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 3 and 5 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 3 recites the limitation "the electrical contact of the arc" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction/clarification is required.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "an injector for injecting the gas in the axial direction" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction/clarification is required.
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, and 3-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsantrizos et al (U.S., 5,147,998) in view of Knowles et al (U.S. 5,560,779).
Regarding claim 1, Tsantrizos et al disclose a plasma reactor (ABSTRACT). The apparatus comprises
(1) a stainless steel housing having two sections (i.e., at least one reaction chamber made of stainless steel …, Figure 1, col. 2, line 62-64);
(2) a plasma torch including
(i) gas injection holes/nozzles 64 surrounded by a vortex generating ring 62 (i.e., an injector …, an injection jacket …, Figure 1, col. 3, line 60 – col. 4, line 5);
(ii) a flange 36 for coupling other components of the plasma torch (i.e., a coupling flange, Figure 1, col. 3, line 12 -14);
(iii) a cathode 12 supported by a cathode holder 34, wherein an annular member 32 surrounding the cathode 12 is provided with a channel for cooling the same (i.e., a cathode, a cathode support, a cathode cooling surface, a cathode jacket, Figure 1, col. 2, line 61, & col. 3, line 9-36);
(iv) an anode 10 (i.e., an anode, Figure 1, col. 2 lien 60);
(v) an insulating member 38 (i.e., an insulator, Figure 1, col. 3, line 15) and
(vi) an annular insulating member 40 surrounding the anode 10 and the cathode 12 (i.e., an outer jacket, Figure 1, col. 3, line 17-20).
Tsantrizos teaches that arc is generated along the cathode/anode which may be made of thoriated tungsten (col. 3 line 44-50 & col. 4, line 10-14), but does not specifically teach the cathode being made of tungsten with 2% thoria. However, Knowles et al disclose a plasma reactor (ABSTRACT). Knowles teaches plasma arc is generated from a cathode 16 and an anode 20 in the plasma reactor, wherein the cathode may be made of 2% thoriated tungsten for high temperature operation (Figure 1, col. 3, line 1-3 & col. 4, line 8-14). Therefore, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to utilize a cathode made of 2% thoriated tungsten as suggested by Knowles in order to operate the cathode in high temperature within the device of Tsantrizos.
Regarding claim 3, Tsantrizos teaches that the arc is generated along the electrodes (col. 4, line 10-15). Knowles teaches that arc is generated between the anode and the cathode (col. 3, line 1-3).
Moreover, the cited limitation is a result of operating the device, which does not differentiate the apparatus claim from the prior art (MPEP 2114).
Regarding claim 4, Tsantrizos teaches that the section 14 of the housing is downstream of the cathode (Figure 1). Knowles teaches that a containment structure 120 is downstream of the cathode in the plasma reactor 120 (Figure 9, col. 6.line 30-35).
Regarding claim 5, Tsantrizos teaches that the gas is delivered to the vortex generating ring through tangential holes 64 along the axial direction (Figure 1, col. 3,line 60 – col. 4, line 5).
Regarding claims 6 and 7, Tsantrizos teaches that an inert gas, such as argon or helium, may be used (col. 1 line 43). Knowles teaches that an inert gas may be uses, such as argon (col. 3,line 5-6).
Moreover, the cited limitations are material worked upon the device, which does not limit the apparatus claim from the prior art (MPEP 2115).
Regarding claim 8, Tsantrizos teaches that the current and voltage may be varied with the configuration of the plasma reactor and other operating parameters (col. 1, line 28 – 45).
Moreover, the cited limitations are process-limiting parameters, which are related to manners of operating the device. It has been held that a manner of operating a device does not differentiate the apparatus claim from the prior art (MPEP 2114).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsantrizos et al (U.S., 5,147,998) in view of Knowles et al (U.S. 5,560,779) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lashmore et al (PG-PUB US 2013/0039838, cited in IDS).
Regarding claim 2, Tsantrizos/Knowles does not teach a catalyst in the plasma reactor. However, Lashmore et al disclose a plasma reactor (ABSTRACT). Lashmore teaches that the plasma reactor comprises a cathode 154 and an anode 152 to initiate electric arc in the plasma reactor, wherein catalyst is provided within the plasma reactor for producing carbon nanostructure in the presence of the catalyst (Figure 1D, paragraphs [0011], [0064], & [0067]). Therefore, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to provide a catalyst in the chamber as suggested by the Lashmore in order to produce carbon nanostructure within the device of Tsantrizos/Knowles with a reasonable expectation of success.
Conclusion
Claims 1-8 are rejected.
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