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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. JP2021-163670, filed on 10/04/2021.
Election/Restrictions
Claim 8 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 05/28/2026.
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.
Claim 6 is 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 6 recites the limitation "the simple substance" in line 2 and 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 6 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ijije et al. (Adv. Manuf. ‘2016’ 4:23–32).
Considering claims 1 and 7, Ijije discloses a method for producing a metal carbide, comprising: preparing a molten salt containing a carbonate of a first metal (Na2CO3) contains at least one selected from the group consisting of alkali metals and alkaline earth metals; and molten salt (abstract); and obtaining precipitate containing a first metal carbide (Na2C2) by applying a voltage to the molten salt and carbon (page 31, Conclusions).
Considering claim 6, Ijije discloses the precipitates further contain carbon, carbonate and oxide (page 28, right column, first paragraph).
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) 2-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ijije et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Reid et al. (US 20190093246 A1).
Considering claims 2-4, Ijije does not disclose the molten salt further contains a halide of a second metal.
However, Reid discloses a method of electrolytic generation of carbon including an electrolyte comprising a molten salt including alkali metal carbonate including a mixture of two or more of lithium carbonate, sodium carbonate and potassium carbonate and may also include conductivity enhancing additives such as metal chlorides [0055]. Example metal chlorides include, but are not limited to, lithium chloride, sodium chloride and potassium chloride [0055].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include metal chloride in the molten carbonate electrolyte, because Ijije teaches that carbon electro-deposition in molten Li2CO3-Na2CO3-K2CO3 has been widely reported in literature and Ijije mainly is focused on investigating the role of the alkali metals used and Reid discloses a method of electrolytic generation of carbon including an electrolyte comprising a molten salt including alkali metal carbonate including a mixture of two or more of lithium carbonate, sodium carbonate and potassium carbonate and may also include conductivity enhancing additives such as metal chlorides. Example metal chlorides include, but are not limited to, lithium chloride, sodium chloride and potassium chloride.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ijije et al. and Reid et al. as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Kandhasamy et al. (ACS Appl. Energy Mater. 2018, 1, 5386−5393).
Considering claim 5, Reid teaches that the metal chlorides may also be helpful in controlling the melting point of the electrolyte [0055].
Ijije and Reid do not disclose fluorine.
However, Kandhasamy teaches that addition of LiF to molten carbonate mixture reduces melting point (pate 5387, Table 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include LiF in the molten carbonate electrolyte of Ijije and Reid, because Reid teaches that the metal chlorides may also be helpful in controlling the melting point of the electrolyte and teaches discloses that addition of LiF to molten carbonate mixture reduces melting point. Therefore, one would have been motivated to use LiF as an additive of Reid or in addition to it in order to lower the melting point of the electrolyte.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Wojciech Haske whose telephone number is (571)272-5666. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:30 am - 6:00 pm.
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, James Lin can be reached at 571-272-8902. 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.
/WOJCIECH HASKE/ Examiner, Art Unit 1794
Prosecution Insights