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 .
Response to Amendment
Claims 27-47 are pending. Claims 1-26 are canceled.
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 32, 34, 40-41 and 45 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.
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 32 recites the broad recitation pyrolysis reaction is performed at a temperature of 1600°C, and the claim also recites 600°C to 1600°C, 900°C to 1400°C and 1000°C to 1200°C which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
In the present instance, claim 34 recites the broad recitation pressure of 1 bar or more, and the claim also recites pressure of 5 bar or more, 10 bar or more , 40 bar or more and 50 bar or less 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.
Claims 40-41 recites the limitation "the solid" in the second lines. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Examiner notes, a solid feedstock is disclosed in claim 39.
With respect to claim 45, the claim is indefinite. The claim recites using heat from a metallurgical plant. However, Applicant has failed to describe how the excess heat will be utilized. In other words, the Applicant has failed to identify what the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 27, 30-37, 42 and 46 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Velasco et al (US 2021/0032102).
With respect to claim 27, Velasco discloses a method of processing a hydrocarbon, the method comprising:
preheating the hydrocarbon in a preheater device (see paragraph 0032-0033);
providing the preheated hydrocarbon to a liquid metal bath in a reactor device (see paragraph 0033-0034), wherein the liquid metal bath comprises at least one catalyst (see paragraph 0034-0035); and performing a pyrolysis reaction with the hydrocarbon in the liquid metal bath, so that a carbon phase and a hydrogen phase are obtained (see paragraph 0039-0040).
With respect to claim 30, Velasco discloses the limitation of claim 27.
Velasco further discloses wherein the method further comprising: applying a cover layer above the liquid metal bath, in particular comprising carbon (see paragraph 0040).
With respect to claim 31, Velasco discloses the limitation of claim 27.
Velasco further discloses wherein providing the hydrocarbon further comprises: injecting the hydrocarbon into the reactor by at least one of a porous tube (see paragraph 0033).
With respect to claim 32, Velasco discloses the limitation of claim 27.
Velasco further discloses wherein the pyrolysis reaction is performed at a temperature of 1600°C or less (see paragraph 0037).
With respect to claim 33, Velasco discloses the limitation of claim 27.
Velasco further discloses wherein the preheating is performed at a temperature of 900°C or less (see paragraph 0033).
With respect to claim 34, Velasco discloses the limitation of claim 27.
Velasco further discloses wherein the pyrolysis reaction is performed at a pressure of 1 bar or more (see paragraph 0047).
With respect to claim 35, Velasco disclose the limitation of claim 27.
Velasco further discloses the method further comprises: injecting the preheated hydrocarbon as a gas into the reactor device at an injection orifice; wherein the preheated hydrocarbon forms bubbles at the injection orifice which rise up within the liquid metal bath (see paragraph 0033).
With respect to claim 36, Velasco discloses the limitation of claim 27.
Velasco further discloses wherein the hydrocarbon comprises a hydrocarbon gas (see paragraph 0032).
With respect to claim 37, Velasco discloses the limitation of claim 27.
Velasco further discloses wherein the hydrocarbon comprises a gas that comprises or consists of at least one of natural gas (see paragraph 0031).
With respect to claim 42, Velasco discloses the limitation of claim 27.
Velasco further discloses wherein the method is performed continuously (see paragraph 0047-0051).
With respect to claim 46, Velasco discloses an apparatus for processing a hydrocarbon, the apparatus comprising:
a preheater device for preheating the hydrocarbon (see paragraph 0032);
a reactor device, coupled with the preheater device, and configured for performing a pyrolysis reaction with the preheated hydrocarbon in a liquid metal bath, so that a carbon phase and a hydrogen phase are obtained (see paragraph 0033, 0037 and 0039).
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.
Claim(s) 28-29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Velasco as applied to claim 27 above, and further in view of Surma (WO 2021/195566).
With respect to claims 28, Velasco discloses the limitation of claim 27. Velasco does not disclose wherein heating of the liquid bath is performed by induction heating.
However, in a related process for the production of hydrogen gas and carbon, Surma discloses heating a fluidized bed through the use of induction heating (see abstract).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify heater of Velasco with the claimed induction heater, as said units are conventional and capable of cracking hydrocarbons into hydrogen and carbon.
