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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 3/17/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment filed 03/17/2026 has entered prosecution.
Claim 23 has entered prosecution.
Claims 1-18, 20-23 are pending examination.
Applicant’s amendment requires new grounds for rejection as set forth in this action.
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 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.
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.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1-13, 16-18, 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klepfer et al (US 6,184,427) in view of Risby (US9293302B2).
Regarding claim 1 and 20-21, Klepfer et al teaches a method comprising: exposing hydrocarbons (i.e. hydrocarbon precursor, Abstract) and a metal or carbon catalyst/sensitizer (col. 5, lines 30-35) and a carrier gas (e.g. nitrogen, col. 10, lines 45-55) to a non-thermal plasma generated by microwaves (col. 4, lines 53-60), where the discharges include plasma microdischarges (where the Examiner is reading the plasma microdischarges as the one or more non-thermal plasma, col. 5, lines 50-55 and col. 6, lines 58-68), which become one or more streamers (i.e. generating micro-discharges, col. 6 lines 40-67 and col. 7, lines 3-17) and producing hydrocarbons and/or hydrogen (col. 12, lines 66-67).
However, Klepfer does not teach that a plasma forming material is converted to a plasma prior to mixing the plasma forming material with the hydrocarbon precursor.
Risby teaches a method for processing of forming a microwave plasma from a gas which expels the gas as an afterglow (abstract).
Risby teaches that a plasma afterglow is formed by exposure of a gas to an external energy source (a mircowave field) followed by injection of the plasma afterglow into a secondary region absent of the external energy source. Risby teaches that this is advantaged over other plasma methods in that the plasma generated species then de-excite and participate in secondary chemical reactions that form stable species (col. 9, line 57-67 and col. 10, lines 1-16). Risby further teaches forming a plasma afterglow from N2 gas followed by the introduction of CH4 (col. 13, lines 15-30). It is understood that there is necessarily a spatial distinction between the methane and the nitrogen afterglow prior to the mixing, in order that the methane is introduced to the nitrogen, as described. Further, Risby teaches a method for forming a plasma in a microwave chamber in Fig. 2, as shown below, as related to the length and width of the formed plasma. Specifically, Risby teaches that the microwave energy propagates into the microwave reaction chamber in the direction of the exit channel (element 105) in order to combine with gases and form a plasma (element 109), understood to be inclusive of a streamer, as it was clearly disclosed above that at least one embodiment pertaining to this method creates a temporal distinction between plasma formation with N2 gas and introduction of reactant methane (col. 13, lines 15-30), such that it is clear that the longitudinal length of the streamer exceeds its transverse radius (Fig. 2, see MPEP 2125 I), where it follows that after formation of the plasma streamer reactant methane combines with the plasma to form a convergence point (Col. 6, lines 41-52). Risby further teaches that the geometric arrangement of the microwave chamber enables the reflection and maximal usage of the emitted microwave energy (Col. 6, Lines 8-30).
PNG
media_image1.png
1234
750
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Prior to the effective filing date of the present invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill that the method of hydrocarbon cracking, as per Klepfer, was ready for improvement by incorporation of the method of forming a plasma afterglow prior to introduction of hydrocarbon source into a reaction chamber and the incorporation of the streamer geometry as related to the microwave chamber dimensions, as per Risby, with the predictable result that one would arrive at a method for hydrocarbon cracking with improved conversion efficiency of the hydrocarbon gas into product and the ability to optimize the parameters of the streamer geometry to further improve efficiency with respect to the efficient reflection of the microwave radiation (see MPEP 2143 I D).
Regarding claim 2, Klepfer et al teaches wherein the hydrocarbon precursor material includes one or more first materials selected from the group consisting of: aromatic, alkylated aromatic, paraffinic, olefinic, cycloolefin, napthenic, alkane, alkene, alkyl cycloalkane, alkylated cycloalkane, alkyne, alcohol, and heteroatom (e.g. plastics or heteroatoms, col. 7, lines 50-55). Therefore, Klepfer et al anticipates the method of claim 2.
Regarding claim 3, Klepfer et al teaches wherein the hydrocarbon precursor material includes one or more first materials selected from the group consisting of: methane, ethane, propane, butane, syngas, natural gas, methanol, ethanol, propanol, butanol, hexane, benzene, paraffin, and naphthalene. (e.g. bitumen, which the Examiner is reading as containing naphthalene, col. 17, lines 18-67) Therefore, Klepfer et al anticipates the method of claim 3.
