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 Objections
Claim 36 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of claim 26 When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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 13-20 and 26-44 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 13 recites the limitation "the mass of material" in line 6-7. 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 “a mass of material”.
Due to the dependency to the parent claim, claims 14-20, and 26-44 are rejected.
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)(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.
Claims 13, 16-20, 28-31, 38, 40, and 43-44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rabinovich et al (PG-PUB US 2014/0021035).
Regarding claim 13, Rabinovich et al disclose a method of treating material using non-thermal plasma (ABSTRACT). The method comprises steps of
(1) generating non-thermal plasma by applying a voltage to at least one high voltage electrode from a power supply (i.e., producing a first voltage… a first electrode, Figures 1, paragraphs [0027], & [0033]); and
(2) contacting the generated non-thermal plasma with a feedstock, such as biomass or coal, to produce syngas (i.e., generating low-temperature plasma, the low-temperature plasma extending … to a mass of material … causing release of gas …, Figure 1, paragraphs [0013], [0039] – [0040], [0053], [0055],& [0092]).
Regarding claim 16, Rabinovich teaches that the syngas is formed from the non-thermal plasma within the plasma reactor (Figure 1, paragraphs [0003], [0040]. & [0076]).
Regarding claim 17, Rabinovich teaches that plasma gas is introduced to the plasma reactor at an inlet and the generated syngas along with the unreacted plasma gas is discharged at an outlet (Figures 1 & 4, paragraphs [0029], & [0040]).
Regarding claim 18, Rabinovich teaches that the non-thermal plasma is generated between the high voltage electrode and a ground electrode (Figure 1, paragraphs [0014], [0034], & [0041]).
Regarding claim 19, Rabinovich teaches that plasma gas is introduced to the plasma reactor at an inlet/nozzles for generating the non-thermal plasma to treat the solid waste therewithin (Figure 1, paragraph [0029]).
Regarding claim 20, Rabinovich teaches that the plasma is generated by at least one high voltage electrode, at least one ground electrode, and at least one ignition electrode which of electrodes are diverged each other (Figures 1-3, paragraphs [0007], [0039]).
Regarding claim 28-29, and 38, Rabinovich teaches that plasma gas, such as nitrogen or argon, is introduced to the plasma reactor at an inlet and the generated syngas along with the unreacted plasma is discharged at an outlet (Figure 1, paragraphs [0029], & [0040]).
Regarding claim 30, the plasma temperature is a result of operating the claimed method. Since Rabinovich teaches a method comprising substantially the same steps as claimed, it must have the same outcome (e.g., generated plasma having the claimed temperature) unless some limitations are not currently claimed.
Regarding claim 31, Rabinovich teaches that plasma gas is introduced to the plasma reactor at an inlet and the generated syngas along with the unreacted plasma gas is discharged at an outlet (Figure 1, paragraphs [0029], & [0040]).
Furthermore, the gaseous mixture temperature is a result of operating the claimed method. Since Rabinovich teaches a method comprising substantially the same steps as claimed, it must have the same outcome (e.g., the claimed gaseous mixture temperature) unless some limitations are not currently claimed.
Regarding claim 40, Rabinovich teaches that the feedstock contains biomass and/or hydrocarbons (paragraph [0039]).
Regarding claim 43, Rabinovich teaches that plasma gas is introduced to the plasma reactor at an inlet and the generated syngas along with the unreacted plasma gas is discharged at an outlet (Figure 1, paragraphs [0029], & [0040]).
Furthermore, the plasma temperature is a result of operating the claimed method. Since Rabinovich teaches a method comprising substantially the same steps as claimed, it must have the same outcome (e.g., generated plasma having the claimed temperature) unless some limitations are not currently claimed.
Regarding claim 44, Rabinovich teaches that experiments are conducted at atmospheric conditions (paragraph [0093]).
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 14, 26-27, 32-37, 39, and 41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rabinovich et al (PG-PUB US 2014/0021035) as applied to claims 13 and 31, above, and further in view of Lee et al (KR 102169578, see attached machine translation).
