DETAILED ACTION
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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 11 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claims 11, and 16 require substrate particles are diamond particles which do not further limit the parent claim 10 or 15. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 10-11, and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Na-oki Higashi et al, Diamond & Related Materials 14(2005) 520-824, here after Higashi.
Claims 10-11, and 14 are rejected. Higashi teaches a method comprising:
depositing catalytic particles on substrate particles (diamond powders); and
using the catalytic particles to grow carbon nanoproducts (CNT's) on the substrate particles [abstract, 2.1 sample preparation]. The particles of the substrate particles comprise diamond without hydrogen termination (oxidation in air removes any hydrogen termination) [page 821 column 1 2.1. Sample preparation paragraph 1].
Claim 13 is rejected as the method of Higashi inherently result in catalyst(particles) comprising nickel or palladium [2.1. Sample Preparation].
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.
Claims 1-2, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chu Wei et al (U. S. Patent Application: 2016/0023905, here after Wei), further in view of Jagadesh K Kesavan et al, Journal of Co2 Utilization 23(2018)200-211, here after Kesavan.
Claims 1 and 9 are rejected. Wei teaches a method of converting CO₂ to solid
carbon, the method comprising:
a first step of catalytically methanating CO₂ to form CH₄; and
a second step of catalytically decomposing the CH₄ to form carbon nanoproducts
(CNTs) and H₂ [0033-0034, 0036]. Wei teaches the first step utilizes a Ni-MgO catalyst [0033]. Wei does not teach the size of nickel particles. Kesavan teaches a method of catalytic conversion of carbon dioxide to methane [abstract lines 1-2] and teaches particle size of nickel should be 19 nm to result in good performance [conclusion lines 5-6]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to have a method of Wei where the nickel
particles are 19 nm, because it results in good performance.
Claim 2 is rejected as Wei teaches the first step catalyst (Ni-MgO) and the
second step catalyst (cobalt or Ni-A202) are different [0033-0034].
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chu Wei et al (U. S. Patent Application: 2016/0023905, here after Wei), Jagadesh K Kesavan et al, Journal of CO2 Utilization 23(2018)200-211, here after Kesavan, further in view of Zahra Alipour, Thesis 2022, here after Alipour.
Claims 5-6 are rejected. Wei teaches the second step catalyst is nickel on
aluminum oxide(alumina) support [0034] but does no teach core shell Ni@Al203.
Alipour teaches using catalyst with core-shell structure such as Ni@Al203 to obtain
carbon nanotube or carbon filaments, where reduced at lower temperature compared to
supported catalysts [page 3 paragraph 2 lines 1-5, page 28 lines 2-10]. Therefore, it
would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention
was made to have a method of Wei, and Kesavan where second catalyst has core shell structure as it reduced at lower temperature.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chu Wei et al (U. S. Patent Application: 2016/0023905, here after Wei), Jagadesh K Kesavan et al, Journal of Co2 Utilization 23(2018)200-211, here after Kesavan, Zahra Alipour, Thesis 2022, here after Alipour, further in view of Changzhen Wang et al, Applied Materials &
Interfaces, 13(2021) 31699-31709, here after Wang.
Claim 7 is rejected. Wei and Alipour teach the limitation of claim 5, Alipour
teaches optimizing shell thickness [page 49 last sentence], but does not teach the
thickness of the shell layer. Wang teaches a core-shell catalyst structure and teaches
shell diffusion effects are in direct relation to the thickness of the shell, and the increase
of the shell thickness and/or decrease of the shell porosity will cause an increase of the
shell diffusion effect. Since the change of shell thickness and porosity can increase the
channel diffusional path and tortuosity for mass transport in the shell, the
aforementioned shell effects could cause a serious decrease of the inward/outward
diffusion rates and therefore result in the poor activity of the nanoreactor [page 31707
column 2 paragraph 1 lines 10-15, page 31707 column 2 paragraph 2 lines 5-9],
therefore it has to be optimized. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to have a method of Wei, Kesavan and Alipour where the shell thickness of catalyst has to be optimized to have no catalytic deactivation effect.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chu Wei et
al (U. S. Patent Application: 2016/0023905, here after Wei), Jagadesh K Kesavan et al, Journal of Co2 Utilization 23(2018)200-211, here after Kesavan, further in view of Yang-
Dong He et al (Chinese Patent: 117003201, here after He).
Claim 8 is rejected. Wei's invention is related to a method of fabricating CNT's
and since it is solid phase it is separated and recovered from gas phase (unreacted
methane and hydrogen). He does not teach separating H₂ and unreacted CH4. He
teaches separating unreacted methane and hydrogen to recycling [page 3 last 12 lines-
page 4 lines 1-2]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the
art at the time of the invention was made to have a method of Wei, and Kesavan and separating unreacted methane and hydrogen, because it helps recycling.
Claims 15-16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being
unpatentable over Shi C Zhang et al, Journal of European Ceramic Society
30(2010)1373-1380, here after Zhang, further in view of Muhammad Helmi Abdul Kudus
et al, Journal of Alloys and Compounds 509(2011)2784-2788, here after Kudus, and Na-oki Higashi et al, Diamond & Related Materials14(2005) 520-824, here after Higashi.
