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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 5/4/2022 seems to be in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 28-29 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 3/9/2026.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters "606" and "612" have both been used to designate memory devices (see Fig. 6). It seems that reference character should be used for sub-systems ports (for example see paragraph 64, line 2) Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee et. al. KR 20210009821 (Lee).
PNG
media_image1.png
319
686
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Lee discloses a power supply for a plasma reactor (for example see Fig. 1) comprising: a primary-power supply circuit (i.e., 10, 20, 30) (Fig. 1) converting an input power signal (i.e., signal at terminal S, R, T) (Fig. 1) from a power source to a primary voltage power signal to maintain a plasma-arc (i.e., 70) (Fig. 1);
a trigger-power supply circuit (i.e., 60) (Fig. 1) generating an ignition power pulse signal to ignite the plasma-arc (i.e., 70) (Fig. 1);
and a controller (i.e., 80) (Fig. 1) in communication with the primary-power supply circuit (i.e., 10, 20, 30) (Fig. 1) and the trigger- power supply circuit (i.e., 60) (Fig. 1), the controller (i.e., 80) (Fig. 1) generating one or more control signals to activate, based on a measurement associated with the plasma reactor, the trigger-power supply circuit (i.e., 60) (Fig. 1).
Claims 1, 3, 9 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Terayama et. al. JP H0910948 (Terayama).
PNG
media_image2.png
531
735
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Terayama discloses a power supply for a plasma reactor (for example see Fig. 3) comprising: a primary-power supply circuit (i.e., C1, TR1) (Fig. 3) converting an input power signal (i.e., signal from rectifier DR1) (Fig. 3) from a power source to a primary voltage power signal to maintain a plasma-arc;
a trigger-power supply circuit (i.e., T1a, DR5, TR2, L2) (Fig. 3) generating an ignition power pulse signal to ignite the plasma-arc;
and a controller (i.e., CL2) (Fig. 3) in communication with the primary-power supply circuit (i.e., C1, TR1) (Fig. 3) and the trigger- power supply circuit (i.e., T1a, DR5, TR2, L2) (Fig. 3), the controller (i.e., CL2) (Fig. 1) generating one or more control signals to activate, based on a measurement associated with the plasma reactor, the trigger-power supply circuit (i.e., T1a, DR5, TR2, L2) (Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 3, Terayama discloses, as applied in linking claims, discloses the primary voltage power signal is added to the ignition power pulse signal to sustain the ignited plasma-arc.
Regarding claim 9, Terayama discloses, as applied in linking claims, discloses the primary-power supply circuit is a direct current (DC) high-voltage power supply.
Regarding claim 17, Terayama discloses, as applied in linking claims, the ignition power pulse signal is an alternating-current-power signal or a direct-current-power signal.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 2, 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Terayama et. al. JP H0910948 (Terayama) in view of Bunker et. al. CN 20190314920 (Bunker).
Regarding claim 2, Terayama as applied in linking claims discloses the controller (i.e., CL2) (Fig. 3) but fail to disclose the controller further generates the one or more control signals based on an available power from the power source.
However, Bunker, in the same field of endeavor, discloses a controller (i.e., 52) (Fig. 3) further generates the one or more control signals based on an available power from the power source (for example grid, renewable energy and others) (see paragraph 25, lines 22-36) in order to provide the desired power output for the operation including the ignition or initiation of plasma arc.
Therefore, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have optionally provide controller further generates the one or more control signals based on an available power from the power source in view of Terayama, as taught by Bunker, in order to provide the desired power output for the operation including the ignition or initiation of plasma arc.
Regarding claim 12, Terayama in view Bunker, as applied in linking claims, discloses the claimed invention, more particularly Bunker discloses the power source comprising a solar array, a wind turbine, and a power grid.
Regarding claim 13, Terayama in view Bunker, as applied in linking claims, discloses the claimed invention, more particularly Bunker the power source is an intermittent power source.
