DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-27 were subject to restriction requirement mailed on 07/02/2026.
Applicant filed a response, and elected Group I, claims 1-14 and 20-21, and withdrew claims 15-19 and 22-27, without traverse on 07/13/2026.
Claims 1-27 are pending, and claims 15-19 and 22-27 are withdrawn.
Claims 1-14 and 20-21 are rejected.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-14 and 20-21 in the reply filed on 07/13/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 15-19 and 22-27 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 07/13/2026.
Claim Objections
Claims 2-14 and 20-21 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 2-14, and 20-21, each line 1, recites a phrase “Process”. It is suggested to amend the phrase “Process” to “The process” to ensure proper antecedent basis and clarity.
Claim 3, line 5, it is suggested to amend “D-3663 (2020)” to “D-3663, 2020” to ensure clarity.
Claim 5, line 1, it is suggested to amend “non-porous carbon catalyst has” to “one or more non-porous carbon catalysts have”, to be consistent with the phrase “one or more non-porous carbon catalysts” in claim 4, lines 3-4.
Claim 5, line 3, it is suggested to amend “D-3663 (2020)” to “D-3663, 2020” to ensure clarity.
Claim 6, line 1, it is suggested to amend “non-porous carbon catalyst has” to “one or more non-porous carbon catalysts have”, to be consistent with the phrase “one or more non-porous carbon catalysts” in claim 4, lines 3-4.
Claim 6, line 4, it is suggested to amend “D-3663 (2020)” to “D-3663, 2020” to ensure clarity.
Claim 7, line 5, it is suggested to amend “D-3663 (2020)” to “D-3663, 2020” to ensure clarity.
Claim 9, line 1, it is suggested to amend “porous carbon catalyst is” to “one or more porous carbon catalysts are” to be consistent with the phrase “one or more porous carbon catalysts” in claim 4, line 4.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 1-14 and 20-21 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.
Claim 1, line 2, recites a phrase “such as C2+ hydrocarbon(s)”. However, it is unclear if the phrase is merely optional or a required limitation due to “such as”. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
The examiner interprets that the phrase is merely optional. Interpretation is speculative. Clarification is requested.
Claim 1, lines 3-4, recites a phrase “such as a saturated C1+ hydrocarbon or mixtures thereof” and is rejected for the same reaction above.
Claim 1, line 12, recites a phrase “such as C2+ hydrocarbon(s)” and is rejected for the same reaction above.
Regarding dependent claims 2-14 and 20-21, these claims do not remedy the deficiencies of parent claim 1 noted above and are rejected for the same rationale.
Claim 3, lines 2-3, recites a phrase “such as at most 2000 m2/g, or at most 1750 m2/g, or at most 1000 m2/g, or between 0.1 and 2000 m2/g, or between 0.1 and 1000 m2/g, or between 0.1 and 700 m2/g”. However, it is unclear if the phrase is merely optional or a required limitation due to “such as”. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
The examiner interprets that the phrase is merely optional. Interpretation is speculative. Clarification is requested.
Claim 4, line 6, recites a phrase “preferably is a ceramic or zeolitic support material”. A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 4 recites the broad recitation “a non-carbon material”, and the claim also recites “preferably is a ceramic or zeolitic support material” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 5, lines 2-3, recites phrase “such as from 0.10 to 5.0 m2/g, or from 0.5 to 3.0 m2/g, such as from 1.0 to 5.0 m2/g, or from 1.0 to 3.0 m2/g”. However, it is unclear if the phrase is merely optional or a required limitation due to “such as”. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
The examiner interprets that the phrase is merely optional. Interpretation is speculative. Clarification is requested.
Claim 6, lines 2-3, recites a phrase “such as from 10.0 to 2000 m2/g, or from 10.0 to 1000 m2/g, or from 100 to 700 m2/g, or from 200 to 600 m2/g”. However, it is unclear if the phrase is merely optional or a required limitation due to “such as”. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
The examiner interprets that the phrase is merely optional. Interpretation is speculative. Clarification is requested.
Claim 7, line 2, recites a phrase “preferably said ceramic or zeolitic support material” and is rejected for the same rational above as in claim 4.
