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 without traverse of Group I, encompassing claims 1-18, in the reply filed on 7/7/2026 is acknowledged.
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 1-12 and 15-18 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 term “high voltage pulses” in claims 1 and 15 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high” 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.
Claim 3 recites the limitation " high voltage pulses ". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction/clarification is required.
Due to the dependency to the parent claim, claims 2-12 and 16-18 are rejected.
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)(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 1-3, 5-7, 13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Dimitrakellis et al (PG-PUB US 2024/0350999).
Regarding claims 1 and 13, Dimitrakellis et al disclose a method of producing hydrogen peroxide (ABSTRACT). The method comprises steps of
(1) providing a plasma reactor 10 having an open inlet 22 for receiving a feed stream containing helium and water and an open outlet for discharging reaction products containing hydrogen peroxide (i.e., providing an open plasma reactor …, introducing …, Figure 1, paragraphs [0048], [0067] – [0068],& [0072]); and
(2) generating nonthermal plasma by applying a pulsed voltage to the plasma reactor while supplying the feed stream containing the helium and water, hence producing hydrogen peroxide at the outlet (i.e., using pulses …, generating non-thermal plasma …, Figure 1, paragraphs [0003], [0064], & [0067] – [0068]).
Regarding claim 2, Dimitrakellis teaches that OH radicals and hydrogen peroxide are produced (paragraph [0095]). Moreover, the products produced are the results of operating the claimed method. Since Dimitrakellis teaches a method comprises substantially the same steps as claim, it must have the same outcome.
Regarding claim 3, Dimitrakellis teaches that the plasma reactor 10 comprises electrodes 16 and 18 coupled to a dielectric tube (Figure 1, paragraph [0048]).
Regarding claim 5, Dimitrakellis teaches that oxygen gas may be used (paragraph [0072]).
Regarding claims 6 and 7, Dimitrakellis teaches that the generated hydrogen peroxide concentration is analyzed at the outlet of the plasma reactor (paragraphs [0087] – [0088]). Dimitrakellis also teaches that OES measurement may detect other species and OH radical recombination has been observed, which indicates that OH concentration may be measured if desired (paragraphs [0095] & [0110]).
Since Dimitrakellis teaches a method comprises substantially the same steps as claim, it must have the same outcome (e.g., the concentrations of OH radicals and hydrogen peroxide).
Regarding claim 15, Dimitrakellis teaches to (i) provide a plasma reactor 10 having an open inlet 22 for receiving a feed stream containing helium and water and an open outlet for discharging reaction products containing hydrogen peroxide and (ii) apply a pulsed voltage to the plasma reactor while supplying the feed stream containing the helium and water, hence producing OH radicals and hydrogen peroxide at the outlet (Figure 1, paragraphs [0048], [ 0064],[0067] – [0068], [0072],& [0095]). Since Dimitrakellis teaches a method comprises substantially the same steps as claim, it must have the same outcome.
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 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dimitrakellis et al (PG-PUB US 2024/0350999) as applied to claims 2, and 5 above.
Regarding claims 6 and 7, Dimitrakellis teaches that the generated hydrogen peroxide concentration is analyzed at the outlet of the plasma reactor (paragraphs [0087] – [0088]). Dimitrakellis also teaches that OES measurement may detect other species and OH radical recombination has been observed (paragraphs [0095] & [0110]). Thus, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to measure OH radical concentration in order to further investigate the reaction mechanism.
Since Dimitrakellis teaches a method comprises substantially the same steps as claim, it must have the same outcome (e.g., the concentrations of OH radicals and hydrogen peroxide).
Claims 8-12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dimitrakellis et al (PG-PUB US 2024/0350999) as applied to claims 7, and 13 above, and further in view of Johansson et al (“Detection of hydrogen peroxide using photofragmentation laser-induced fluorescence”, cited in IDS).
Regarding claims 8, and 14, Dimitrakellis teaches that the generated hydrogen peroxide concentration along with OH radicals is analyzed at the outlet of the plasma reactor (paragraphs [0087] – [0088]), but does not teach to utilize PFLIF. However, Johansson et al disclose a method of detection of hydrogen peroxide by PFLIF (ABSTRACT). Johansson teaches that hydrogen peroxide can be detected with PFLIF which can provide fast and accurate monitoring (page 67). Therefore, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to utilize PFLIF for detection of hydrogen peroxide along with OH radicals as suggested by Johansson in order to provide fast and accurate monitoring while using the method of Dimitrakellis.
Regarding claim 9, Johansson teaches photodissociation laser and excitation laser (Figure 1, page 67).
Regarding claims 10-12, Johansson teaches calibration and simulation with model (pages 67 - 68). One having ordinary skill in the art would have realized that calibration is carried out with known concentration of certain composition in order to obtain accurate measurement results.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, and 16-18 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.
Conclusion
Claims 1-18 are rejected. Claims 19-25 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