DETAILED ACTION
Claim(s) 1-2 and 4-20 was/were rejected in Office Action mailed on 08/27/2025.
Applicant filed a response, amended claim(s) 1, 10-12, 14 and 18-20, on 01/27/2026.
Claim(s) 1-20 are pending, and claim(s) 3 is withdrawn.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 4-20 are rejected.
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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 18, line 6, it is suggested to amend “the first heating” to “the first heating zone” to ensure proper antecedent basis.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1, 4-10 and 13-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al., US 2006/0115409 A1 (Li, provided in IDS received on 10/22/2019) in view of Annu et al., Carbon nanotube using spray pyrolysis: Recent scenario, Journal of Alloys and compounds, 2017, 970-982 (Annu) and Schnizler et al., The effect of process variables on the characteristics of carbon nanotubes obtained by spray pyrolysis, J Nanopart Res., 2008 (Schnizler).
Regarding claims 1, 7-9 and 13, Li discloses a method for producing carbon nanotubes (Li, Abstract); in a flow chart in carbon nanotube producing method, procedures include: in a mixing step, polymer (reading upon a carbon containing material) and metallic catalyst are mixed thoroughly with solvent (for examples, organic solvent or water) (i.e., the solvent would necessarily disperse or dissolve the polymer); after solvent removing step, mixture of polymer and metallic catalyst is obtained (Li, [0023]-[0024]); then, a first heating stage is performed by heating the mixture to a first predetermined temperature for a period of time, to dehydrogenate and remove undesired evaporating products, the heating temperature of the first heating stage is preferably between 200-400°C (Li, [0028]);
a second heating stage is carried out by heating the mixture to a second predetermined temperature for a period of time, after the first heating stage to allow polymers to process thermal decomposition. At this moment, the bondage structures between polymer molecules are broken, hydrogen and oxygen atoms are free from the polymer structures, and carbon elements are obtained, finally, the temperature is reduced to room temperature, to obtain carbon nanotubes with inert gas flowed, the second predetermined temperature is preferably between 400-1000°C (Li, [0029]).
Li further discloses the reaction chamber is filled with an inert gas (i.e., reading upon a reaction vessel with carrier gas stream) (Li, [0030]), and the reaction chamber would necessarily be heated in order to arrive the first and second heating stages.
Li does not explicitly disclose using (a) a metallic catalyst precursor; injection the mixture into a carrier gas, or (b) the heated reaction vessel comprising a plurality of heating zones; heating the mixture in a first heating zone, moving the mixture from the first heating zone to a second heating zone; heating the mixture in a second heating zone.
With respect to the difference (a), Annu teaches methods for carbon nanotube synthesis (Annu, Abstract). Annu specifically teaches spray pyrolysis is one of the most widely used methods for carbon nanotube synthesis (Annu, Abstract); by injecting metallocene-hydrocarbon solutions into a heated quartz reactor, catalyst particles and carbon nanotubes can be formed simultaneously (Annu, Abstract); ferrocene as a catalyst precursor (Annu, page 975, left column, mid-section of 2nd paragraph).
As Annu expressly teaches, spray pyrolysis is one of the most widely used methods for carbon nanotube synthesis, and this is mainly because of its scalability and low cost; spray pyrolysis is a promising method to create various carbon nanotubes on various surfaces (Annu, Abstract); spray pyrolysis method seems to be one of the very easy and convenient method for synthesis of multi-walled carbon nanotubes (Annu, page 980, Conclusion).
Annu is analogous art as Annu is drawn to carbon nanotube synthesis.
In light of the motivation of using spray pyrolysis to produce carbon nanotubes, as taught by Annu, it therefore would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use spray pyrolysis method to produce the carbon nanotubes of Li, by injecting a mixture of polymer and a metallocene, e.g., ferrocene, in a solvent (reading upon a metallic catalyst precursor, soluble in the solvent) with solvent into a carrier gas of a heated quartz reactor, in order to achieve a method with scalability and low cost, to create various carbon nanotubes on various surfaces.
Furthermore, the carbon nanotubes produced in Li in view of Annu would necessarily be removed from the heated quartz reactor, in order to obtain the carbon nanotube product.
With respect to the difference (b), Schnitzler teaches studying of spray pyrolysis to grow carbon nanotubes (Schnitzler, Abstract). Schnitzler specifically teaches diagrams of the experimental setup used for the spray pyrolysis with two heating zones with two separate furnaces (Schnitzler, page 586, Fig. 1, shown below).
