolyzing at least a portion of a methane from a methane containing stream to form a product stream comprising at least hydrogen and carbon nanoparticles.” Methane is pyrolyzed. (Konno at 20 – 2.2. Experimental Procedure). Hydrogen and carbon are produced. (Konno at 20 – 2.3 Calculation of Methane Conversion, Hydrogen Yield, Carbon Yield and Molar Fraction of Output Gas).
Claim 1 further requires “contacting at least a portion of the carbon nanoparticles with a liquid to form a composition comprising the liquid and the carbon nanoparticles.” References teaching the addition of various nanoparticles to liquids are legion. Saini is but one example. (Saini at 38846, col. 2 – 2. Materials and Methodology). One of skill would be motivated to contact the nanoparticles of Konno with the mineral oil of Saini to make a lubricant. (Saini, entire reference).
As to Claim 2, a microwave pyrolysis unit is taught. (Konno at 20 – Fig. 1, 2.2. Experimental Procedure).
As to Claim 3, exposure to a plasma is taught. Id.
As to Claim 7, separation is more than reasonably suggested by the analysis of the products. (Konno at 20 – 2.4 Analysis of Products).
As to Claim 11, mineral oil is taught. (Saini at 38846, col. 2: “selected particles as an additive in mineral oil group III,” Title). The suspension is interpreted as a slurry. Id. (“the formulated oil suspension”).
As to Claim 12, mineral oil is taught. (Saini at 38846, col. 2: “selected particles as an additive in mineral oil group III,” Title).
VI. Claim(s) 4-6 – or as stated below - is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Konno, et al., Direct Preparation of Hydrogen and Carbon Nanotubes by Microwave Plasma Decomposition of Methane over Fe/Si Activated by Biased Hydrogen Plasma, Green and Sustainable Chemistry 2013; 3: 19-25 (hereinafter “Konno at __”) in view of:
(i) Saini, et al., Carbon Nanoparticles of Varying Shapes as Additives in Mineral Oil Assessment of Comparative Performance Potential, ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 2021; 13: 38844-38856 (hereinafter “Saini at __”), and in further view of:
(ii) US 7,258,169 to Fripp, et al.
The discussion accompanying “Rejection V” above is incorporated herein by reference.
As to Claim 4, Konno discusses hydrogen-based energy production (Konno at 20), but does not explicitly teach what to do with that energy (watch television, run an air conditioner, power wellbore equipment, etc.). This difference does not impart patentabilty. As Applicant Halliburton has recognized in other patent filings (which were not provided on the IDS), wellbore equipment requires energy. (Fripp 1: 21-22: “Electrical power is generally required to power such downhole tools.”). Applicants have also recognized that “using energy storage devices such as batteries, fuel cells, or capacitors to power downhole tools is considered a better alternative to the use of power generators.” (Fripp 1: 28-31). The Applicant goes on to teach that fuel cells require hydrogen, etc. (Fripp 4: 46 et seq.; passim). One of skill in the art would be motivated to use something needed to make energy (hydrogen, per Konno) to make energy (Fripp) in equipment that requires energy (Fripp). Note again the obvious statements Applicant has made elsewhere related to oil drilling requiring power, etc. It is obvious to use power from any source (solar, wind, tidal, coal, natural gas, nuclear, etc.) in a process that requires power. Fripp states as much. (Fripp 3: 11-37).
As to Claim 5, fuel cells are taught. (Fripp 4: 42 et seq.; passim).
As to Claim 6, engines are equally known for powering wellbore equipment. (Fripp 3: 11-37, Claim 2; passim).
VII. Claim(s) 1, 2, 3, 11, and 12 – or as stated below - is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Konno, et al., Direct Preparation of Hydrogen and Carbon Nanotubes by Microwave Plasma Decomposition of Methane over Fe/Si Activated by Biased Hydrogen Plasma, Green and Sustainable Chemistry 2013; 3: 19-25 (hereinafter “Konno at __”) in view of:
(i) Kim, et al., Experimental investigation of dispersion characteristics and thermal conductivity of various surfactants on carbon based nanomaterial, International Communications in Heat and Mass Transfer 2018; 91: 95-102 (hereinafter “Kim at __”).
