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 the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites new limitations of “wherein the adjusting the flow rate includes adjusting a ratio of oxygen and nitrogen in the injected gas, and the concentration of the generated nitrogen oxide is maximized by adjusting the ratio of oxygen and nitrogen to a ratio of oxygen and nitrogen contained in air”.
However, the instant specification discloses that “Referring to FIG. 6, the X-axis represents the ratio of nitrogen to oxygen. It can be seen that the concentration of nitrogen oxide is maximized in the vicinity of a ratio of oxygen to nitrogen similar to that contained in the air” (page 11 line 12-16). That is , the maximum NOx concentration is NOT exactly at the ratio of nitrogen to oxygen contained in air (Figure 6 of the instant specification).
Thus, the added material is not supported by the original disclosure. Therefore, the applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this office action.
Due to the dependency to the parent claim, claim 2 is rejected.
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 1-2 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 1 recites “an injected gas” in line 5. “a gas injected” is cited in line 2. Appropriate correction/clarification is required. For the purpose of examination, the above limitation will be interpreted as “the injected gas”.
Due to the dependency to the parent claim, claim 2 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.
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 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hall et al (PG-PUB US 2020/0360649) in view of Bell et al (PG-PUB US 2022/0055901).
Regarding claim 1, Hall et al disclose a method of generating and controlling nitrogen oxide (ABSTRACT). The method comprises steps of
(1) providing a gliding arc plasma reactor comprising two diverging electrodes including an inner rod electrode surrounded by an outer electrode, wherein a gap is divergently formed between the inner electrode and the outer electrode (i.e. an arc-tup plasma generating device… an internal electrode… is rod shaped, … an external electrode… surrounds the internal electrode…, a gap… is gradually away from …, and a gliding arc occurs …, Figures 19 & 41-43, paragraphs [0094], [0122], [0159], [0194], & [0196]);
(2) supply air to the gap between the electrode (i.e., supply … a mixture thereof …, Figures 19 & 41-43, paragraphs [0094], [0122], [0159], [0194], & [0196]); and
(3) applying voltage to the inner electrode and the outer electrode for generating gliding arc plasma between the electrodes to generate nitrogen oxide (i.e., apply voltage … arc-type plasma including nitrogen oxide, Figure 1, paragraphs [0076] & [0106]).;
Hall teaches that a flow rate sensor measuring the flow rate of the reactant gas and nitric oxide sensor measuring the concentration of generated nitrogen oxide are provided while a controller is provided to regulate the flow rate and the input power in order to achieve desired nitrogen oxide concentration by balancing the flow rate of the reactant gas and the input power (i.e., adjusting a flow rate …, identifying a concentration of …, paragraphs [0077], [0081], [0084], [0137], & [0174]), but Hall does not teach to measuring the concentration of nitrogen oxide while adjusting the amount of energy per unit flow rate of the reactant gas or adjusting a ration of oxygen and nitrogen. However, Bell et al disclose a method of generating and controlling nitrogen oxide (ABSTRACT). Bell teaches that the conversion efficiency of nitrogen oxide generated from plasma can be optimized by varying/adjusting the amount of energy per unit of flow rate of the reactant gas and measuring the concentration of nitrogen oxide (paragraphs [0046] – [0047] & Example 2-3).
Bell also teaches to measure the total concentration of NOx produced by adjusting a ration of nitrogen to oxygen and that a surprising result shows that good efficiencies can be achieved with ration of nitrogen to oxygen contained in air (paragraphs [0053] - [0055] & Table 1).
Therefore, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to vary/adjust the amount of energy per unit of the flow rate of the reactant gas and adjust a ration of oxygen to nitrogen to that in air as suggested by Bell in order to optimize the conversion efficiency of nitrogen oxide with reasonable expectation of success while using the method of Hall.
Regarding claim 2, Bell teaches that the concentration of nitrogen oxide may be varied with the amount of energy per unit flow rate (Examples 2-3).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot in light of the applicant’s amendments.
In response to the arguments that Neither Hall nor Bell provides any teaching or suggestion to introduce the chemical composition ratio of the injected gas as an active control parameter for optimizing plasma reactions (page 8 of REMARKS), it should be noted that Bell also teaches to measure the total concentration of NOx produced by adjusting a ration of nitrogen to oxygen and that a surprising result shows that good efficiencies can be achieved with ration of nitrogen to oxygen contained in air (paragraphs [0053] - [0055] & Table 1). Therefore, the combined teaching of Hall/Bell teaches the limitations in the amended claim 1.
Conclusion
Claims 1-2 are rejected. Claims 3-10 are withdrawn.
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