With respect to claim 29, the prior combination teaches the limitation of claim 28.
The prior combination fails to disclose wherein the induction heating induces a movement.
However, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to surmise that the heat treatment would induce a movement, as the claimed fluid characteristics are result of the principles of heat transfer of convection and conduction.
Examiner notes, law of nature are considered a judicial exception. This means that simply discovering or identifying a natural phenomenon is not patentable; the patent system is designed to protect inventions, not the raw materials of science.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 38-39, 41 and 43-44 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Velasco as applied to claim 27 above, and further in view of Desai et al (US 2019/0055173).
With respect to claim 38, Velasco discloses the limitations of claim 27.
Velasco does not disclose wherein the hydrocarbon comprises a liquid, in particular a liquid that comprises or consists of at least one of crude oil, mineral oil, pyrolysis oil, bio-oil, liquid industrial waste hydrocarbons.
However, in a related process for decomposing a hydrocarbon-containing composition includes feeding the hydrocarbon-containing composition to a reactor containing a catalytically active molten metal or a catalytically active molten metal alloy, wherein the metal or alloy catalyzes a decomposition reaction of the hydrocarbon-containing composition into a hydrogen-rich gas phase and a solid carbon phase (see abstract), Desai discloses wherein feedstock includes a hydrocarbon-containing composition may be selected from the group consisting of natural gas, liquefied petroleum gas, naphtha, light crude oil, heavy crude oil, oil sands, shale oil, wood, biomass, and other organic waste streams (see paragraph 0028).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the feedstock of Velasco in view of Desai with the claimed liquid feedstock, as Desai discloses wherein said feedstock is conventionally used.
With respect to claim 39, Velasco discloses the limitations of claim 27.
Velasco does not disclose wherein the hydrocarbon comprises a solid, in particular a solid that comprises or consists of at least one of plastic waste, industrial residues, organically contaminated metal scrap.
However, in a related process for decomposing a hydrocarbon-containing composition includes feeding the hydrocarbon-containing composition to a reactor containing a catalytically active molten metal or a catalytically active molten metal alloy, wherein the metal or alloy catalyzes a decomposition reaction of the hydrocarbon-containing composition into a hydrogen-rich gas phase and a solid carbon phase (see abstract), Desai discloses wherein feedstock includes a hydrocarbon-containing composition may be selected from the group consisting of natural gas, liquefied petroleum gas, naphtha, light crude oil, heavy crude oil, oil sands, shale oil, wood, biomass, and other organic waste streams (see paragraph 0028).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the feedstock of Velasco in view of Desai with the claimed industrial residue, as Desai discloses wherein said feedstock is conventionally used.
With respect to claim 41, the prior combination teaches the limitation of claim 38.
Desai further discloses providing the hydrocarbon with the solid, in particular grains, and/or the liquid through a feeding device into the liquid metal bath of the reactor device, in particular by at least one of gravitational conveyance (210) (see figure 5 and paragraph 0080).
With respect to claims 43-44, Velasco teaches the limitation of claim 27.
Velasco does not disclose least partially processing the carbon phase, by adjusting the morphology of the solid fraction of the carbon phase, by at least one of introducing solid carbon particles, changing an alloy, changing the temperature, changing the pressure.
However, However, in a related process for decomposing a hydrocarbon-containing composition includes feeding the hydrocarbon-containing composition to a reactor containing a catalytically active molten metal or a catalytically active molten metal alloy, wherein the metal or alloy catalyzes a decomposition reaction of the hydrocarbon-containing composition into a hydrogen-rich gas phase and a solid carbon phase (see abstract), Desai discloses wherein operating conditions can be adjusted for the production of high-value carbon phases such as carbon fibers, graphene, battery-grade graphite, and/or CNTs (see paragraph 0088).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Velasco with the claimed carbon phase adjustments in view of Desai, as Desai discloses wherein operating conditions can be adjusted to meet product demands.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 47 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.
Claims 40 and 45 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUAN C VALENCIA whose telephone number is (571)270-7709. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10am - 6pm.
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, Prem C Singh can be reached at 571 272-6381. 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.
/JUAN C VALENCIA/Examiner, Art Unit 1771
/Randy Boyer/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771
Prosecution Insights