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 .
Response to Amendment
Examiner acknowledges Applicant’s response filed 12 November 2025 containing remarks and amendments to the claims.
Claims 2-4, 6-10, 13, 18-19, 24, and 28-35 are pending.
The previous rejections have been updated as necessitated by amendments to the claims. The updated rejections follow.
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 2, 3, 6, 24, and 28-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Novoselov (US 2016/0177190), Kong (US 5,626,726) and Suib (US 5,015,349) and Wataru (US 3,491,010).
Regarding claims 2, 24, and 28-35, Novoselov teaches cracking reactors for cracking hydrocarbons into lighter hydrocarbon fractions using a spark discharge [0002]. Novoselov teaches cracking via electrical discharges [0018-0029].
Further, Novoselov teaches that gas flow rate is selected in order to achieve the desired plasma cracking [0055].
Additionally, Kong teaches that optimization of plasma cracking reactors includes analysis of various factors including gas flow rate, bubble volume and size, temperature, spark gap length, etc (columns 5-8).
Suib teaches that volume and reactor shape are selected to control plasma cracking reactions (column 7).
Wataru teaches a process for using spark gap discharges in order to crack hydrocarbons (column 1, lines 1-25). Wataru teaches using gap between electrodes of 50-150 mm, as well as optimizing the gap length in order to create the desired spark discharges (column 2, lines 15-30). Wataru additionally teaches that the gap selection depends on the peak voltage supplied (column 2, lines 15-30).
Examiner notes that Wataru teaches electrode gap of 50-150 mm, overlapping with the electrode gap of 1-100 mm as identified Applicant’s instant specification (see instant specification [0132]). Since Wataru teaches overlapping electrode gap, and the same production of spark discharges, it is expected that the same ratios of bubble/gap are present, since the same spark gap discharges and cracking of hydrocarbons is achieved.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art to have incorporated the known variables of gas flow rate, bubble volume and size, temperature, spark gap length, reactor size and volume, non annular gas flow, etc , in order to obtain the desired production yield within the available refinery space. It is expected that the same or similar results would be achieved as the instantly claimed process, since Applicant’s instant specification also discloses that the ratio of gas bubble column length to discharge gap is representative of gas velocity flow [0100], and the prior art also teaches that gas flow rate and discharge gap length are critical factors in reactor design. It is not seen where such a known use of process control to optimize known variables would result in any new or unexpected results.
Regarding claims 3 and 6, Novoselov teaches the reactors process hydrocarbons in an oil refinery [0002].
Claims 4, 7, 8, 10, 13, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Novoselov (US 2016/0177190), Kong (US 5,626,726) and Suib (US 5,015,349) and Wataru (US 3,491,010) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Shumway (WO 03/031012).
Regarding claims 4, 7, and 18, Shumway teaches that the reactor modules can all be used independently or interconnected without oil treatment systems [09-13], [27]. Examiner considers the independent operation to read on the claimed limitations regarding turning individual modules on and off independently.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art to have utilized a modular reactor configuration, as disclosed by Shumway, for the benefit of being able to obtain the desired hydrocarbon treatment processing steps, and flexibility in control of the system.
Regarding claim 8, Shumway teaches connecting reactor module components by quick connections [10].
Regarding claim 10, Shumway teaches a control module to house all of the control equipment for the modular equipment to provide notice of potential equipment failures, identify operational errors, and provide a direct resource for troubleshooting problems [37], [47]. Shumway additionally notes that each reactor can be operated independently or interconnected [09], which Examiner considers to include separate flow and gas control.
Regarding claim 13, Shumway teaches that the modules may be operated independently or interconnected in series depending on processing needs [09]. Examiner additionally notes that continuous and batch are the two ways of operating processes, and it would be obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art to select the Shumway process to be run continuously, since it is a scaled up process and intended to maximize productivity. It is not seen where such a selection would result in any new or unexpected results.
Claims 9 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Novoselov (US 2016/0177190), Kong (US 5,626,726) and Suib (US 5,015,349) and Wataru (US 3,491,010) as applied to claim 2 above and further in view of Shumway (WO 03/031012) and Mahoney (US 2005/0151544).
Regarding claims 9 and 19, the previous combination teaches the limitations of claims 2 and 18, as discussed above.
Shumway teaches a control module to house all of the control equipment for the modular equipment to provide notice of potential equipment failures, identify operational errors, and provide a direct resource for troubleshooting problems [37].
Further, Mahoney teaches that a known time of process control for plasma furnaces includes real time monitoring [14].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art to have used a known type of process control in the process of the previous combination, such as real time monitoring disclosed by Mahoney.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12 November 2025 have been fully considered and have been addressed by the updated rejections as necessitated by amendments to the claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Pevere (US 2,799,640) – teaches multiple sets of electrodes to produces spark discharges to treat hydrocarbons
US Applications 17048640, 17048638, 17048637 are related, but currently do not arise to double patenting.
Waturu (US 3,513,044) – teaches cracking hydrocarbons using multiple spark discharges, and that a plurality of electrode pairs may be used in order to scale for commercial purposes (column 5, lines 25-45).
Novoselov (US 2019/0112533) -cited on ISR for related PCT, teaches a multispark reactor for cracking hydrocarbons (abstract).
Lourenco (US 2011/0162999) -teaches cracking heavy oil using modular units mounted on skids [0024-0029].
Duncan (US 4,983,259) – teaches a modular refinery (abstract).
Toriyama (US 2007/0181110) -teaches multiple discharge ignition control (abstract).
Hunter (US 2017/0283705) – teaches multiple plasma arcs [116].
Graf (US 1,216,538) – teaches a series of spark gaps for producing electrical oscillations (page 1).
Wataru (US 3,556,976) -teaches multiple spark gaps for cracking materials (column 1, lines 1-30).
Tanaka (US 2010/0264802) -teaches multiple spark gap apparatus (figure 1b)
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 MICHELLE STEIN whose telephone number is (571)270-1680. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 AM-5:00 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, 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.
/MICHELLE STEIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771