Regarding claims 14, 26, 32, 36, 39, Rabinovich teaches that (i) the non-thermal plasma is generated between the high voltage electrode and a ground electrode to contact the feedstock and (ii) solid feedstock, such as coal and/or biomass, can be treated with the non-thermal plasma (i.e., a reference voltage over a second electrode …, a first type… and a second type …, Figure 1, paragraphs [0006], [0014], [0033], [0039], [0041], & [0053]), but does not teach the solid feedstock containing solid plastic/polymer. However, Lee et al disclose a method of treating material using non-thermal/low-temperature plasma (ABSTRACT). Lee teaches that waste/feedstock, such as plastic, biomass, and/or coal, can be treated with a low-temperature plasma (Figure 1, pages 4-5). Lee further indicates that treating waste, such as biomass and/or plastic, with low-temperature plasma can generated syngas as fuel while decomposing dioxin, hence reducing emission of dioxin and protecting ecosystem (abstract & page 5).
One having ordinary skill in the art, upon reading the teaching of Lee, would have realized to try to treat solid plastic/polymer with a low-temperature plasma in an attempt to reduce emission of dioxin and protect ecosystem. Therefore, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to try to treat solid plastic/polymer with the low temperature/non-thermal plasma as suggested by Lee in order to reduce emission of dioxin and protect ecosystem while using the method of Rabinovich with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claims 27, 33, 37, and 41, Rabinovich teaches that syngas containing hydrogen is generated (paragraph [0040]). Lee teaches that syngas containing hydrogen is generated (page 5)
Regarding claim 34, Rabinovich teaches that experiments are conducted at atmospheric conditions (paragraph [0093]). Lee teaches that the low-temperature plasma is generated at atmospheric pressure (page 5)
Regarding claim 35, Rabinovich teaches that the non-thermal plasma is generated between the high voltage electrode and a ground electrode to contact the feedstock within the plasma chamber (Figure 1, paragraphs [003], & [0092])
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rabinovich et al (PG-PUB US 2014/0021035) as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Jovanovic et al (PG-PUB US 2018/0290123).
Regarding claim 15, Rabinovich does not teach the electrode having a pointed tip. However, Jovanovic et al disclose a method of treating material using nonthermal plasma (ABSTRACT & paragraph [0085]). Jovanovic teaches that the nonthermal plasma is generated from a needle electrode having a pointed tip which can sustain for a long period of time and the generated plasma is energy efficient (Figure 1, paragraphs [0089]- [0090]).
Therefore, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to utilize an electrode having a pointed tip as suggested by Jovanovic in order to efficiently generate nonthermal plasma for a long period of time while using the method of Rabinovich with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim 42 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rabinovich et al (PG-PUB US 2014/0021035) and Jovanovic et al (PG-PUB US 2018/0290123) as applied to claim 15, above, and further in view of Lee et al (KR 102169578, see attached machine translation).
Regarding claim 42, Rabinovich teaches that solid feedstock, such as coal and/or biomass (i.e., a first type… and a second type …), can be treated with the non-thermal plasma (paragraphs [0006], & [0039]), but Rabinovich/Jovanovic does not teach the solid feedstock containing solid plastic/polymer. However, Lee et al disclose a method of treating material using non-thermal/low-temperature plasma (ABSTRACT). Lee teaches that waste/feedstock, such as plastic, biomass, and/or coal, can be treated with a low-temperature plasma (Figure 1, pages 4-5). Lee further indicates that treating waste, such as biomass and/or plastic, with low-temperature plasma can generated syngas as fuel while decomposing dioxin, hence reducing emission of dioxin and protecting ecosystem (abstract & page 5).
One having ordinary skill in the art, upon reading the teaching of Lee, would have realized to try to treat solid plastic/polymer with a low-temperature plasma in an attempt to reduce emission of dioxin and protect ecosystem. Therefore, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to try to treat solid plastic/polymer with the low temperature/non-thermal plasma as suggested by Lee in order to reduce emission of dioxin and protect ecosystem while using the method of Rabinovich/Jovanovic with a reasonable expectation of success.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot in light of the applicant’s amendments.
Conclusion
Claims 13-20 and 26-44 are rejected.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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
Prosecution Insights