Claims 15-16, 18-20 are rejected. Zhang teaches a method to produce a
composite, comprising:
acid treating CNT's which in fact leaching catalysts(metal) from CNT particles
using solution [abstract]; and sintering the CNP-particles to form a composite including
CNT's grown on surfaces substrate particles (AI2O3) of the composite [abstract, page
1372 column 1, 2.2 Mixing approaches, to column 3, 2.4 Characterization]. Zhang does
not teach details of growing the CNT's on alumina particles. Kudus teaches
depositing highly dispersed (mixing in liquid phase and calcination so it is highly
dispersed, liquid phase-based growth method) nanoparticle (Ni) catalysts on substrate
particles (AI2O3) [page column 1, 2.1 Catalyst preparation];
growing CNT's (uniformly)on the substrate particles using CH4 decomposition
catalyzed by the nanoparticles (Ni) to form CNT's[2.2 Growth of MWCNTS]. Therefore,
it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention
was made to have a method of Zhang where the CNT's are made by Kudus, because it
is suitable method of forming CNT's(MW) on powered substrates. Zhang and Kudus do not teach the substrate is diamond particles. Higashi teaches a method of growing
CNT's from methane and with nickel catalyst by depositing catalytic particles on
substrate particles (diamond powders, the particles of the substrate particles comprise diamond without hydrogen termination (oxidation in air removes any hydrogen termination) [page 821 column 1 2.1. Sample preparation paragraph 1].
) [abstract, 2.1 sample preparation]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to have a method of Zhang and Kudus, and grow CNT's on diamond particles, because it is suitable support for growing CNT's.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chu Wei et al (U. S. Patent Application: 2016/0023905, here after Wei), further in view of Jagadesh K Kesavan et al, Journal of Co2 Utilization 23(2018)200-211, here after Kesavan.
, and further in view of G. B. Veselov et al, Nanomaterials, 12, 952(2022) page 1-15, here after Veselov.
Claim 21 is rejected. Wei does not teach catalyst is derived by sol-gel method. Veselov teaches a sol-gel method to obtain nickel magnesium oxide catalyst [title, page 4 first paragraph]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to have a method of Wei, Kesavan, when the catalyst is sol-gel drive, because it is suitable way to form N-MgO catalyst particles.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wei et al (U. S. Patent Application: 2016/0023905, here after Wei), Jagadesh K Kesavan et al, Journal of Co2 Utilization 23(2018)200-211, here after Kesavan, Zahra Alipour, Thesis 2022, here after Alipour, and further in view of Panpan Hao et al, Sci. Adv. 6, 7031(2020) page 1-10, here after Hao.
Claim 22 is rejected. Alipour does not teach core-shell Ni@Al₂O₃ catalyst is prepared according to an ion-exchange inverse loading (IEIL) strategy. Hao teaches core-shell Ni@Al₂O₃ catalyst is derived by ion-exchange inverse loading method [page 2 second column fig. 2]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to have a method of Wei, Kesavan, and Alipour when the catalyst is prepared according to an ion-exchange inverse loading, because it is suitable way to form Ni@Al₂O₃ core shell catalyst particles.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Higashi, further in view of Guodong Zhan et al (U. S. Patent Application: 2019/0136374, here after Zhan).
Claim 23 is rejected. Higashi does not teach catalyst particles are
are deposited on the substrate particles with atomic layer deposition. However depositing nickel on diamond particles with ALD is known in art as Zhan teaches [0036]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to have a method of Higashi where the nickel is deposited on diamond particles by ALD, because it is suitable method for it.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shi C Zhang et al, Journal of European Ceramic Society 30(2010)1373-1380, here after Zhang, Muhammad Helmi Abdul Kudus et al, Journal of Alloys and Compounds 509(2011)2784-2788, here after Kudus, and Na-oki Higashi et al, Diamond & Related Materials14(2005) 520-824, here after Higashi, further in view of Guodong Zhan et al (U. S. Patent Application: 2019/0136374, here after Zhan).
Claim 24 is rejected. Higashi does not teach catalyst particles are
are deposited on the substrate particles with atomic layer deposition. However depositing nickel on diamond particles with ALD is known in art as Zhan teaches [0036]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to have a method of Zhang, Kudus, and Higashi where the nickel is deposited on diamond particles by ALD, because it is suitable method for it.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments, see Remarks, filed 06/24/26, with respect to Claim objection have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection to claims 11, and 16 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 06/24/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant argues Kesavan is related to YSZ/Ni and not MgO/Ni as YSZ further functionalized catalyst. However, Kesavan is cited for showing general size of nickel particles as catalyst on a support material.
The applicant argument regarding Higashi is not persuasive as Higashi teaches oxidizing diamond particles in 450C which in fact removes hydrogen termination.
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 TABASSOM TADAYYON ESLAMI whose telephone number is (571)270-1885. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-6.
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, Gordon Baldwin can be reached at 5712725166. 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.
/TABASSOM TADAYYON ESLAMI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718
Prosecution Insights