PNG
media_image1.png
251
1067
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 1 of Schnitzler
Schnitzler is analogous art as Schnitzler is drawn to studying of spray pyrolysis to grow carbon nanotubes.
In light of the disclosure of Schnitzler, it therefore would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to conduct the spray pyrolysis with two heating stages using the experimental setup of Schnitzler with two heating zones with two separate furnaces (wherein reactants would necessarily be moved from the first heating zone to the second heating zone), and yield expected results, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
The recitation in the claims that the method is “of converting waste plastic to carbon naotubes” is merely an intended use. Applicants attention is drawn to MPEP 2111.02 which states that intended use statements must be evaluated to determine whether the intended use results in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art. Only if such structural difference exists, does the recitation serve to limit the claim. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
It is the examiner’s position that the intended use recited in the present claims does not result in a structural difference between the presently claimed invention and the prior art and further that the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use. Given that Li in view of Annu discloses the method as presently claimed, it is clear that the method of Li in view of Annu would be capable of performing the intended use, i.e. of converting waste plastic to carbon naotubes, presently claimed as required in the above cited portion of the MPEP, and thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have arrived at the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 4 and 5, as applied to claim 1, Li in view of Annu further teaches hydrogen is commonly used in spray pyrolysis along with argon as the primary carrier gases; It has been proposed that hydrogen prevents the formation of amorphous carbon on the substrate surface and thereby extends catalyst particle lifetime (Annu, page 976, right column, 1st paragraph).
Regarding claim 6, as applied to claim 1, Li in view of Annu further teaches the flow rate of the carrier gas mixture needs to be optimized to gain maximum growth (Annu, page 976, 3rd paragraph); in an example, the carrier gas was introduced at a rate of 100 ml/min (Annu, page 980, 2nd paragraph). It therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to vary the amounts of carrier gas flow rate, e.g., using a flow rate of 100 ml/min, in order to gain maximum growth of the carbon nanotubes, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 10, as applied claim 8, Li in view of Annu further teaches low ferrocene concentration means that there will be fewer iron atoms to form catalyst particles on the substrate, this could mean that catalyst particle size will decrease with lower ferrocene concentrations; however, an overabundance of carbon atoms may deposit on the catalyst or form other undesirable carbon structures at growth temperature if the concentration is too low (Annu, page 976, left column, 1st paragraph).
Although there are no disclosures on the amounts of concentration of the metallic catalyst precursor 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 concentration of the metallic catalyst precursor, including over the amounts presently claimed, in order to vary catalyst particle size and deposit amount of carbon, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 14, as applied claim 13, Li in view of Annu further teaches ferrocene dissolved in xylene is a common catalyst precursor for injection (Annu, page 976, left column, 1st paragraph). It therefore would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use xylene as the solvent to prepare the mixture of polymer and a metallocene, e.g., ferrocene, of Liu in view of Annu, as xylene is a common solvent for a similar application.
Regarding claims 15 and 16, as applied claim 14, given that Li in view of Annu teaches the use of an organic solvent, e.g., xylene (i.e., a hydrocarbon containing material), it therefore would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use an organic solvent, e.g., xylene, of varying qualities, including a waste contaminated solvent, depending on the requirements on product purity, in order to reduce material cost and improve sustainability.
Regarding claim 17, as applied to claim 1, Li in view of Annu further teaches the nature and injection rate of the ferrocene-xylene precursor strongly controls the growth of carbon nanotube; injection rate determines how many particles are in the chamber at a given time reacting with each other; injection duration controls how long the carbon nanotube will be, assuming that the catalyst particles are not deactivated during the growth process (Annu, page 96, 2nd paragraph).
Although there are no disclosures on the amounts of injection rate of the solvent, carbon-containing material and the metallic catalyst precursor mixture 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 injection rate of the mixture of polymer and a metallocene, e.g., ferrocene, in a solvent, of Li in view of Annu, including over the amounts presently claimed, in order to vary the growth of carbon nanotubes and control how long the carbon nanotubes will be, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Annu and Schnitzler as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Li et al., Direct spinning of carbon nanotube fibers from chemical vapor deposition synthesis, Science, 304, 2004 (Li-2004).