Claim 11, lines 4-5, recites a phrase “preferably wherein said susceptor material is physically separated from said catalyst composition”. However, it is unclear if the phrase is a required limitation due to “preferably”. The examiner interprets that the phrase is merely optional.
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.
Claim(s) 1-11 and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Surma et al., WO 2021/195566A1 (Surma) in view of Muradov, Thermocatalytic CO2-free production of hydrogen from hydrocarbon fuels, 2014 (Muradov) (both provided in IDS received on 03/27/2024).
Regarding claim 1, Surma teaches methods for cracking hydrocarbons into hydrogen gas and carbon (Surma, Abstract);
Embodiments relate to methods and systems for pyrolytically converting hydrocarbon feedstock into hydrogen gas and carbon using a heated, fluidized bed of particles, such as electrically conducting carbon, graphite; the bed of particles can be heated with electromagnetic power such as inductive heating; hydrocarbon gas feedstock streams such as natural gas (which has a high methane concentration) (reading upon a reaction gas comprising a hydrocarbon or mixtures thereof) can be heated at least to high temperatures (e.g. , 800 °C-1,400 °C) (which overlap the range of the presently claimed temperature) to crack the hydrocarbon gas feedstock without the presence of a specially added catalyst; rather, the carbon particles themselves in the fluidized bed of particles can act as a catalyst (reading upon by catalytic non-oxidative decomposition of a reaction gas; and supplying a catalyst composition to a reaction zone, wherein said catalyst composition comprises at least one carbon catalyst) (Surma, [0017]).
Further regarding claim 1, Surma does not explicitly disclose activating said heated catalyst composition by bringing said heated catalyst composition into contact with said reaction gas during an activation period of at least 5 hours.
With respect to the difference, Muradov teaches production of hydrogen by methane decomposition (Muradov, page 16, section 2.2). Muradov specifically teaches in evaluating methane decomposition over different carbon catalyst, over period of 6 hours the process reaches quasi-state regime which lasts for 9 hours (Muradov, page 24, 1st paragraph).
Muradov is analogous art as Muradov is drawn to production of hydrogen by methane decomposition.
In light of the disclosure of Muradov, it therefore would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to operate the decomposition process first for 6 hours (reading upon activating said heated catalyst composition by bringing said heated catalyst composition into contact with said reaction gas during an activation period of at least 5 hours), in order to reach quasi-state regime, and with reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claims 2 and 11, as applied to claim 1, Surma in view of Muradov further teaches the induction coils heat the bed of particles to at least the reaction temperature (e.g., pyrolysis or cracking temperature) of the hydrocarbon feedstock (e.g., methane or other components of natural gas); the induction coils of the induction unit induce an alternating electromagnetic field in conductive material (e.g., a susceptor such as carbon or graphite particles in the bed of particles) to heat the material via eddy currents or any other electrical means (Surma, [0026]);
the induction coils (i.e., for inductive heating) may be part of an induction unit surrounding the bed of particles; the induction coils may be operably coupled to an energy source or power supply for supplying alternating electric current thereto (Surma, [0027]).
Further regarding claim 11, given the Surma in view of Muradov teaches the carbon particles are a susceptor (Muradov, [0026]) and also can act as a catalyst (Muradov, [0017]); therefore, Surma in view of Muradov would necessarily meet the claimed limitation of further comprising the step of supplying a susceptor material to said reaction zone comprising said catalyst composition, wherein said susceptor material, is capable of responding to an electromagnetic field by generating heat, and is capable of transferring said heat to said catalyst composition, and preferably wherein said susceptor material is physically separated from said catalyst composition.
Regarding claims 3-10, as applied to claim 1, Surma does not explicitly disclose wherein the catalyst composition comprises at least one carbon catalyst having a BET surface area of at most 2500 m2/g.
With respect to the difference, Muradov specifically teaches carbon catalyst with surface area of ranging from 4 to 1650 m2/g (Muradov, page 22, Table 4-1).
As Muradov expressly teaches, the methane conversion rate has a linear function of the surface area of carbon catalysts in semi-log coordinates (Muradov, page 23, 2nd paragraph).
