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 of Group I, claims 1-10 in the reply filed on 01/16/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
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.
In claim 3 It is unclear what is compressed upstream of the injection into the reactor.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the filtering operation" and “the purified outlet gas” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by WO 93/12030.
Regarding claims 1, 8 and 9, WO’2030 describes (See Abstract) a method for producing dihydrogen, comprising injecting a hydrocarbon-containing inlet gas, for example methane (See Pg. 3, last para), into a plasma torch reactor, performing a cracking operation on the inlet gas by the plasma torch, and then separating the hydrogen from the carbon-containing product (Pg, 1, last para). The reference does not describe expansion of the inlet gas or of the outlet gas. The plasma torch has three electrodes which can be replaced during consumption such that the method remains continuous (Pg. 6, 2nd para). The vector gas can be the hydrogen produced in the method, i.e. a portion of the outlet gas is used in the vector gas (Pg. 7, first para). The reference describes a heat exchanger upstream of the separator and downstream of the reactor for heating the inlet gas (See Fig. 1 and Pg. 5, first para). It is expected that the recycled gas comprises some residual methane, meaning hydrocarbons are present in the carrier gas.
Regarding claim 10, The plasma torch has three electrodes which can be replaced during consumption such that the method remains continuous (Pg. 6, 2nd para). The reference recognizes the problem of replacing electrodes leading to stoppages in the process (Pg. 1, 3rd para).
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.
Claim(s) 2 and 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 93/12030, in view of Kuhl US 20160296905.
Regarding claim 2, The reference is silent on the pressure of the hydrocarbons injected into the plasma reactor. The reference teaches that the pressure is critical in controlling the quality of the carbon produced (Pg. 3, first para).
US’6905 teaches decomposing a hydrocarbon in a plasma reactor (Abstract). The reference highlights that the hydrocarbon fluid is advantageously introduced at a pressure of 15 to 40 bar, preferentially of 18 to 22 bar. Gaseous hydrogen which is compressible is formed in the reactor chamber. If, in addition, the hydrocarbon fluid is a gas (e.g. natural gas), then this gas too is compressible. A higher density of gaseous substances can be achieved within the reactor at the aforementioned pressures, this thereby leading to a higher throughput capacity of the plasma reactor (Para [0014]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary level of skill in the art to use the pressure of US’6905 as the hydrocarbon feed pressure in WO’2030. One would be motivated to do so to achieve a higher density of gaseous hydrocarbon thereby leading to a higher throughput capacity of the plasma reactor (See US’6905 Para [0014]).
Regarding claim 3, the US’6905 reference teaches that the hydrocarbon is pressurized before being introduced into the plasma reactor. This indicates that the feed is compressed upstream or before injection.
Claim(s) 4-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 93/12030, in view of Hammel et al. US 20080263954.
Regarding claim 4, the WO’2030 does not teach filtering the outlet gas.
US’3954, teaches a proves for hydrogen production from a hydrocarbon feed (Abstract). After exiting the reactor, the reference separates hydrogen and solid carbon products (Para [0088]). The reference teaches utilizing a filter following the reactor gas outlet and optionally preceding a pressure swing adsorption plant for collecting dust (Para [0103]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary level of skill in the art to use a filter to purify the outlet gas comprising hydrogen, in the proves of WO’2030. One would be motivated to do so to clean dust from the outlet gas.
Regarding claim 5, US’3954 teaches storing the produced hydrogen under elevated pressure in a storage tank (Para [0030]). This promotes emitting a discharge pump for dispensing the stored hydrogen (Para [0030]).
Regarding claim 6, the US’3954 is silent on if the storing pressure is higher than the pressure of hydrocarbon feed. The US’3954 reference teaches storing the produced hydrogen under elevated pressure in a storage tank (Para [0030]). This promotes emitting a discharge pump for dispensing the stored hydrogen (Para [0030]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been within the skill of an ordinary person skilled in the art to determine a suitable or optimal storage pressure. One would be motivated to determine a suitable or optimal pressure for discharging the stored hydrogen at a desired flow rate without using a pump, as indicated by US’3954 (see Para [0030]).
Regarding claim 7, US’3954 teaches filtering the reactor gas outlet (See claim 91). This outlet gas comprises hydrogen and methane (Para [0159]). Hythane is defined as a mixture of hydrogen and unreacted methane (Para [0026]). The reference teaches that unreacted methane is returned to the reactor (Para [0102]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SYED TAHA IQBAL whose telephone number is (571)270-5857. The examiner can normally be reached M-F; 7-5.
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, Anthony Zimmer can be reached at (571) 270-3591. 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.
/SYED T IQBAL/ Examiner, Art Unit 1736
/ANTHONY J ZIMMER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1736