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 § 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 1, 3-6, 9-13, 17, and 19-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Lee et al (KR 20180116952, cited in IDS, see attached machine translation).
Regarding claim 1, Lee et al disclose a plasma treatment apparatus for reforming biogas (ABSTRACT & paragraph [0001]). The apparatus comprises
(1) branched biogas gas flow paths at the inlet T1 having a first portion 614 and a second portion 613, wherein the biogas comprises carbon dioxide and methane (i.e., a first portion and a second portion, Figures 6 -8, paragraphs [0085] – [0086] & [0096]);
(2) a plasma reactor 10/412 for receiving the second portion of the biogas from the conduit 613, wherein the plasma rector 412 generates plasma to produce combustion products at a temperature T2 (i.e., a burner …, Figures 1-2, 6, & 7, paragraphs [0045], & [0085] –[0086]);
(3) a receiving space where the combustion products from the plasma reactor 412 mixes with the second portion gas through conduits 631 and 632 (i.e., a mixer …, Figures 6 & 7, paragraphs [0054] – [0055], & [0085] – [0086]); and
(4) a catalyst reactor 422 for converting the mixed gases from the receiving space to carbon monoxide and hydrogen by the catalyst 421 (i.e., a catalytic reactor …, Figures 6 & 7, paragraphs [0085] – [0089]).
Lee teaches that the biogas is branched into two portions at the inlet T1 for effectively reforming the biogas and it is necessary to control the amount of the biogas to the plasma reactor by regulating the flow rate (Figures 6-8, paragraphs [0076], [0085] – [0086], [0089], & [0096]).
Lee also teaches that a valve at the inlet of T1 is used for regulating biogas flow rate and control the components of the biogas to the plasma reactor for improving conversion ratio of the syngas (Figure 4, paragraphs [0073] – [0078]).
Therefore, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to provide a valve at the inlet T1 to regulate the flow rates in the branched portions of the biogas in order to regulate the components of the biogas to the plasma reactor for improving the biogas reforming reaction within the device of Lee.
Furthermore, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to provide a valve to regulated the flow rates in the branched portions of the biogas 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 2143A).
It should be noted that “a burner” does not recite any structural limitation and will be interpreted as “a structure/unit configured for producing combustion products”. Lee teaches that the plasma reactor 10/412 is for producing combustion products (paragraph [0045]), reading on “a burner”.
Regarding claim 3, Lee teaches the methane/carbon dioxide ratio 1:1 to 1:2 (paragraph [0078]). Moreover, the cited limitation is material worked upon the device, which does not limit the apparatus claim from the prior art (MPEP 2115).
Regarding claim 4, Lee teaches an oxygen/air supplying pipe 415 (Figure 4, paragraph [0073]).
Regarding claim 5, Lee teaches an additional plasma reactor 440 (Figures 5 & 7-8, paragraphs [0081] – [0082]).
Regarding claim 6, Lee teaches to use a valve414 to regulate gas components (figure 4, paragraph[0074]).
Regarding claim 9, Lee teaches that the plasma reactor 840 is provided in an inner housing 842 and the catalyst reactor 820 is provided between the inner housing 842 and an outer housing (Figure 9).
Regarding claim 10, Lee teaches that the biogas is branched to the plasma rector and the inlet of the housing (Figures 6-7, & 9).
Regarding claim 11, Lee teaches that the receiving space is formed between the inlet and the catalyst reactor (Figure 1, paragraph [0054]).
Regarding claim 12, Lee teaches the plasma reactor (Figures 1-2, 6, & 7, paragraphs [0045]).
Regarding claim 13, Lee teaches that the plasma reactor comprises a grounded housing, and an electrode 11 for applying voltage to generate plasma (Figure 1, paragraph [0052]).
Regarding claim 17, Lee teaches that the inner housing 842 is coupled to the outer housing through a connection plate which changes the pattern of flow path (Figure 9).
Regarding claim 19, Lee teaches that the inner housing 842 comprises an opening for discharging combustion products to the catalyst reactor 820 (Figure 9).
Regarding claim 20, Lee teaches that an enclosing structure 851 along with a cylindrical portion 856 is provided to at least partially enclose the inner housing 842 and the catalyst is provided therebetween, wherein the combustion products flow in a circulation pattern within the space (Figure 9, paragraphs [0097] – [0101]).
Regarding claim 21, Lee teaches that the space within the outer housing includes at least one section having the plasma reactor 840 and at least another section having the catalyst reactor 820, wherein a plurality of holes 853 on the circular wall 851 is in fluid communication with the section having the plasma reactor 840 (Figure 9, paragraphs [0097] – [0101]).
Regarding claim 22, Lee teaches that the inner housing 842 is coupled to the outer housing through a connection mechanism which comprises an annular space for the plasma reactor 840 and is in fluid communication with the plurality of holes 853 (Figure 9, paragraphs [0097] – [0101]).
Regarding claim 23, Lee teaches that the outer housing include a convergent part coupled to the catalyst reactor 820 for forming the circulation flow pattern (Figure 9).
Regarding claim 24, Lee teaches the plasma reactor 840 (Figure 9, paragraph [0097]).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al (KR 20180116952, cited in IDS) as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Hong et al (PG-PUB US 2016/0121296).
Regarding claim 8, Lee does not teach the plasma reactor provided between a first catalyst reactor and a second catalyst reactor. However, Hong et al disclose a plasma treatment apparatus for reforming hydrocarbon material (ABSTRACT). Hong teaches that the apparatus comprises a plasma reactor and catalyst reactors for reforming gases, wherein the plasma reactor 410 is arranged between two catalyst reactors420 for stabilizing reforming reaction and maximizing the efficiency of the reforming reaction (Figures 1 & 5, paragraphs [0026], & [0064] –[0068]). Therefore, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to arrange the plasma reactor between two catalyst reactors as suggested by Hong in order to stabilize reforming reaction and maximize the efficiency of the reforming reaction within the device of Lee.
Claims 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al (KR 20180116952, cited in IDS) as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Takahashi et al (PG-PUB US 2010/0328840) and Buske et al (PG-PUB US 2010/0021340).
Regarding claim 14, Lee does not teach the plasma generating electrode having a convex surface with a pillar having smaller diameter. However, Takahashi et al disclose a plasma treatment apparatus (ABSTRACT). Takahashi teaches that the plasma treatment apparatus comprises a plasma generating electrode 12 having a convex surface 32 with a rod support having a smaller diameter and such configuration can improve gas reforming reaction (Figure 1, paragraphs [0039],& [0153]).
Therefore, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to utilize an electrode with a convex surface having a rod with a smaller diameter as suggested by Takahashi in order to improve gas reforming reaction within the device of Lee.
Lee/Takahashi does not teach the electrode having passageways. However, Buske et al disclose a plasma treatment apparatus (ABSTRACT). Buske teaches that the apparatus comprises an electrode 26 having a convex surface and a swirl chamber 16 having passageways for supplying processing gas and discharging gas, wherein the gas from the swirl chamber can generate spiral flow path of plasma arc to accelerate plasma flame (Figure 1, paragraphs [0048] – [0050]).
Therefore, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to provide passageways within the electrode as suggested by Buske in order to impar spiral flow path to accelerate plasma flame within the device of Lee/Hong.
Regarding claim 15, Buske teaches that a boring 20 is provided at the end of the convex electrode 26 (Figure 1, paragraph [0049]).
Conclusion
Claims 1, 3-6, 8-15, 17, and 19-24 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