Regarding claims 4, Klepfer et al teaches wherein at least one of the hydrocarbon precursor material and plasma forming material includes one or more first materials selected from the group consisting of: carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, argon, synthesis gas, hydrogen, hydrogen sulfide, water, helium, nitrogen, oxygen, air, and recycled gas. (e.g. nitrogen, col. 10, lines 45-55) Therefore, Klepfer et al anticipates the method of claim 4.
Regarding claim 5, Klepfer et al teaches wherein the plasma promoter material includes one or more first materials selected from the group consisting of: carbon black, coal, biochar, biomass, graphite, activated carbon, a transition metal, a supported transition metal, and structured carbon. (col. 9, lines 10-35) Therefore, Klepfer et al anticipates the method of claim 5.
Regarding claim 6, Klepfer et al teaches the method of claim 2, further comprising the one or more first materials accelerating the conversion of the hydrocarbon precursor material to the product (col. 7, lines 45-50). Therefore, Klepfer et al anticipates the method of claim 2.
Regarding claim 7, Klepfer et al teaches the method of claim 6, further comprising: exposing the one or more first materials to the non-thermal micro-plasma and the microwave radiation, the exposure of the one or more first materials selectively converting the one or more first materials to an upgraded second material. (col. 7, lines 45-50 and col. 8, lines 56-67) Therefore, Klepfer et al anticipates the method of claim 7.
Regarding claim 8, Klepfer et al teaches wherein the carbon enriched materials have a hydrogen atom to carbon atom ratio of less than or equal to 1. (e.g. producing coke, col. 14, lines 6-10). Therefore, Klepfer et al anticipates the method of claim 8.
Regarding claim 9, Klepfer et al teaches wherein the carbon enriched materials include one or more first materials selected from the group consisting of: graphitic material, amorphous carbon, structured carbon, and ordered carbon. (e.g. coke, where the Examiner is reading the coke as containing amorphous carbon, col. 14, lines 6-10). Therefore, Klepfer et al anticipates the method of claim 9.
Regarding claim 10, the courts have held broadly that where the device of the prior art is identical to the instant claim, under the principles of inherency, even if the prior art is silent as to a characteristic, it is understood that similar processes can reasonably be expected to yield products which inherently have the same properties (e.g. making graphite or graphene) (See MPEP 2112.02 I and II) Therefore, Klepfer et al anticipates the method of claim 10.
Regarding claim 11, Klepfer et al teaches wherein the hydrogen enriched materials include one or more first materials selected from the group consisting of: hydrogen, ethylene, acetylene, butadiene, and butane. . (e.g. ethylene, acetylene, C4 paraffins or C4 olefins, col. 14, lines 25-40) Therefore, Klepfer et al anticipates the method of claim 11.
Regarding claim 12, Klepfer et al teaches wherein the hydrogen enriched materials include one or more first materials selected from the group consisting of: hydrogen, ethylene, acetylene, butadiene, and butane. . (e.g. ethylene, acetylene, C4 paraffins or C4 olefins, col. 14, lines 25-40) Therefore, Klepfer et al anticipates the method of claim 12.
Regarding claim 13, Klepfer et al teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising recycling an output of the reaction zone, including selectively returning at least one of an unconverted hydrocarbon precursor material, the plasma promoter material (e.g. the sensitizer/catalyst, Fig. 2 part 17, col. 11, lines 5-7), and the plasma forming material to the reaction zone. Therefore, Klepfer et al anticipates the method of claim 13.
Regarding claim 16, Klepfer et al teaches wherein the microwave radiation is operated at 15-30 kW (where the Examiner is reading this as the microwave radiation is less than about 30 kilowatts per liter within the reaction zone, col. 10, lines 45-46). Therefore, Klepfer et al anticipates the method of claim 16.
Regarding claim 17, Klepfer et al teaches wherein the non-thermal micro-plasma is generated in e.g. a multi-mode cavity (where the Examiner is reading this as the non-thermal micro-plasma has a non-uniform radiation intensity within the reaction zone, col. 9, lines 54-65). Therefore, Klepfer et al anticipates the method of claim 17.
Regarding claim 18, Klepfer et al teaches a microwave generator operating at 915 MHz and a power level from 15-30 kW (col. 10, lines 45-46, where the Examiner is reading this as producing a non-thermal micro-plasma with a plasma temperature less than 5,500 degrees Kelvin). As the disclosed range of Klepfer overlaps with the conditions required in (para. 31 and 37) of the instant application, it has been held that where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of anticipation has been established (MPEP 2112.01 I). Therefore, Klepfer et al anticipates the method of claim 18.