Claims 4-5 and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Terayama et. al. JP H0910948 (Terayama) in view of Fan et. al. CN 111697833 (FAN).
Regarding claim 4, Terayama discloses a primary-power supply circuit the primary-power supply circuit comprising switching devices but fail to specifically disclose a primary-power supply circuit comprising:
a first half-bridge circuit comprising a first pair of switching devices; a second half-bridge circuit comprising a second pair of switching devices electrically connected in parallel with the first pair of switching devices; an inductor device electrically connected to an output of the first half-bridge circuit and an output of the second half-bridge circuit; and a transformer electrically connected to an output of the inductor device.
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (FCS2)][AltContent: textbox (FCS1)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (T)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: oval]
PNG
media_image3.png
299
495
media_image3.png
Greyscale
However, Fan, in the same field of endeavor, discloses a primary-power supply circuit comprising:
a first half-bridge circuit comprising a first pair of switching devices (i.e., S1, S4) (Fig. 4); a second half-bridge circuit comprising a second pair of switching devices (i.e., S2, S3) (Fig. 4) electrically connected in parallel with the first pair of switching devices;
an inductor device (i.e., 1/2Lr1 and 1/2Lr2) (Fig. 4) electrically connected to an output of the first half-bridge circuit (i.e., S1, S4) (Fig. 4) and an output of the second half-bridge circuit (i.e., S2, S3) (Fig. 4); and a transformer (i.e., T) (Fig. 1) electrically connected to an output of the inductor device, in order to suppress noise.
Therefore, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have optionally provide a primary-power supply circuit comprising: a first half-bridge circuit comprising a first pair of switching devices; a second half-bridge circuit comprising a second pair of switching devices electrically connected in parallel with the first pair of switching devices; an inductor device electrically connected to an output of the first half-bridge circuit and an output of the second half-bridge circuit; and a transformer electrically connected to an output of the inductor device in view of Terayama, as taught by Fan, in order to suppress noise.
Regarding claim 5, Terayama in view Fan, as applied in linking claims, discloses a controller further generates a first half-bridge control signal (i.e., see added reference FCS1) (Fig. 4) and a second half-bridge control signal (i.e., see added reference FCS2) (Fig. 4) out of phase with the first half-bridge control signal, the first half-bridge control signal (i.e., FCS1) (Fig. 4)transmitted to at least one of the first pair of switching devices (i.e., S1, S4) (Fig. 4) and the second half-bridge control signal (i.e., FCS2) (Fig. 4) transmitted to at least one of the second pair of switching devices (i.e., S2, S3) (Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 7, Terayama in view Fan, as applied in linking claims, discloses the claimed invention, more particularly Terayama discloses the trigger-power supply circuit (i.e., T1a, DR5, TR2, L2) (Fig. 3) in electrical communication with the transformer(i.e., T1) (Fig. 3) to, when activated by the controller(i.e., CL2) (Fig. 3), energize an additional winding of the transformer to increase a power provided to the plasma reactor.
Regarding claim 8, Terayama in view Fan, as applied in linking claims, discloses the claimed invention, more particularly Fan discloses the inductor device (i.e., 1/2Lr1 and 1/2Lr2) (Fig. 4) preventing a high negative voltage pulse from feeding back to the first half-bridge circuit and the second half- bridge circuit.
Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Terayama et. al. JP H0910948 (Terayama) in view of Peterson et. al. US 5296665 (Peterson).
Regarding claim 14, Terayama discloses a high voltage ignition but fail to discloses the ignition power pulse signal is between 1 V and 10 kV.
However, Peterson in the same field of endeavor discloses disclose that is well know the use of ignition pulses between 5 to 10kV (for example see column 1, lines 37-38).
Therefore, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have optionally provide the ignition power pulse signal is between 1 V and 10 kV in view of Terayama, as taught by Peterson, since it is well known for plasma arc ignition purposes have a pulse between 5 to 10kV.