Regarding claim 2, as applied to claim 1, Li in view of Annu does not explicitly disclose wherein the removing the carbon nanotubes from the reaction vessel is performed concurrently with the growth of the carbon nanotubes.
With respect to the difference, Li-2004 teaches synthesis of carbon nanotubes (Li-2004, Abstract). Li-2004 specifically teaches continuous withdrawal of the product with a rotating spindle (Li-2004, Abstract).
As Li-2004 expressly teaches, fibers and ribbons of carbon nanotubes were spun directly from the chemical vapor deposition synthesis zone of a furnace, while existing routes require post-processing methods (Li-2004, Abstract); the direct spinning process will allow one-step production of nanotube fibers, ribbons, and coating with potentially excellent properties and wide-range applications (Li-2004, page 278, left column, bottom paragraph).
Li-2004 is analogous art as Li-2004 is drawn to synthesis of carbon nanotubes.
In light of the motivation of a direct spinning method with continuous withdrawal of the product (i.e., produced carbon nanotubes) with a rotating spindle, as taught by Li-2004, it therefore would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to continuous withdraw produced carbon nanotube with a rotating spindle (reading upon wherein the removing the carbon nanotubes from the reaction vessel is performed concurrently with the growth of the carbon nanotubes), in the method of Li in view of Annu, in order to allow one-step production of nanotube fibers, ribbons, and coating with potentially excellent properties and wide-range applications, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Annu as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Levendis et al., WO 2010/111624 A1 (provided in IDS received on 04/08/2021, Levendis).
Regarding claim 11, as applied claim 1, Li in view of Annu does not explicitly disclose wherein the carbon containing material is a waste plastic selected from the group consisting of polyvinyl chloride, polystyrene, bisphenol A resins, low density polyethylene, polypropylene, polymer resins, polyurethane, olefins, polyolefins, and elastomers.
With respect to the difference, Levendis teaches methods to generate carbon nanostructures (Levendis, Abstract). Levendis specifically teaches provide solid waste materials into a furnace, that pyrolyzes the solid waste materials into gaseous decomposition products, which are then converted to carbon nanostructures (Levendis, Abstract); the organic material (i.e., solid organic waste material) can be a solid organic material, the solid organic material can be a solid plastic, such as pellets, chips, chunks, or combinations thereof; in some cases, the solid organic material is polyethylene, polypropylene, polystyrene, polyethylene terephthalate, polyvinyl chloride, polylactic acid, polycarbonate, nylon, acrylonitrile butadiene styrene, polymethyl methacrylate, styrene-butadiene rubber, or combinations thereof (Levendis, [0010]); waste plastic materials, such as HDPE (Levendis, [0052]).
As Levendis expressly teaches, use of common household or industrial waste solids as precursors for the generation of carbon nanostructures reduces storage risks and costs of the feedstock supplies (Levendis, [0053]).
Levendis is analogous art as Levendis is drawn to methods to generate carbon nanostructures.
In light of the motivation of using waste solid material, such as waste plastic to produce carbon nanostructures, as taught by Levendis, it therefore would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use waste solid material, e.g., polystyrene, polyvinyl chloride and polypropylene, as the polymer in the method of Li in view of Annu, in order to reduce storage risks and costs of the feedstock supplies, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Claims 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Annu and Levendis.
Regarding claims 18 and 19, Li discloses a method for producing carbon nanotubes (Li, Abstract); in a flow chart in carbon nanotube producing method, procedures include: in a mixing step, polymer and metallic catalyst are mixed thoroughly with solvent (for examples, organic solvent or water) (i.e., the solvent would necessarily disperse or dissolve the polymer); after solvent removing step, mixture of polymer and metallic catalyst is obtained (Li, [0023]-[0024]); then, a first heating stage is performed by heating the mixture to a first predetermined temperature for a period of time, to dehydrogenate and remove undesired evaporating products, the heating temperature of the first heating stage is preferably between 200-400°C (Li, [0028]);
a second heating stage is carried out by heating the mixture to a second predetermined temperature for a period of time, after the first heating stage to allow polymers to process thermal decomposition. At this moment, the bondage structures between polymer molecules are broken, hydrogen and oxygen atoms are free from the polymer structures, and carbon elements are obtained, finally, the temperature is reduced to room temperature, to obtain carbon nanotubes with inert gas flowed, the second predetermined temperature is preferably between 400-1000°C (Li, [0029]).
