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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 2/3/2026 has been entered.
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)(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.
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 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Wickramanayaka (U. S. 6,225,746).
Regarding claim 1, Wickramanayaka discloses a plasma generating device (ABSTRACT). The apparatus comprises
(1) a cylinder 11/53 having an interior volume (Figures 1 & 8, col. 1, line 39-40 & col. 4, line 14);
(2) a gas inlet 23 for supplying gas (i.e., an inlet port…, Figure 1-4, col. 4, line 56);
(3) a plurality of ports 23 for exhausting gas (i.e., an outlet port…, Figure 1-4, col. 4, line 53-54); and
(4) a resonator comprises
(i) a central metal plate 14 having a first end and a second end within the cylinder 11 (i.e., a first conductor …, Figures1- 4, col. 4, line 46-48) and
(ii) a metal helical coil 16/51 coupled to the cylinder 11/53 and partially extended to the outside of the cylinder 11/53 (i.e., a second conductor …, Figures 1& 8, col. 1, line 34-36 & col.4, line 23-24).
The limitation of “a first conductor” or “a second conductor” does not recite any additional structures and will be interpreted as “a structure/member configured to conduct/transport electricity and/or electromagnetic wave”.
The central metal plate 14 and the metal helical coil 16 are configured to conduct electricity and/or electromagnetic wave, reading on “a first conductor”, and “a second conductor”, respectively.
Furthermore, the limitation of “one or more reagents” and “one or more chemical products” are material worked upon a device, which does not limit the apparatus claim from the prior art (MPEP 2115).
Regarding claim 2, Wickramanayaka teaches that the central plate 14, which is grounded, is fixed to a top plate of the cylinder 11 using a vertical bar 20 and the helical coil may be wound around a dielectric plate/tube, wherein an RF source 31/57 is configured to supply electric power to the resonator with multiple times of one quarter of wavelength (Figures 1-4, & 8, col. 1, line 34-50, col. 2, line 44-46, col. 3, line 5-7, col. 4, line 46-48, col. 5, line 4-5, & col.6,line 33-35).
Since the device of Wickramanayaka comprises substantially the same/similar structures as claimed, it is fully capable of performing the claimed functions.
Regarding claims 3 and 4, it should be noted that temperature or power is not a structural limitation, rather a process-limiting parameter which does not differentiate the apparatus claim from the prior art (MPEP 2114).
Claims 1, 5-7, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Tranquilla et al (PG-PUB US 2021/0086158).
Regarding claim 1, Tranquilla et al disclose a plasma generating device (ABSTRACT). The apparatus comprises
(1) a reactor vessel 1 having an interior volume (Figure 1, paragraph [061]);
(2) a gas inlet 2 for supplying gas (i.e., an inlet port…, Figure 1, paragraphs [0061] & [0074]);
(3) an outlet 5 for exhausting gas (i.e., an outlet port…, Figure 1, paragraphs [0061] & [0074]); and
(4) a resonate cavity 7/15 comprises (Figures 1-3, paragraph [0065])
(i) an electrode 8 having a first end and a second end within the reactor vessel 1 (i.e., a first conductor …, Figure 2, paragraph [0065]) and
(ii) a waveguide coaxial transformer 6/14 coupled to the reactor vessel 1 and partially disposed outside of the reactor vessel 1 (i.e., a second conductor …, Figures 2-3, paragraphs [0064] – [0065]).
The limitation of “a first conductor” or “a second conductor” does not recite any additional structures and will be interpreted as “a structure/member configured to conduct/transport electricity and/or electromagnetic wave”.
The electrode 8 and the waveguide coaxial transformer 6/14 are configured to conduct/transport electricity and/or electromagnetic wave, reading on “a first conductor”, and “a second conductor”, respectively.
Regarding claim 5, Tranquilla teaches that a plurality of reactor vessels supplying microwave energy may be utilized (Figure 11, paragraphs [0096] – [0102]).
Regarding claim 6, Tranquilla teaches that the gas enters the reactor vessel 1 through an axial feed 2 by means of one or more tangential feeds 3 (Figure 1, paragraph [0061]).
Regarding claim 7, Tranquilla teaches that the products containing solid, liquid and gas exit from a duct 74 (Figure 11, paragraph [0104]).
Regarding claim 9, Tranquilla teaches that a cyclone filter 75 and a condenser 78 are provided at the exit duct 74 for separating solid from liquid and gas (Figure 11, paragraph [0104]).
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.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tranquilla et al (PG-PUB US 2021/0086158) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zhu et al (PG-PUB US 2009/0205254).
Regarding claim 8,Tranquilla does not teach a gas analyzer system coupled to the outlet. However, Zhu et al disclose a plasma generating system (ABSTRACT). Zhu teaches that a corona plasma reactor 28 is provided for a chemical reaction and a gas chromatograph 84 coupled to the outlet of the reactor 28 for analyzing products generated from the reactor 28 (Figures 1-3, paragraphs [0026] & [0039]).
Therefore, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to provide a gas chromatograph coupled to the outlet as suggested by Zhu in order to analyze products generated from the device of Tranquilla.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tranquilla et al (PG-PUB US 2021/0086158) as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Wong (PG-PUB US 2015/0158008).
Regarding claim 10, Tranquilla teaches to separate the produced solid from liquid and/or gas (Figure 11, paragraph [0104]), but does not teach a recirculation loop. However, Wong discloses a plasma generating device (ABSTRCT). Wong teaches that an RF plasma is coupled to a separation/rotation system to collect different products with collectors and the unreacted material is recycled to the reactor chamber for repeated processing (Figures 2, 3, 9, & 10, paragraphs [0006], [0040], [0037], [0047], & [0060]). Therefore, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to provide a recirculation loop as suggested by Wong in order to repeat processing the chemical reaction within the device of Tranquilla.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-9 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-9 of co-pending Application No. 19/075200 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant application claims an apparatus comprises substantially the same structures as that of the co-pending application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 1/23/2026 have been considered but are moot in light of the applicant’s amendments.
Conclusion
Claims 1-10 are rejected. Claims 11-23 are withdrawn.
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