Regarding claim 15, Terayama discloses a high voltage ignition but fail to discloses the ignition power pulse signal is between 1 V and 50 kV.
However, Peterson in the same field of endeavor discloses disclose that is well know the use of ignition pulses between 5 to 10kV (for example see column 1, lines 37-38).
Therefore, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have optionally provide the ignition power pulse signal is between 1 V and 50 kV in view of Terayama, as taught by Peterson, since it is well known for plasma arc ignition purposes have a pulse between 5 to 10kV.
Claims 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et. al. KR 20210009821 (Lee) in view of Fan et. al. CN 111697833 (FAN).
Regarding claim 20, Lee discloses a power supply for a plasma reactor comprising:
a primary-power supply circuit (i.e., 30) (Fig. 1) receiving a power signal (for example see power signal from rectifier) (Fig. 1) from a power source (for example see terminals R,S,T) (Fig. 1) and outputting a primary-power signal (for example see primary-power signal from bridge
30) (Fig. 1),
a transformer(i.e., 40) (Fig. 1), the transformer (i.e., 40) (Fig. 1) amplifying the primary-power signal (for example see primary-power signal from bridge 30) (Fig. 3) to the plasma reactor;
and a trigger-power supply circuit (i.e., 60) (Fig. 1) converting the power signal from the power source to a high-voltage, ignition-power-pulse signal added to the primary-power signal to ignite a plasma-arc.
Lee fails to disclose the primary-power supply circuit comprising:
a bridge circuit controlled by phase-offset-activation signals;
and an inductor in electrical communication with an output of the bridge circuit;
a transformer electrically connected to an output of the inductor device, the transformer amplifying the primary-power signal to the plasma reactor.
However, Fan, in the same field of endeavor, discloses a primary-power supply circuit comprising:
a bridge circuit (i.e., S1, S2, S3, S4) (Fig. 3) in electrical communication with the power signal and controlled by phase-offset-activation signals;
and an inductor (i.e., 1/2Lr1 and 1/2Lr2) (Fig. 4) in electrical communication with an output of the bridge circuit (i.e., S1, S2, S3, S4) (Fig. 3), and a transformer (i.e., T) (Fig. 4) electrically connected to an output of the inductor device (i.e., 1/2Lr1 and 1/2Lr2) (Fig. 4), the transformer amplifying the primary-power signal to the plasma reactor, in order to provide a converter with suppress noise.
Therefore, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have optionally provide a primary-power supply circuit comprising: a bridge circuit in electrical communication with the power signal and controlled by phase-offset-activation signals; an inductor in electrical communication with an output of the bridge circuit; and a transformer electrically connected to an output of the inductor device, the transformer amplifying the primary-power signal to the plasma reactor in Lee, as taught by Fan, in order to provide a converter with suppress noise.
Regarding claim 21, Terayama in view of Fan disclose the claimed invention, more particularly Fan discloses the high-voltage inductor device prevents a high-voltage flyback signal from the bridge circuit (i.e., S1, S2, S3, S4) (Fig. 3).
Claims 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et. al. KR 20210009821 (Lee) in view of Fan et. al. CN 111697833 (FAN) and in further view of Terayama et. al. JP H0910948 (Terayama).
Regarding claim 23, Lee in view of Fan, as applied above, fail to disclose the bridge circuit the inductor, or the transformer operate at a frequency between 1,000 Hertz and 1 Megahertz
However Terayama , in the same field of endeavor, discloses the bridge circuit (i.e., TR1) (Fig3), the inductor, or the transformer operate at a frequency between 1,000 Hertz and 1 Megahertz (for example Terayama discloses performing switching at a frequency of several tens of KHz) , in order to induce a voltage necessary for generating a plasma arc.
