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, encompassing claims 1-13, and 16-17, in the reply filed on 11/24/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that search and examination can be made without serous burden. This is not found persuasive because the inventions of Group I and Group II are drawn into different classes and each invention requires a different field of search. Applicants’ attention is drawn to the fact that the search for method claims requires the identification of processing steps while the search for apparatus claims requires the identification of structural elements, which introduces additional search and examination burden. Applicants’ arguments that the search of one invention must necessarily result in a search for the other one has been considered, but is not found persuasive in so far as the searches are not co-extensive and additional search would of necessity be required for the combination of inventions.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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.
Claims 1- 4, 6-7, 10, 12, and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rispy (WO 2012/023858, cited in IDS).
Regarding claim 1, Rispy discloses a microwave plasma reactor for producing hydrogen (ABSTRACT). The apparatus comprises
(1) a hydrocarbon gas source supplied from a vessel 66 (i.e., a gaseous hydrocarbon supply device, Figure 1, page 15, line 7-9);
(2) a microwave plasma reactor 100 configured to generate hydrogen gas by generating plasma within a plasma chamber 102 at a pressure in a range of 1 to 2 bar (i.e., a microwave plasma reactor …, Figure 1, page 4 line 20-21, page 15 line 4, page 6 line 21-22, page 17 line 22-23);
(3) a hydrogen storage and distribution module 5 having a hydrogen storage vessel 82 (i.e., a storage device …, Figure 1, page 24 line 38-40); and
(4) an output facility 85 for delivering produced hydrogen to a consumer (i.e., a delivery device …, Figure 1, page 24, line 39-page 25 line 1).
Regarding claims 2 and 16-17, Rispy teaches that the hydrocarbon gas may be natural gas containing methane (page 15 line 7).
Regarding claim 3, Rispy teaches that the hydrocarbon gas is supplied from a vessel 66 (Figure 1, page 15, line 7-9).
Regarding claim 4, Rispy teaches that the microwave plasma reactor 100 comprises a magnetron 301, a waveguide 302, a quartz/dielectric tube 303 (Figure 6, page 20 line 25-37).
Regarding claim 6, Rispy teaches that the microwave plasma reactor 100 comprises nozzles 105 for injecting hydrocarbon gas to induce vortex motion (Figure 2, page 15 line 14-18, page 15 line 36-page 16 line 2).
Regarding claim 7, Rispy teaches that product outlets 101 and 108 are provided with tubular structures and the post-process module 3 may comprise cooling means for the product (Figure 2, page 13 line 27-29 & page 16 line 8-16).
Regarding claim 10, Rispy teaches that the produced hydrogen is separated and filtrated by the post process module 3 (Figure 1, page 24 line 23-30).
Regarding claim 12, Rispy teaches that solid carbon is collected/recovered with reservoir 91 (Figure 1, page 24 line 19-21).
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 5 and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rispy (WO 2012/023858, cited in IDS) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Jewett et al (PG-PUB US 2002/0030691).
Regarding claim 5, Rispy does not teach a plasma ignition device having a retractable metal tip being moved by an actuator. However, Jewett et al disclose a microwave plasma reactor (ABSTRACT & paragraph [0008]). Jewett teaches that the apparatus comprises a microwave power source 30, a waveguide 40 having a resonant cavity, and an ignitor 100 having a metal tip for facilitating ignition of the plasma and stabilizing the plasma, wherein the ignitor 100 is coupled to an actuator for moving the ignitor 100 between an extending position and a retracting position (Figures 2c & 2d, paragraphs [0028], [0030], & [0045] – [0048]). Therefore, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to include an ignitor having a metal tip coupled to an actuator as suggested by Jewett in order to facilitate the ignition of plasma and stabilize the plasma within the device of Rispy.
Regarding claim 8, Rispy teaches that product outlets 101 and 108 are provided with tubular structure and the post-process module 3 may comprise cooling means for the product (Figure 2, page 13 line 27-29 & page 16 line 8-16), but does not teach a pipe around the product outlet. However, Jewett et al disclose a microwave plasma reactor (ABSTRACT & paragraph [0008]). Jewett teaches that the apparatus comprises a microwave power source 30, a waveguide 40 having a resonant cavity, and an outlet housing/tube 70 for exhausting product, wherein a cooling coil/pipe 78 is arranged around the outlet tube 70 to control the temperature (Figure 1e, paragraph [0038]). Therefore, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to provide a cooling coil/pipe around the product outlet as suggested by Jewett in order to control the temperature within the device of Rispy.
Regarding claim 9, Rispy teaches that product outlets 101 and 108 are provided with tubular structure and the post-process module 3 may comprise cooling means for the product (Figure 2, page 13 line 27-29 & page 16 line 8-16). Jewett teaches the cooling coil 78 at the outlet 70 (Figure 1e, paragraph [0038]).
Claims 11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rispy (WO 2012/023858, cited in IDS) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Cohn et al (U.S. 5,852,927).
Regarding claim 11, Rispy teaches that the generated hydrogen may be delivered to a consumer through the output facility 85 (Figure 1, page 24, line 39-page 25 line 1), but does not teach an electricity generator and a batter coupled to the plasma reactor for supplying generated electricity to the plasma reactor. However, Cohn et al disclose an integrated plasma turbine system (ABSTRACT). Cohn teaches that hydrogen-rich gas 78 is generated from a plasma reactor 132 by reforming fuel 76 , such as natural gas, and an electricity generator 142 along with a battery 144 is coupled to the plasma reactor 132 for producing electricity from the produced hydrogen through a turbine and supply the generated electricity to the plasma reactor 132, thereby maximizing energy efficiency (Figures 1, & 6, col. 3 line 2-5, col. 5 line 39-53, col. 6, line 20-44). Therefore, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to integrate an electricity generator along with a battery with the plasma reactor as suggested by Cohn in order to maximize energy efficiency within the device of Rispy.
Regarding claim 13, Rispy teaches that the generated hydrogen may be delivered to a consumer through the output facility 85 (Figure 1, page 24, line 39-page 25 line 1), but does not teach to a tank/vessel. However, Cohn et al disclose an integrated plasma turbine system (ABSTRACT). Cohn teaches that hydrogen-rich gas 78 is generated from a plasma reactor 132 by reforming fuel 76, such as natural gas, and the hydrogen may be utilized by a turbine combustor for maximizing the energy efficiency (Figures 1, & 7, col. 3 line 2-5, col. 5 line 39-53, col. 7, line 25-28). Therefore, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art deliver the produced hydrogen to a turbine combustor as suggested by Cohn in order to utilize the produced hydrogen for maximizing energy efficiency within the device of Rispy.
Conclusion
Claims 1-13, and 16-17 are rejected. Claims 14-15 are withdrawn.
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