In light of the motivation of selecting carbon catalyst with desired surface area, as taught by Muradov, such as ranging from 4 to 1650 m2/g, it therefore would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use carbon catalyst of varying surface, including from 4 to 1650 m2/g, in order to achieve desired methane conversion, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Further regarding claims 4, 6 and 9, as applied to claim 1, Surma in view of Muradov teaches acetylene black (reading upon one or more porous carbon catalysts), with surface area of 1150 m2/g (Muradov, page 22, Tabe 4-1), provides better sustainability (Muradov, page 22, bottom paragraph).
Further regarding claims 5 and 7-8 and 10, as applied to claim 4, the claims further limit said one or more non-porous carbon catalyst, which is an optional embodiment of claim 4 (i.e. wherein said first component is selected from one or more non-porous carbon catalysts and/or one or more porous carbon catalysts;) and therefore not required. As such, claims 5, 7-8 and 10 are rejected based on identical/substantially identical reasons as claim 4.
Regarding clam 20, as applied to claim 1, Surma in view of Muradov teaches hydrocarbon feedstock (e.g., methane) (Surma, [0034]). Given that Surma does not require other components in the hydrocarbon feedstock besides methane, it therefore would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use hydrocarbon feedstock that is 100% methane.
Regarding clam 21, as applied to claim 1, Surma in view of Muradov teaches 5 different types of reactor for hydrocarbon decomposition were considered, including packed bed reactor (i.e., fixed bed reactor) (Muradov, page 51, 2nd paragraph). Packed bed reactor (i.e., fixed bed reactor) is mainly used for carbon catalysts screening and studies on the effect of operational parameters on hydrogen yield and kinetic measurements (Muradov, page 51, 3rd paragraph).
It therefore would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use packed bed reactor (i.e., fixed bed reactor) in Surma in view of Muradov for the purpose of carbon catalysts screening and studies on the effect of operational parameters on hydrogen yield and kinetic measurements, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Surma in view of Muradov as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Young et al., KR20140071289A (Young).
The examiner has provided a machine translation of Young et al., KR20140071289A (Young). The citation of the prior art set forth below refers to the machine translation.
Regarding claim 12, Surma in view of Muradov does not explicitly disclose comprising the further steps of e) recovering at least a portion of said catalyst composition from said reaction zone after step c) and/or step d), thereby obtaining a spent catalyst; or wherein the spent catalyst is mechanically treated to reduce the size of the spent catalyst before supply thereof to step a) of said process; or wherein the spent catalyst is not heated before supply thereof to step a) of said process.
With respect to the difference, Young teaches a method for continuously producing hydrogen by catalytic decomposition of hydrocarbon using carbon black (Young, Abstract). Young specifically teaches a second step of discharging and recovering the carbon black catalyst deposited from the catalyst decomposition reaction in the first step to a discharge pipe provided in the fluidized bed reactor; a third step of grinding the carbon black catalyst recovered in the second step to a size having catalytic activity and re-supplying the carbon black catalyst
into the fluidized bed reactor (Young, page 3, 11th-12th paragraphs).
As Young expressly teaches, it is possible to solve the clogging of the reactor in which the carbon catalyst is deposited in the reactor, which is a problem of the technique using the conventional carbon catalyst, and to reuse the used carbon black, so that the purchase cost of the catalyst carbon black and the storage cost; it is possible to increase the economical efficiency of the process, to continuously produce hydrogen, and to be applied to a large-scale production process (Young, page 6, 4th paragraph from bottom).
Young is analogous art as Young is drawn to a method for continuously producing hydrogen by catalytic decomposition of hydrocarbon using carbon black.
In light of the motivation of reuse the used carbon black catalyst in catalytic decomposition of hydrocarbon using carbon black, as taught by Young, it therefore would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to recover at least a portion of the carbon catalyst in Surma in view of Muradov, grinding the carbon catalyst to a size having catalyst activity and re-supplying the carbon catalyst into the reactor (i.e., wherein the carbon catalyst is not heated before re-supplying into the reactor), in order to solve the clogging of the reactor in which the carbon catalyst is deposited in the reactor, which is a problem of the technique using the conventional carbon catalyst, and to reuse the used carbon black, so that the purchase cost of the catalyst carbon black and the storage cost; to increase the economical efficiency of the process, to continuously produce hydrogen, and to be applied to a large-scale production process, and thereby arrive at the claimed inventions.
Conclusion
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