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 Objections
The claims are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 contains several grammatical errors; the claim should be rewritten as follows:
“A process for cracking of a hydrocarbon gas, wherein a process gas consisting of a hydrocarbon gas and optionally CO2 is passed through a flow channel of an absorptive receiver reactor, wherein:
cracking of the hydrocarbon gas takes place while passing through the receiver reactor, wherein in a first region of the flow channel, only the process gas is fed through the flow channel and heated to a cracking temperature of the hydrocarbon gas;
in an adjoining second, downstream flow region, the only fed through process gas is heated to beyond the cracking temperature;
in a third further downstream region of the flow channel, the only fed through process gas is heated further and is brought therein into physical contact, over the cross-section of said third further downstream region, with a reaction accelerator, after which a stream of products is discharged from the receiver reactor downstream of the reaction accelerator; and
the heating of the hydrocarbon gas to above its cracking temperature is achieved by absorption of blackbody radiation by the process gas, which is given off by the reaction accelerator, which is heated by solar radiation incident thereon to the process gas flowing towards it, such that the process gas in the flow channel extending as far as the reaction accelerator forms disc-shaped temperature zones staggered one behind the other each at a higher temperature extending transversely to the flow channel.”
In Claims 2-17, the word ‘Process’ in the beginning of each claim should be deleted, and “The process” should be inserted in its place, to make clear that these claims further limit the process of the claims upon which they depend.
In Claim 3, a comma should be added after “third flow region” in the first line for grammatical completeness.
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.
Claim 11-17 is 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.
In the instant case, the claim fails to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Namely, Claim 1 requires that “in a first region of the flow channel only the hydrocarbon gas is fed through the flow channel and heated to its cracking temperature”, while Claim 11 requires feeding CO2 along with the hydrocarbon gas, which is contradictory to the requirements of Claim 1. Claims 12-17 inherit this deficiency and are therefore also rejected. 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.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-10 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the objections to the claims for minor informalities as set forth above.
Claims 11-17 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the objections to the claims for minor informalities AND rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(d), set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The arguments provided by Applicant in combination with amendments to the claims have overcome all previous prior art rejections. Particularly, as argued by Applicant, the prior art neither discloses nor reasonably suggests that a process gas consisting of only a hydrocarbon gas and optionally CO2 is fed through the flow channel and heated to its cracking temperature. See Applicant’s remarks, Pages 10-12.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
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 LOGAN LACLAIR whose telephone number is (571)272-1815. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 7:30-5:30 PST.
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, Anthony Zimmer can be reached at (571) 270-3591. 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.
LOGAN LACLAIR
Examiner
Art Unit 1736
/L.E.L./Examiner, Art Unit 1738
/DANIEL C. MCCRACKEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1736
Prosecution Insights