Li further discloses the reaction chamber is filled with an inert gas (i.e., reading upon a reaction vessel with carrier gas stream) (Li, [0030]), and the reaction chamber would necessarily be heated in order to arrive the first and second heating stages.
Li does not explicitly disclose (a) using ferrocene; injection the mixture into a carrier gas steam and into a quartz tube comprising a first heating zone and a second heating zone; (b) heating the mixture in the first heating zone; moving the mixture from the first heating zone to the second heating zone; heating the mixture in the second heating zone; or (c) the polymer is waste plastic.
With respect to the difference (a), Annu teaches methods for carbon nanotube synthesis (Annu, Abstract). Annu specifically teaches spray pyrolysis is one of the most widely used methods for carbon nanotube synthesis (Annu, Abstract); by injecting metallocene-hydrocarbon solutions into a heated quartz reactor, catalyst particles and carbon nanotubes can be formed simultaneously (Annu, Abstract); ferrocene as a catalyst precursor (Annu, page 975, left column, mid-section of 2nd paragraph).
As Annu expressly teaches, spray pyrolysis is one of the most widely used methods for carbon nanotube synthesis, and this is mainly because of its scalability and low cost; spray pyrolysis is a promising method to create various carbon nanotubes on various surfaces (Annu, Abstract); spray pyrolysis method seems to be one of the very easy and convenient method for synthesis of multi-walled carbon nanotubes (Annu, page 980, Conclusion).
Annu is analogous art as Annu is drawn to carbon nanotube synthesis.
In light of the motivation of using spray pyrolysis to produce carbon nanotubes, as taught by Annu, it therefore would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use spray pyrolysis method to produce the carbon nanotubes of Li, by injecting a mixture of polymer and a metallocene, e.g., ferrocene, in a solvent with solvent into a carrier gas of a heated quartz reactor, in order to achieve a method with scalability and low cost, to create various carbon nanotubes on various surfaces.
Furthermore, the carbon nanotubes produced in Li in view of Annu would necessarily be removed from the heated quartz reactor, in order to obtain the carbon nanotube product.
With respect to the difference (b), Schnitzler teaches studying of spray pyrolysis to grow carbon nanotubes (Schnitzler, Abstract). Schnitzler specifically teaches diagrams of the experimental setup used for the spray pyrolysis with two heating zones with two separate furnaces (Schnitzler, page 586, Fig. 1, shown below).
PNG
media_image1.png
251
1067
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 1 of Schnitzler
Schnitzler is analogous art as Schnitzler is drawn to studying of spray pyrolysis to grow carbon nanotubes.
In light of the disclosure of Schnitzler, it therefore would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to conduct the spray pyrolysis with two heating stages using the experimental setup of Schnitzler with two heating zones with two separate furnaces (wherein reactants would necessarily be moved from the first heating zone to the second heating zone), and yield expected results, and thereby arrive at the claimed limitation.
With respect to the difference (c), Levendis teaches methods to generate carbon nanostructures (Levendis, Abstract). Levendis specifically teaches provide solid waste materials into a furnace, that pyrolyzes the solid waste materials into gaseous decomposition products, which are then converted to carbon nanostructures (Levendis, Abstract); the organic material (i.e., solid organic waste material) can be a solid organic material, the solid organic material can be a solid plastic, such as pellets, chips, chunks, or combinations thereof; in some cases, the solid organic material is polyethylene, polypropylene, polystyrene, polyethylene terephthalate, polyvinyl chloride, polylactic acid, polycarbonate, nylon, acrylonitrile butadiene styrene, polymethyl methacrylate, styrene-butadiene rubber, or combinations thereof (Levendis, [0010]); waste plastic materials, such as HDPE (Levendis, [0052]).
As Levendis expressly teaches, use of common household or industrial waste solids as precursors for the generation of carbon nanostructures reduces storage risks and costs of the feedstock supplies (Levendis, [0053]).
Levendis is analogous art as Levendis is drawn to methods to generate carbon nanostructures.
In light of the motivation of using waste solid material, such as waste plastic to produce carbon nanostructures, as taught by Levendis, it therefore would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use waste solid material, e.g., waste plastic, polystyrene, polyvinyl chloride and polypropylene, as the polymer in the method of Li in view of Annu and Schnitzler, in order to reduce storage risks and costs of the feedstock supplies, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Annu, Levendis, Vayer et al., New insights into polymer-solvent affinity in thin films, European polymer journal, 2017, 93, 132-139 (Vayer) and Schnitzler.