With respect to Claim 1, this claim requires “pyrolyzing at least a portion of a methane from a methane containing stream to form a product stream comprising at least hydrogen and carbon nanoparticles.” Methane is pyrolyzed. (Konno at 20 – 2.2. Experimental Procedure). Hydrogen and carbon are produced. (Konno at 20 – 2.3 Calculation of Methane Conversion, Hydrogen Yield, Carbon Yield and Molar Fraction of Output Gas).
Claim 1 further requires “contacting at least a portion of the carbon nanoparticles with a liquid to form a composition comprising the liquid and the carbon nanoparticles.” References teaching the addition of various nanoparticles to aqueous solutions with a surfactant/dispersant are legion. Kim is but one example. (Kim at 96, col. 2 – 2. Preparation of nanofluids). One of skill would be motivated to contact the nanoparticles of Konno with the aqueous solutions of Kim to make a nanofluid for heat transfer. (Kim at 95, col. 1).
As to Claim 2, a microwave pyrolysis unit is taught. (Konno at 20 – Fig. 1, 2.2. Experimental Procedure).
As to Claim 3, exposure to a plasma is taught. Id.
As to Claim 7, separation is more than reasonably suggested by the analysis of the products. (Konno at 20 – 2.4 Analysis of Products).
As to Claim 13, water and surfactants are taught. (Kim at 96, col. 2 – 2. Preparation of nanofluids).
As to Claim 14, at least SDS is taught. (Kim at 96, col. 2 – 2. Preparation of nanofluids).
VIII. Claim(s) 1 and 15 – or as stated below - is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Konno, et al., Direct Preparation of Hydrogen and Carbon Nanotubes by Microwave Plasma Decomposition of Methane over Fe/Si Activated by Biased Hydrogen Plasma, Green and Sustainable Chemistry 2013; 3: 19-25 (hereinafter “Konno at __”) in view of:
(i) US 2005/0124504 to Zhang, et al.
The discussion accompanying “Rejection I” above is incorporated herein by reference.
With respect to Claim 1, this claim requires “pyrolyzing at least a portion of a methane from a methane containing stream to form a product stream comprising at least hydrogen and carbon nanoparticles.” Methane is pyrolyzed. (Konno at 20 – 2.2. Experimental Procedure). Hydrogen and carbon are produced. (Konno at 20 – 2.3 Calculation of Methane Conversion, Hydrogen Yield, Carbon Yield and Molar Fraction of Output Gas).
Claim 1 further requires “contacting at least a portion of the carbon nanoparticles with a liquid to form a composition comprising the liquid and the carbon nanoparticles.” References teaching the addition of various nanoparticles to liquids are legion. Zhang is but one example. (Zhang Abstract; passim). One of skill would be motivated to contact the nanoparticles of Konno with the liquids of Zhang to make a lubricant. Id. One of skill in the art would be motivated to select the nanoparticles of Raja based on their high purity. (Raja at 832, col. 1: “A high purity of solid carbon is evident…,” passim).
As to Claim 15, Zhang teaches fluids so defined (Zhang 3: [0024]: “broadly defined to include pastes, gels, greases, and liquid crystalline phases in either organic or aqueous media, emulsions and microemulsions.”) with carbon nanoparticles. (Zhang 10: [0122] et seq.; passim). One of skill would be motivated to contact the nanoparticles of Konno with the compositions of Zhang to make a lubricant. (Zhang, entire reference). Note especially the teachings, suggestions and motivations related to thermal conductivity, etc. (Zhang 1: [0009]).
Allowable Subject Matter
I. Dependent upon a rejected base claim.
Claims 8-10 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.
While mixing nanoparticles with liquids is well described in the literature, search of the prior art did not teach or reasonably suggest flowing the nanoparticles with an additional gas to a mixing unit for mixing with a liquid. Neither Raja nor Konno taught the mol % required by Claim 9.
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
Prosecution Insights