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 1-16, in the reply filed on 1/21/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 17-20 are withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 7, 10-11, 14, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lewis III (PG-PUB US 2021/0354105).
Regarding claims 1 and 21, Lewis III discloses a plasma reactor of NOx production (ABSTRACT). The apparatus comprises
(1) one or more ground electrode 129 and one or more ignition electrode 128, wherein arc is generated between the electrodes 128 and 129 in a plasma zone 126 (i.e., a first electrode and a second electrode … a strike portion…, Figure 2, paragraphs [0087] – [0088]);
(2) an injector 104 for injecting a gas stream 102 between the electrodes 128 and 129 for generating the arc (i.e., a gas injector …, Figure 2, paragraph [0088]);
(3) a plasma vessel 125 for enclosing the electrodes 128/129 and the injector 104 in a sealed space, wherein the vessel 125 includes a plate 127 to removably clamp to the body of the plasma vessel (i.e., an enclosure…, a removable portion…, Figure 2, paragraph [0087]); and
(4) a control system 109 connected to the injector 104 to control the operation of the injector 104 (i.e., a controller …, Figure 1, paragraphs [0083] & [0088]).
Regarding claim 2, Lewis teaches that nitrogen and oxygen may be delivered to the system to produce NOx (paragraph [0089]). Moreover, the gas stream is material worked upon the device, which does not limit the apparatus claim from the prior art (MPEP 2115).
Regarding claim 7, Lewis teaches that the electrodes 128 and 12 are shaped such that a first region between the electrodes includes a narrow space therebetween than a second diverging region (Figure 2)
Regarding claim 10, Lewis teaches the injector 104 having at least one nozzle for the gas stream 102 (Figure 2, paragraph [0088]).
Regarding claim 11, Lewis teaches that the vessel 125 encloses the electrodes 128 and 129 and the injector 104, wherein the gas stream is introduced to the vessel 125 (Figure 2, paragraph [0087]).
Regarding claim 14, Lewis teaches that a gas valve 116 and a gas flow regulator 124 are controlled by a control system 109 to control the operation of the system (Figure 1, paragraphs [0083] & [0092]).
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 3-6, 8-9, 12-13, and 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lewis III (PG-PUB US 2021/0354105) as applied to claims 1, 7, 11, and 21 above, and further in view of Hall et al (PG-PUB US 2020/0360649).
Regarding claim 3, Lewis does not teach each electrode comprising an inner tube for cooling fluid. However, Hall et al disclose a plasma reactor for NOx production (ABSTRACT). Hall teaches that the plasma reactor comprises gliding arc electrodes including a tube for coolant flowing therewithin to prolong electrode life (Figure 14, paragraph [0110]). Therefore, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to utilize an electrode having an inner tube with a conductive layer as suggested by Hall in order to prolong the electrode life within the device of Lewis.
Regarding claim 4, Hall teaches that cooling fins 332 are provided to facilitate heat removal for maintaining optimal temperature level for the electrodes (Figures 10, paragraphs [0098] & [0115]).
Regarding claim 5, Lewis teaches that a water valve can be provided for controlling water flow through a water tank (paragraph [0083]) while Hall teaches that coolant may be liquid/water and pumped through a reservoir (paragraph [0110]). Therefore, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to utilize a water valve to control the coolant pumping through a water tank within the device of Lewis.
Regarding claim 6, the heat fins 332 included different thickness along the electrode (Figure 10, paragraph [0098]).
Regarding claim 8, Lewis does not the electrode having a sheath. However, Hall et al disclose a plasma reactor for NOx production (ABSTRACT). Hall teaches that the electrode may be plated with iridium in the region of arcing in order to provide excellent thermal conduction (paragraphs [0134] & [0150]). Therefore, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to sheath/plate the electrode with iridium as suggested by Hall in order to provide excellent thermal conduction within the device of Lewis.
Regarding claim 9, the cited limitation is related to the shape of the sheath. However, it has been held that, without persuasive evidence that the particular shape is significant, a change in shape is generally recognized as being within ordinary skill in the art In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (see MPEP 2144).
Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the sheath having a flat front face with a beveled portion since such a modification would have involved a mere change in shape of a component.
Regarding claim 12, Lewis does not an optical portion for viewing. However, Hall et al disclose a plasma reactor for NOx production (ABSTRACT). Hall teaches that a transparent window is provided for observing the plasma discharge within the enclosure (paragraph [0164]). Therefore, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to provide a transparent window as suggested by Hall in order to observe the plasma discharge within the device of Lewis.
Regarding claims 13 and 22, Hall teaches a plurality of sensors for collecting information regarding the operation of the system (paragraphs [0006] & [0085] – [0088]). Therefore, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to utilize at least one sensor as suggested by Hall in order to properly operate the device of Lewis.
Regarding claim 23, Lewis teaches that the control system 109 is connected to the injector 104 to control the operation of the injector 104 (i.e., a controller …, Figure 1, paragraphs [0083] & [0088], but does not teach an adjustable nozzle. However, Hall et al disclose a plasma reactor for NOx production (ABSTRACT). Hall teaches that a nozzle is provided to supply reactant gas to the electrode for generating plasma and the nozzle size may be varied for optimizing the production (paragraphs [0006], [0096], & [0123]). Therefore, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to vary the nozzle size as suggested by Hall in order to optimize the production within the device of Lewis.
Claims 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lewis III (PG-PUB US 2021/0354105) as applied to claim 1, above, and further in view of Nunnally et al (PG-PUB US 2016/0102025) and Hall et al (PG-PUB US 2020/0360649).
Regarding claim 15, Lewis teaches that a mount plate 127 is provided for inserting the injector 104 and the electrodes are mounted at the side wall of the plasma vessel 125 through hardware 131, wherein the hardware 131 includes (i) cylindrical-shaped holes for passing through the electrical leads and (ii) nuts/bolts with threads/grooves for retaining and mounting the electrical components on the plasma vessel (Figure 2, paragraph [0087]), but does not teach the electrodes being mounted on the mount plate. However, Nunnally et al disclose a plasma reactor for NOx production (ABSTRACT & paragraph [0055]). Nunnally teaches that the plasma device comprises an injector nozzle for supplying gas and diverging electrodes for generating plasma, wherein the injector and the electrodes are mounted on a mount plate (Figures 1 & 10, paragraphs [0045], [0048], & [0061]). The teaching of Nunnally shows that mounting electrodes to a mount plate having the injector nozzle is an equivalent configuration for a plasma reactor. Therefore, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to arranged the electrical connection on the mount plate of Lewis because it is an art-recognized equivalent.
Moreover, if Lewis does not teach the nuts/bolts having thread for retaining the electrical connections, Hall et al disclose a plasma reactor for NOx production (ABSTRACT). Hall teaches that electrodes and the connections are retained with nuts having threads for retaining the components (Figure 15H, paragraph [0114]). Therefore, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to utilize nuts/bolts having threads for retaining the electrical connections within the device of Lewis/Nunnally.
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 2143A).
Regarding claim 16, it should be noted that “glue reservoir” does not recite any additional structural limitation and will be interpreted as a structure/unit configured for holding/containing substance in a space”. The threads of the nuts/bolts of connectors includes a space which is fully capable of holding substance therewithin.
Conclusion
Claims 1-16 and 21-23 are rejected. Claims 17-20 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