Therefore, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have optionally provide the bridge circuit (i.e., TR1) (Fig3) the inductor, or the transformer operate at a frequency between 1,000 Hertz and 1 Megahertz in Lee in view of Fan, as taught by Terayama, in order to induce a voltage necessary for generating a plasma arc.
Claims 25 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et. al. KR 20210009821 (Lee) in view of Fan et. al. CN 111697833 (FAN) and in further view of Bunker et. al. CN 20190314920 (Bunker).
Regarding claim 25, Lee in view of Fan fail to disclose the power source is an intermittent power source.
However Bunker, in the same field of endeavor, discloses the power source is an intermittent power source (for example grid, renewable energy and others) (see paragraph 25, lines 22-36) in order to provide the desired power output for the operation including the ignition or initiation of plasma arc.
Therefore, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have optionally provide the power source being an intermittent power source in Lee in view of Fan, as taught by Bunker, in order to provide the desired power output for the operation including the ignition or initiation of plasma arc.
Regarding claim 26, Lee in view of Fan and in further view of Bunker, as applied in liking claims, discloses the intermittent power source comprising one of a solar array and a wind turbine.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6, 10-11, 16, 18-19, 22, 24 and 27 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 6, the prior art of record, alone or in combination as applied above fail to disclose “wherein a phase difference of the first half- bridge control signal and the second half-bridge control signal is based on a power setpoint determined by the controller” in combination with all the recited element in liking claims.
Regarding claim 10, the prior art of record, alone or in combination as applied above fail to disclose “a protection circuit comprising a capacitor stack and a diode stack, the protection circuit preventing a high-negative-voltage pulse from the DC high-voltage power supply” in combination with all the recited element in liking claims.
Regarding claim 11, the prior art of record, alone or in combination as applied above fail to disclose “the trigger-power supply circuit comprising a tapped inductor in electrical communication with the plasma reactor” in combination with all the recited element in liking claims.
Regarding claim 16, the prior art of record, alone or in combination as applied above fail to disclose “the primary-power supply circuit provides above 95% of a total power to the plasma reactor” in combination with all the recited element in liking claims.
Regarding claim 18, the prior art of record, alone or in combination as applied above fail to disclose “wherein the one or more control signals activate the trigger-power supply circuit to generate the ignition power pulse signal comprising a frequency resonate with an inductive component or a capacitive component of the primary- power supply circuit” in combination with all the recited element in liking claims.
Regarding claim 19, the prior art of record, alone or in combination as applied above fail to disclose “the trigger-power supply circuit in electrical communication with a pair of electrodes of the plasma reactor and wherein the plasma-arc is between the electrodes to ignite a plasma within the plasma reactor and the primary-power supply circuit is in electrical communication with the pair of electrodes of the plasma reactor and wherein the plasma-arc is maintained between the electrodes to sustain the plasma after ignition, the plasma to produce a nitrogen-based chemical fertilizer” in combination with all the recited element in liking claims.
Regarding claim 22, the prior art of record, alone or in combination as applied above fail to disclose “the transformer is one of a plurality of transformers, the outputs of each of the plurality of transformers connected in a series connection to the plasma reactor” in combination with all the recited element in liking claims.
Regarding claim 24, the prior art of record, alone or in combination as applied above fail to disclose “the transformer comprising a multi- winding transformer comprising a first primary winding connected to an output of the primary- power supply circuit and a second primary winding connected to an output of the trigger-power supply circuit” in combination with all the recited element in liking claims.
Regarding claim 27, the prior art of record, alone or in combination as applied above fail to disclose wherein the trigger-power supply circuit generates the high-voltage, ignition power pulse signal during a detected insufficient power period from the intermittent power source.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YAHVEH COMAS TORRES whose telephone number is (571)272-4011. The examiner can normally be reached Mondays - Thursday 830am.
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, Thienvu V Tran can be reached on (571)270-1276. 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.
/YAHVEH COMAS TORRES/ Examiner, Art Unit 2838
/THIENVU V TRAN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2838
Prosecution Insights