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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, “a torch comprising electrodes …, tube for passage of gas, gas inlet chamber, arc stabilization system, arc rotating system, and system for cooling the electrode. The anode comprises the tube” as cited in claim 1 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The substitute specification, inducing REPLACEMENT SHEET of drawings, filed 12/22/2025 has NOT been entered because it does not conform to 37 CFR 1.125(b) and (c) because: it introduces new matters.
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 9, 11-13, and 19-20 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 9 recites the limitation "the passage of gas", “the cathode region”, and “the anode region”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction/clarification is required.
Due to the dependency to the parent claim, claims 11-13, and 19-20 are rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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.
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 9, 11, 13, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Belashchenko (PG-PUB US 2019/0062891).
Regarding claim 9, Belashchenko disclose a plasma device (ABSTRACT). The apparatus comprises a plasma torch 320 having
(1) a cathode module;
(2) an anode module 322 enclosing a plasma extension module/tube 324;
(3) a passage/tube/channel/chamber for flowing gases;
(4) a module for stabilizing the arc;
(5) a vortex distributor 126 having vortex orifices 138 for creating vortex; and
(6) a cooling media that can cool the anode/cathode (i.e., a torch comprising… anode, a cathode, a tube…, a gas inlet chamber, arc stabilization system, arc rotating system, and a system for cooling electrodes, Figures 2-5, paragraphs [0032]-[0033], [0038], [0045] – [0047], [0051], & [0056]).
wherein the diameter of the anode may be in a range of 4 mm to 10 mm (or 7 mm to 14 mm) and the plasma power may be in a range of 20 kW to 100 kW (i.e., a diameter of anode …, plasma power…, Figures 5-7, paragraphs [0049], [0070], [0085] - [0086] & Table 1).
It should be noted that “arc stabilization system” does not recite any structural limitation and will be interpreted as “a structure/member for stabilizing an arc”. Belashchenko teaches a module for stabilizing the arc (paragraph [0045]), reading on “arc stabilization system”.
It should be noted that “arc rotation system” does not recite any structural limitation and will be interpreted as “a structure/member for generating rotation/vortex”. Belashchenko teaches a vortex distributor 126 having vortex orifices 138 for creating vortex (paragraph [0051]), reading on “arc rotation system”.
It should be noted that “for the production of synthesis gas” is for intended use. It has been held that a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim (MPEP 2114).
Moreover, the limitation “for the production of synthesis gas” is solely recited in preamble. When reading the preamble in the context of the entire claim, the recitation is not limiting because the body of the claim describes a complete invention and the language recited solely in the preamble does not provide any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations. Thus, the preamble of the claim(s) is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. See Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999). See MPEP § 2111.02.
The limitations of “CO2”, “plasma gas”, and “natural gas and/or CH4 and/or light hydrocarbons” are material worked upon the device. It has been held that material worked upon a device does not limit the apparatus claim from the prior art (MPEP 2115).
The recitation of “a flow rate” is not a structural limitation, rather a process-limiting parameter, which does not differentiate the apparatus claim from the prior art (MPEP 2114). Furthermore, Belashchenko teaches that the plasma velocity may be adjusted based upon the applications (paragraphs [0033], [0044] & [0058]).
Since the device of Belashchenko comprises substantially the same/similar structures as claimed, it is fully capable of performing the claimed functions unless some limitations are not currently claimed.
Regarding claim 11, Belashchenko teaches that cathode/anode may be made of copper (paragraphs [0050] & [0059]).
Regarding claims 13, and 19, Belashchenko teaches that gases G1 and G2 may be injected to the areas around the cathode and the anode (Figures 3, paragraphs [0046] – [0047]).
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.
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 12 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Belashchenko (PG-PUB US 2019/0062891) as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Petrik et al (PB-PUB US 1007/0108165).
Regarding claim 12, Belashchenko teaches that the plasma torch comprises a cathode module C (Figures 3, paragraph [0045]), but does not teach the cathode comprising zirconia.
However, Petrik et al disclose a plasma torch (ABSTRACT). Petrik teaches that the plasma torch comprises a cathode assembly having zirconia with favorable electron emission characteristics (paragraphs [0032] –[0033]).
Therefore, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to utilize a cathode comprising zirconia as suggested by Petrik in order to improve electron emission for the plasma torch of Belashchenko.
Regarding claim 20, Belashchenko teaches that gases G1 and G2 may be injected to the areas around the cathode and the anode (Figures 3, paragraphs [0046] – [0047]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 12/22/2025 have been considered but are moot in light of the applicant’s amendments.
In response to the arguments regarding the substituted specification & 112(a), the specification as originally filed does not designate any reference to the drawing. However, the substituted specification newly/randomly designates specific references to the different parts of the drawing, which introduces new matter to the original specification.
In response to the arguments regarding “Both the arc stabilization system and the arc rotation system are two features NOT disclosed in Belashchenko's device. Belashchenko does NOT disclose the use of CO2 or any hydrocarbons. Further, Belashchenko's reactor cannot use CO2 as plasma gas, and the disclosed invention does not perform thermochemical reactions of gases. Notably, the described cathode in Belashchenko could not operate with CO2 as the plasma gas. This is not simply a matter of changing materials, but would also require a new design for Belashchenko's torch.” (page 11 of REMARKS).
First of all, Belashchenko teaches a module for stabilizing the arc (paragraph [0045]) and a structure for creating vortex (paragraph [0051]).
Secondly, the claimed invention is directed to an apparatus while the applicant’s arguments are related to a method, which is NOT within the scope of invention.
Finally, the applicant does not provide any evidence that the teaching of Belashchenko could not use CO2 as plasma gas or the cathode of Belashchenko could not operate with CO2 as the plasma gas.
Applicant's arguments do not comply with 37 CFR 1.111(c) because they do not clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Further, they do not show how the amendments avoid such references or objections.
Conclusion
Claims 9, 11-13, and 19-20 are rejected, Claims 14-16, and 21 are withdrawn. Claims 10, and 17-18 are canceled.
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 XIUYU TAI whose telephone number is (571)270-1855. The examiner can normally be reached Mon.-Fri. 9:00-5:00.
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, Luan Van can be reached at 571-272-8521. 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.
/XIUYU TAI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1795