Regarding claim 20, Li discloses a method for producing carbon nanotubes (Li, Abstract); in a flow chart in carbon nanotube producing method, procedures include: in a mixing step, polymer (reading upon a carbon containing material) and metallic catalyst are mixed thoroughly with solvent (for examples, organic solvent or water) (i.e., the solvent would necessarily disperse or dissolve the polymer); after solvent removing step, mixture of polymer and metallic catalyst is obtained (Li, [0023]-[0024]); then, a first heating stage is performed by heating the mixture to a first predetermined temperature for a period of time, to dehydrogenate and remove undesired evaporating products, the heating temperature of the first heating stage is preferably between 200-400°C (Li, [0028]);
a second heating stage is carried out by heating the mixture to a second predetermined temperature for a period of time, after the first heating stage to allow polymers to process thermal decomposition. At this moment, the bondage structures between polymer molecules are broken, hydrogen and oxygen atoms are free from the polymer structures, and carbon elements are obtained, finally, the temperature is reduced to room temperature, to obtain carbon nanotubes with inert gas flowed, the second predetermined temperature is preferably between 400-1000°C (Li, [0029]).
Li further discloses the reaction chamber is filled with an inert gas (i.e., reading upon a reaction vessel with carrier gas stream) (Li, [0030]), and the reaction chamber would necessarily be heated in order to arrive the first and second heating stages.
Li does not explicitly disclose (a) injection the mixture into a carrier gas and into a reaction vessel comprising a first heating zone and a second heating zone; (b) using toluene as the organic solvent; or (c) the first heating zone and the second heating zones disposed adjacent to one another along a length of a quartz tube, wherein the first heating zone and the second heating zone are simultaneously heated, the first heating zone is heated to a first temperature, and the second heating zone is heated to a second temperature.
With respect to the difference (a), Annu teaches methods for carbon nanotube synthesis (Annu, Abstract). Annu specifically teaches spray pyrolysis is one of the most widely used methods for carbon nanotube synthesis (Annu, Abstract); by injecting metallocene-hydrocarbon solutions into a heated quartz reactor, catalyst particles and carbon nanotubes can be formed simultaneously (Annu, Abstract); ferrocene as a catalyst precursor (Annu, page 975, left column, mid-section of 2nd paragraph).
As Annu expressly teaches, spray pyrolysis is one of the most widely used methods for carbon nanotube synthesis, and this is mainly because of its scalability and low cost; spray pyrolysis is a promising method to create various carbon nanotubes on various surfaces (Annu, Abstract); spray pyrolysis method seems to be one of the very easy and convenient method for synthesis of multi-walled carbon nanotubes (Annu, page 980, Conclusion).
Annu is analogous art as Annu is drawn to carbon nanotube synthesis.
In light of the motivation of using spray pyrolysis to produce carbon nanotubes, as taught by Annu, it therefore would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use spray pyrolysis method to produce the carbon nanotubes of Li, by injecting a mixture of polymer and a metallocene, e.g., ferrocene, in a solvent (reading upon a metallic catalyst precursor, soluble in the solvent) with solvent into a carrier gas of a heated quartz reactor, in order to achieve a method with scalability and low cost, to create various carbon nanotubes on various surfaces.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art that the heated quartz reactor of Li in view of Annu would have a first heating zone and a second heating zone, in order to obtain the first heating stage and the second heating stage of Li conveniently using a singular reactor, and not requiring the use of a plurality of reactors.
Furthermore, the carbon nanotubes produced in Li in view of Annu would necessarily be removed from the heated quartz reactor, in order to obtain the carbon nanotube product.
With respect to the difference (b), Levendis teaches methods to generate carbon nanostructures (Levendis, Abstract). Levendis specifically teaches provide solid waste materials into a furnace, that pyrolyzes the solid waste materials into gaseous decomposition products, which are then converted to carbon nanostructures (Levendis, Abstract); the organic material (i.e., solid organic waste material) can be a solid organic material, the solid organic material can be a solid plastic, such as pellets, chips, chunks, or combinations thereof; in some cases, the solid organic material is polyethylene, polypropylene, polystyrene, polyethylene terephthalate, polyvinyl chloride, polylactic acid, polycarbonate, nylon, acrylonitrile butadiene styrene, polymethyl methacrylate, styrene-butadiene rubber, or combinations thereof (Levendis, [0010]); waste plastic materials, such as HDPE (Levendis, [0052]).
