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 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 1-15 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. The claims are rejected for the following reasons.
The term “close” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “close” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Dependent claims 2-15 each begins with the recitation “The system of claim…” However, independent claim 1 upon which claims 2-15 directly or indirectly depend is directed to a plasmachemical reactor, not a system. Thus, it is unclear whether the dependent claims are intended to referring to the plasmachemical reactor defined in claim 1 by the recitation “The system.”
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 10-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which they depend. Claims 10-15 merely contain recitations relate to an intended use of the plasmachemical reactor defined in claim 1. The recitations in claims 10-15 do not appear to impart any particular structural limitation to the apparatus defined in claim 1. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
(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, 4, 5, and 10-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Iliev et al. (WO 2020/076186).
Regarding claims 1 and 10-15, the reference Iliev et al. discloses a plasmachemical reactor (1) with nanosecond pulse electric discharge generation (see page 3, lines 22-27; Fig. 1), wherein the reactor comprises: one or more cylindrical channels (2) having a gas input system (3) and output system (4) (see page 6, lines 1-3); a high voltage positive electrode (6) and a high voltage negative electrode (7) in each channel (see page 6, lines 6-9; Fig. 1); and a gas swirling system in each channel for increasing local tangential gas velocity close to electrodes ends (see page 7, lines 9-23; Fig. 1). The reference Iliev et al. further teaches that the pulse electric discharge generation can have a frequency f of 20-300 kHz (see page 5, lines 28-29). The reference Iliev et al. further teaches that reactor (1) includes a gas flow regulator for controlling the flow rate of gas fed into the reactor (see page 6, lines 17-19). The reference Iliev et al. further teaches that the gas swirling system can be tangential holes defined in the gas input and output systems to create localized velocity files in (see page 7, lines 9-23). Thus, as no structural distinction is seen between the instantly claimed plasmachemical reactor and the plasmachemical reactor (1) Iliev et al., depending upon the flow rate of gas fed through the gas input system (3) of Iliev et al., the plasmachemical reactor (1) of Iliev et al., is considered capable of attaining tangential gas velocity which is greater that f*5*10-3 m/s as claimed by applicant.
Regarding claim 4, the reference Iliev et al. discloses the plasmachemical reactor, wherein a power supply provides an alternating voltage supply to the positive electrode and the negative electrode of each N channels by N pairs of half-wave rectifiers having a high voltage diode (18) and a capacitor (19) wherein one rectifier of each pair charges the positive electrode positively and another rectifier charges the negative electrode negatively (see page 8, lines 1-16; Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 5, the reference Iliev et al. discloses the plasmachemical reactor, wherein a high voltage capacitor (19) is connected in series to the diode (18) of each half-wave rectifier (see page 8, lines 1-16; Fig. 3).
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.
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 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iliev et al. as applied to claims 4 and 5 above, and further in view of Medvedev (US 11,535,532).
Regarding claims 6-9, the reference Iliev et al. does not specifically disclose wherein the power supply includes a half-wave fly-back, a full-wave push-pull circuit with an insulated gate bipolar transistor (IGBT) semi-bridge, a full-wave push-pull circuit with IGBT semi-bridge with midpoint transformer primary winding, or a full-wave push-pull with IGBT bridge, as recited in claims 6-9.
The reference Medvedev teaches a plasma reactor including a first electrode and a second electrode; and a high voltage power supply for providing an alternating voltage supply to the first and second electrodes for generation of plasma inside the reactor (see Abstract; col. 1, lines 35-44; Fig. 1). The reference Medvedev further teaches that the power supply can be a high voltage transformer with various versions including an inverter based on a half-wave fly-back circuit (FIG. 5), an inverter based on a full-wave push-pull circuit with an insulated gate bipolar transistor (IGBT) semi-bridge (FIG. 6), an inverter based on a full-wave push-pull circuit with IGBT semi-bridge and midpoint transformer primary winding (FIG. 7), or an inverter based on a full-wave push-pull circuit with IGBT bridge (FIG. 8) (see col. 6, lines 36-47; Fig. 5). It would have been to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, in view of the teachings of Medvedev, to utilize the various power supplies suggested by Medvedev to similarly provide an alternating voltage supply to the high voltage electrodes of Iliev et al., and predictably arrived at the instantly claimed plasmachemical reactor.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2 and 3 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 2, the claim would be allowable because the prior art of record does not disclose or fairly suggest the feature: wherein the gas swirling system has an auger shaped electrode isolator, a tangential channel in one or more electrode, and a tangential channel in the gas input and/or the gas output systems, as recited in claim 2.
Regarding claim 3, the claim would be allowable because the prior art of record does not disclose or fairly suggest the feature: wherein each positive electrode and each negative electrode has a cylindrical shape and at least one electrode has a tangential channel in the electrode body and a circular row of equal length rods on a flat end and at least one electrode having no tangential channel has a circular row of rods having lengths which decrease along a direction of gas rotation, as recited in claim 3.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Lessanework T Seifu whose telephone number is (571)270-3153. The examiner can normally be reached M-T 9:00 am - 6:30 pm; F 9:00 am - 1:00 pm.
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, Claire Wang can be reached at 571-270-1051. 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.
/LESSANEWORK SEIFU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1774