Regarding claim 22, Klepfer et al teaches a microwave generator operating at 915 MHz and a power level from 15-30 kW (col. 10, lines 45-46, i.e. wherein the microwave radiation is between 36 megahertz and 300 gigahertz). A specific example in the prior art which is within a claimed range anticipates the range. See MPEP 2131.03.I. Therefore, Klepfer et al anticipates the method of claim 22.
Regarding Claim 23, modified Klepfer teaches to claim 1, as shown above, which features the incorporation of the use of an elongated microwave energy chamber in order to form streamers that have a greater longitude than transverse radius. While modified Klepfer does not teach a specific unit of measurement with regard to the streamers distance of propagation into the reaction zone, as the device is geometrically substantially the same as the claimed device, it is understood that one of ordinary skill would have found it obvious to have optimized the size of the device in order to arrive at a streamer length in the microwave chamber cavity between 0.95 to 3 cm (see MPEP 2144.05 II A).
Claims 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klepfer et al (US 6,184,427) in view of Risby (US9293302B2), as applied to Claim 1, further in view of Barton (US 2014/0231417 A1).
Regarding claim 14, Klepfer et al is applied as above.
Klepfer et al does not teach the method of claim 1, further comprising: positioning a first conduit and a second conduit proximal to the reaction zone, wherein the first conduit channels the plasma forming material; and positioning the first conduit within the second conduit, the positioning includes forming an annulus between a first surface of the first conduit and a second surface of the second conduit, wherein the annulus channels the hydrocarbon precursor material wherein at least one of the first conduit and the annulus channels the promoter material.
In the same field of endeavor (microwave non-thermal plasma hydrocarbon processing) Barton teaches positioning a first conduit and a second conduit proximal to the reaction zone, wherein the first conduit channels the plasma forming material; and positioning the first conduit within the second conduit, the positioning includes forming an annulus between a first surface of the first conduit and a second surface of the second conduit, wherein the annulus channels the hydrocarbon precursor material. (para. 0054, Fig. 6) Barton teaches that this is an energetically efficient arrangement (para. 0054)
Therefore, it would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, to modify the method of Klepfer et al by positioning a first conduit and a second conduit proximal to the reaction zone, wherein the first conduit channels the plasma forming material; and positioning the first conduit within the second conduit, the positioning includes forming an annulus between a first surface of the first conduit and a second surface of the second conduit, wherein the annulus channels the hydrocarbon precursor material, as taught by Barton, as this is an energetically efficient arrangement (para. 0054)
Regarding claim 15, Klepfer et al is applied as above.
Klepfer et al does not teach the method of claim 1, further comprising: orienting the reaction zone with respect to an outlet, wherein one or more solid particles free-fall through the outlet.
In the same field of endeavor (microwave non-thermal plasma hydrocarbon processing), Barton teaches the method further comprising: orienting the reaction zone with respect to an outlet, wherein one or more solid particles free-fall through the outlet. (i.e. under the influence of gravity, para. 0058) Barton teaches that this is a simple mechanism to separate non-gasifiable feedstock residues out of the system. (para. 0058)
Therefore, it would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, to modify the method of Klepfer et al by orienting the reaction zone with respect to an outlet, wherein one or more solid particles free-fall through the outlet. (i.e. under the influence of gravity) as taught by Barton, as this is a simple mechanism to separate non-gasifiable feedstock residues out of the system. (para. 0058)
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/17/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Klepfer fails to teach to the geometry of the streamer being longitudinally greater than its transverse cross-section. While this is true, the argument does not dissuade that the combination of Klepfer in view of Risby teaches to the instant claimed device. As shown in the above rejection, Risby teaches this geometry and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have incorporated it into the teaching of Klepfer, in order to provide for a microwave cracking device with greater microwave reflectivity in the chamber, enabling more efficient plasma generation (see Risby Col. 6, Lines 8-30).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHANAEL J DOWNES whose telephone number is (571)272-1141. The examiner can normally be reached 8am to 5pm.
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.
NATHANAEL JASON. DOWNES
Examiner
Art Unit 1794
/NATHANAEL JASON DOWNES/Examiner, Art Unit 1794
/BRIAN W COHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights