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 with traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 10 June 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the grounds that a search of group 1 will necessarily identify art relevant to groups II and III and vice versa. This is not found persuasive because the standard of restriction under 371 does not rely on if any relevant art would be found.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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.
Claim 32 is 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.
As to claim 32, the claim recites the limitation "the spark discharge and/or glow discharge". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claims 1, 6, 29 and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by “Synergistic plasma-assisted electrochemical reduction of nitrogen to ammonia” to Kumari et al. (Kumari).
As to claims 1, 6, 29 and 32, Kumari teaches a method of reducing gaseous nitrogen comprising subjecting the gaseous nitrogen to plasma forming conditions to form a plasma, contacting the plasma with water/electrolyte at a plasma-water interface of a bubble of gas in the water/electrolyte to provide a dissolved plasma derived species and electrocatalytically reducing the dissolved plasma derived species at a platinum, transition metal, cathode located in a region adjacent to the plasma glow discharge region to provide a reduced compounds, ammonia (Figure 1a; Visual Abstract).
Claims 1, 2, 3, 7 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by “Plasma-Driven Water Assisted CO2 Methanation” to Hoeben et al. (Hoeben).
As to claims 1, 2, 3 and 29, Hoeben teaches a method of reducing carbon dioxide comprising the steps of subjecting the carbon dioxide to plasma forming conditions to form a plasma and containing the plasma with water at a plasma water interface to provide a dissolved plasma derived species and electrocatalytically reducing said dissolved plasma derived species at a NiCr transition metal alloy electrodes to provide a reduced compound, methane (Abstract; Section I; Section II; Figure 1).
As to claim 7, Hoeben teaches the method of claim 1. Hoeben further teaches that the gas phase heat is cooled by the water film, thus that the gaseous compound is provided at a controlled temperature (Abstract).
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.
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 2 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumari as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of CN 110983356 A to Wu et al. (Wu).
As to claims 2 and 4, Kumari teaches the methods of claim 1. As discussed above, Kumari teaches that the gaseous compound is nitrogen, but fails to teach that the nitrogen is mixed with oxygen. However, Wu also discusses the plasma assisted electrolytic reduction of ammonia to nitrogen and teaches that the gaseous compound can comprise air as an inexpensive source of nitrogen (Paragraphs 0004 and 0005). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the gaseous compound of the method of Kumari with air, a mixed nitrogen and oxygen gas, in order to inexpensively provide the nitrogen as taught by Wu.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumari as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2006/0060464 to Chang (Chang).
As to claim 5, Kumari teaches the method of claim 1. Kumari further teaches that the plasma is generated in a configuration of pin-to-liquid with a column bubbler enclosure (Figure 1a). However, Kumari fails to specifically teach that both glow and spark discharge is utilized. However, Chang also discusses plasma generation and teaches that both glow and spark (corona) discharge can effectively be utilized depending on voltage conditions applied to the electrodes (Paragraphs 0092, 0214 and 0294). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the method of Kumari by using a combination of glow and spark discharge as known equivalents for plasma production utilizing applied voltage (MPEP 2144.06 I).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CIEL P Contreras whose telephone number is (571)270-7946. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 AM to 4 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, James Lin can be reached at 571-272-8902. 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.
/CIEL P CONTRERAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1794
Prosecution Insights