As Levendis expressly teaches, use of common household or industrial waste solids as precursors for the generation of carbon nanostructures reduces storage risks and costs of the feedstock supplies (Levendis, [0053]).
Levendis is analogous art as Levendis is drawn to methods to generate carbon nanostructures.
In light of the motivation of using waste solid material, such as waste plastic to produce carbon nanostructures, as taught by Levendis, it therefore would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use waste solid material, e.g., waste plastic, polystyrene, polyvinyl chloride and polypropylene, as the polymer in the method of Li in view of Annu, in order to reduce storage risks and costs of the feedstock supplies.
Vayer teaches pairs solvent/ polymers (Vayer, page 8). Vayer specifically teaches toluene (Vayer, page 9).
As Vayer expressly teaches, good solvents for polystyrene includes toluene (Vayer, paragraph spanning pages 8-9).
Vayer is analogous art as Vayer is drawn to solvent for polymers (Vayer, page 8).
In light of the motivation of using toluene as the solvent for polymer such as polystyrene, as taught by Vayer, it therefore would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to select toluene as the solvent, to prepare the mixture of waste plastic, e.g., polystyrene, and a metallocene, e.g., ferrocene of Li in view of Annu and Levendis, in order to use a good solvent for waste plastic, such as polystyrene, and thereby arrive at the claimed limitation.
With respect to the difference (c), Schnitzler teaches studying of spray pyrolysis to grow carbon nanotubes (Schnitzler, Abstract). Schnitzler specifically teaches diagrams of the experimental setup used for the spray pyrolysis with two heating zones disposed adjacent to one another along a length of a quartz tube with two separate furnaces (Schnitzler, page 586, Fig. 1, shown below); and the furnaces temperatures (T1 for the furnace 1 and T2 for the Furnace 2) were raised until the desired value (Schnitzler, page 587, left column, 2nd paragraph) (reading upon the first heating zone and the second heating zone are simultaneously heated; wherein the first heating zone is heated to a first temperature and the second heating zone is heated to a second temperature).
PNG
media_image1.png
251
1067
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 1 of Schnitzler
Schnitzler is analogous art as Schnitzler is drawn to studying of spray pyrolysis to grow carbon nanotubes.
In light of the disclosure of Schnitzler, it therefore would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to conduct the spray pyrolysis with two heating stages using the experimental setup of Schnitzler with two heating zones with two heating zones disposed adjacent to one another along a length of a quartz tube with two separate furnaces with two separate furnaces, wherein the first heating zone is heated to a first temperature and the second heating zone is heated to a second temperature, and yield expected results, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 12 is 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.
Regarding claim 12, none of Li, Annu, Levendis, Vayer, Schnitzler discloses or suggests wherein the waste plastic comprises about 0.10 weight percent to about 10 weight percent of the mixture.
Response to Arguments
The double patenting rejection using US 11,970,398 B2 was not envisaged in light of applicants’ filing of a proper terminal disclaimer on 01/27/2026.
In response to the amended claims, the previous claim objections and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections are withdrawn. However, the amended necessitates a new set of claim objections as set forth above.
In response to the amended claims, specifically, to claim 1, “moving the mixture from the first heating zone to a second heating zone”; to claim 18, “moving the mixture from the first heating zone to a second heating zone”; and to claim 20, “the first heating zone and the second heating zone are simultaneously heated, the first heating zone is heated to a first temperature, and the second heating zone is heated to a second temperature”, the previous 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections are withdrawn. However, a new set of rejections are necessitated as set forth above.
Applicant primarily argues:
“The heating stages disclosed by Li (Li, [0028]-[0029]) refer to method steps wherein a mixture is heated to an initial predetermined temperature followed by heating to a subsequent predetermined temperature. (Li, [0028]-[0029]). However, Li fails to describe aspects pertaining to the configuration of the apparatus (e.g., a reaction vessel comprising a plurality of heating zones) used to perform the method described by Li. Annu discloses a spray pyrolysis apparatus comprising a singular "tube furnace", but provides no indication that said apparatus may be modified to include a plurality of heating zones which may be operated at independent predetermined temperatures, as described claims 1, 18, and 20. As such, the conclusion that Li in combination with Annu would render obvious "the heated reaction vessel comprise [sic] a plurality of heating zones" (Office Action, pp. 10) is possible only through impermissible hindsight reasoning.
