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 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 3 and 7 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 3 recites “with a pulse power wave” in line 3 and line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction/clarification is required.
Due to the dependency to the parent claim, claim 7 is 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.
Claims 1-2, and 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bucher et al (WO 2009/073048) in view of Shimizu (PG-PUB US 2010/0212620).
Regarding claim 1, Bucher et al disclose an apparatus for treating carbon dioxide (ABSTRACT). The apparatus comprises
(1) a plasma chamber for receiving carbon dioxide (i.e., a reaction chamber …, Figures 1 & 3, page 7 line 10-17 & page 10 line 9-24);
(2) a supply source for supplying carbon dioxide to the plasma chamber (i.e., a supply device…, Figurer 1, page 7 line 6-10);
(3) a power supply for generating plasma within the plasma chamber (Figures 1 & 3, pages 7 & 10);
(4) a turbine for receiving the energy generated from the plasma chamber (i.e., a power generation device …, Figure 1, page 8line 7-10);
(5) a gas output for discharging rejected gas (i.e., a vent device …, Figure 1, page 8, line 7-20).
It should be noted that “a reaction of carbon dioxide with magnesium is caused” is related to a manner of operating the device, which does not differentiate the apparatus claim from the prior art (MPEP 2114).
Moreover, “carbon dioxide with magnesium” is a material worked upon the device which does not limit the apparatus claim from the prior art (MPEP 2115).
Furthermore, the plasma chamber of Bucher is fully capable of carrying out a reaction of carbon dioxide with magnesium therewithin.
Bucher teaches that the carbon dioxide is treated with plasma (Figures 1 & 3, pages 7 & 10), but does not teach a pulse wave generator being used for generating streamer. However, Shimizu discloses an apparatus for treating carbon dioxide (ABSTRACT). Shimizu teaches that a pulse streamer generator is used to generate streamer discharge to treat carbon dioxide (Figures 1 & 4, paragraphs [0062] – [0063]). Shimizu further indicates that the plasma igniter capable of generating pulse streamer discharge can generate a large amount radial active species with a low voltage to significantly reduce carbon dioxide emission amount (paragraphs [0007], [0023] & [0063]).
Therefore, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to utilize a pulse wave generator to generate streamer as suggested by Shimizu in order to further reduce carbon dioxide emission amount with low voltage within the device of Bucher.
Regarding claim 2, the limitation of “the introduction gas … has a carbon dioxide concentration …” is 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).
Regarding claims 4 and 5, Bucher teaches that a separation unit downstream from the plasma chamber is provided to separate carbon dioxide from carbon monoxide and a recirculation loop is provided for re-supplying the separated carbon dioxide to the supply source (Figure 1, page 8 line 10-18).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3 and 7 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Claims 1-7 are rejected.
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