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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, encompassing claims 18-20, in the reply filed on 9/18/2025 is acknowledged.
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 purification system” cited in claim 20 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.
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 18-20 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 18 recites the limitation "the DC plasma generator" in line 5 and line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction/clarification is required. For the purpose of examination, the above limitation will be interpreted as “the plasma generator”
Claim 19 recites the limitation "the reaction chamber" and “the anode” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction/clarification is required. For the purpose of examination, the above limitation will be interpreted as “the process chamber” and “an anode”, respectively
Due to the dependency to the parent claim, claims 19-20 are rejected.
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 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vanier et al (PG-PUB US 2013/0084237) in view of Soane et al (PG-PUB US 2021/0245133) and Monsen et al (PG-PUB US 2009/0294273).
Regarding claim 18, Vanier et al disclose a plasma treatment system (ABSTRACT). The apparatus comprise
(1) a plasma chamber having a feed inlet 50 and an outlet for products having gas and carbon particles (i.e. a processing chamber…, Figure 2, paragraphs[0025]);
(2) a DC plasma generator 21 having an anode 13, wherein methane precursor material is heated in a thermal zone of the plasma system (i.e., a plasma generator …, Figure 2, paragraphs [0019], [0026], & Example 1);
(3) a plurality of quench stream injection ports 40 for cooling the gas stream in the plasma chamber to facilitate the formation of carbon particles (i.e. a cooling system …, Figure 2, paragraphs [0020] & [0030]).
Vanier teaches that methane decomposition produces hydrogen and carbon particles which are discharged to a collection station 27 through an outlet (Figure 2, paragraphs [0016],[0020], [0029] – [0030] & [0035]), but does not teach a gas outlet the gaseous products. However, Soane et al disclose a plasma treatment (ABSTRACT). Soane teaches that the apparatus comprises inlets for gas reactants and outlets for products, wherein methane as a reactant is supplied to the plasma generator for decomposition to produce carbon particles while produced hydrogen is output from an outlet for recycling (Figures 1-2, paragraphs [0020], [0227] –[0228], & [0237]). Therefore, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to provide an outlet for hydrogen as suggested by Soane in order to recycle the produced hydrogen within the device of Vanier.
Soane teaches that a static magnetic field may be employed to influence plasma behavior (paragraph [0228]), but Vanier/Soane does not teach a magnet externally arranged on the plasma chamber. However, Monsen et al disclose a plasma treatment system (ABSTRACT). Monsen teaches that the apparatus comprises a plasma generator and magnets arranged outside of the plasma reactor for rotating the plasma to generate voluminous plasma (Figure 1, paragraphs [0010] , [0011], [0016], [0036], & [0042]). Therefore, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to arrange magnets outside of the plasma chamber as suggested by Monsen in order to rotate the plasma to generate voluminous plasma within the device of Vanier/Soane.
It should be noted that limitations of “so that the plasma heats up gas …” and “reducing a gas temperature …” are related to manners of operating the device, which does not differentiate the apparatus claim from the prior art (MPEP 2114).
Since the device of Vanier/Soane/Monsen comprises substantially the same or similar structures as claimed, it is fully capable of performing the claimed functions.
Regarding claim 19, Vanier teaches that a plurality of quench stream injection ports 40 downstream from the anode 13 is arranged along the circumference of the plasma chamber 20 and hydrogen from a hydrogen source is supplied to the quench stream (Figure 2, paragraphs [0020], [0026] & [0030]).
Regarding claim 20, Vanier teaches that hydrogen is supplied to the system for quenching the reaction in the plasma chamber and the carbon particles are separated from the gaseous products (Figure 2, paragraphs [0020], [0030],& [0035]) while Soane teaches that the generated hydrogen is recycled to the plasma reactor after being separated from the solid products (Figure 2, paragraphs [0020], & [0237]). Therefore, one having ordinary skill in the art would have realized to recycle the generated hydrogen to the quenching stream in order to utilize the recycled hydrogen to cool the reaction within the device of Vanier/Soane/Monsen.
Furthermore, the claimed limitations are obvious because all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results (MPEP 2143(A)).
Conclusion
Claims 18-20 are rejected. Claims 21-32, and 45-49 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