To reach a proper determination under 35 U.S.C. 103, the Examiner must step backward in time and into the shoes worn by the hypothetical "person of ordinary skill in the art". That time is "before the effective filing date of the claimed invention" for 35 U.S.C. 103 or "at the time the invention was made" for pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103. In view of all factual information, the examiner must then make a determination whether the claimed invention "as a whole" would have been obvious at that time to a hypothetical person of ordinary skill in the art. Knowledge of applicant's disclosure must be put aside in reaching this determination, yet kept in mind in order to determine the "differences," conduct the search, and evaluate the "subject matter as a whole" of the invention. The tendency to resort to "hindsight" based upon applicant's disclosure is often difficult to avoid due to the very nature of the examination process. However, impermissible hindsight must be avoided and the legal conclusion must be reached on the basis of the facts gleaned from the prior art. Applicants may argue that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based on improper hindsight reasoning. However, "[a]ny judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based on hindsight reasoning, but so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was made and does not include knowledge gleaned only from applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper." In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 1395, 170 USPQ 209, 212 (CCPA 1971).
For the reasons described above, the Applicant respectfully submits that the Examiner's conclusion that "[I]t would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art that the heated quartz tube reactor of Li in view of Annu would have a plurality of heating zones, in order to obtain the multiple heating stages of Li conveniently using a singular reactor, and not requiring the use of a plurality of reactors" (Office Action, pp. 11) is possible only through impermissible hindsight reasoning, as neither Li nor Annu provide an indication the apparatus disclosed by Annu could be modified to include a plurality of heating zones which may be operated at independent predetermined temperatures, as described claims 1, 18, and 20.”
Remarks, p. 9-10
The Examiner respectfully traverses as follows:
Firstly, given that Li in view of Annu teaches a spray pyrolysis method with two heating stages, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a heated reaction vessel comprising a plurality of heating zones, in order to obtain the multiple heating stages of Li conveniently using a singular reactor, and not requiring the use of a plurality of reactors, absent evidence to the contrary.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Secondly, given the amended claim 1 that recites “moving the mixture from the first heating zone to a second heating zone, claim 1 is now rejected under Li in view of Annu and Schnitzler, wherein Schnitzler teaches a diagram of the experimental setup used for the spray pyrolysis with two heating zones with two separate furnaces (Schnitzler, page 586), as set forth above on page 6.
Applicant further argues:
“Additionally, Applicant submits that the references recited by the Examiner fail to render obvious "moving the mixture from the first heating zone to a second heating zone" as recited in claims 1 and 18.”
Remarks, p. 11
The Examiner respectfully traverses as follows:
Given the amended claim 1 that recites “moving the mixture from the first heating zone to a second heating zone, claim 1 is now rejected under Li in view of Annu and Schnitzler, wherein Schnitzler teaches a diagram of the experimental setup used for the spray pyrolysis with two heating zones with two separate furnaces (Schnitzler, page 586), wherein the reactants would necessarily be moved from the first zone to the second zone, as set forth above on page 6, absent evidence to the contrary.
Applicant further argues:
“Furthermore, Applicant submits that the references recited by the Examiner fail to render obvious "wherein the first heating zone and the second heating zone are simultaneously heated" as recited in claim 20.”
Remarks, p. 11
The Examiner respectfully traverses as follows:
Given the amended claim 20 that recites “the first heating zone and the second heating zone are simultaneously heated, the first heating zone is heated to a first temperature, and the second heating zone is heated to a second temperature”, claim 20 is now rejected under Li in view of Annu, Levendis, Vayler and Schnitzler, wherein Schnitzler teaches a diagram of the experimental setup used for the spray pyrolysis with two heating zones with two separate furnaces (Schnitzler, page 586), and the furnaces temperatures (T1 for the furnace 1 and T2 for the Furnace 2) were raised until the desired value (Schnitzler, page 587, left column, 2nd paragraph) (reading upon the first heating zone and the second heating zone are simultaneously heated), as set forth above on page 21, absent evidence to the contrary.
Therefore, the Examiner has fully considered Applicant’s arguments, but they are found unpersuasive.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 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