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 listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
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 1-5 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 1 recites the limitation "the reactor" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of examination, “the reactor” will be interpreted to mean “a reactor”, as individual claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification. See MPEP § 2111. Claims 2-5 are indefinite because they depend on the indefinite claim 1 and do not cure the indefiniteness of “the reactor” therein.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the source of energy" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of examination, “the source of energy” will be interpreted to mean “a source of energy”.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the " in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of examination, “the temperature” will be interpreted to mean “a temperature of the reactor” at any point throughout the method of claim 1.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the measured losses" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claims do not describe measurement of losses. For purposes of examination, “the measured losses” will be interpreted to mean “measured losses”.
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 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Aketagawa (U.S. 2022/0144631 A1), as evidenced by Tuchin ("Fluorescence and Inelastic Light Scattering", 2015).
Regarding claim 1, Aketagawa teaches a method (Aketagawa, Fig. 4, [0055]-[0074]) of using plasma induced hydrocarbon decomposition (Aketagawa, [0059]-[0060]) to produce hydrogen (Aketagawa, Fig. 4, [0061], hydrogen containing gas 16) and carbon (Aketagawa, [0061], carbon is deposited) wherein the reactor uses a source frequency correlating to a range of energy that can efficiently promote vibrational excitation of the hydrocarbon gas (Aketagawa, [0059]).
Aketagawa does not explicitly teach that the aforementioned source frequency also correlates to one or more peaks of the absorption spectrum of the hydrocarbon gas. However, Tuchin teaches that when the absorbed energy matches the energy needed for an allowed infrared excitation of a molecular vibration, an absorption peak is observed in the IR spectrum (Tuchin, Page 225, lines 25-27). As Aketagawa already teaches that the source frequency correlates to an energy needed to excite molecular vibrations (Aketagawa, [0059]), this frequency would therefore necessarily correlate with one or more peaks of the absorption spectrum of the hydrocarbon gas, despite Aketagawa’s silence to the absorption spectrum itself.
Regarding claim 2, Aketagawa teaches the method of claim 1, as discussed above, where the source of energy is from a dielectric barrier discharge reactor (Aketagawa, Fig. 4, [0027] and [0058], plasma is generated between electrodes from application of a high voltage).
Regarding claim 3, Aketagawa teaches the method of claim 1, as discussed above, where the temperature of the reactor may operate as a non-thermal plasma or a thermal plasma (Aketagawa, Fig. 4; all temperatures of plasma correspond to either a non-thermal plasma or a thermal plasma, there being no logical third option of temperature).
Regarding claim 4, Aketagawa teaches the method of claim 1, as discussed above, where the conversion percentage of hydrocarbons may be less than 100% (Aketagawa, Fig. 4, [0062], “Thus, by reducing the pressure in the reactor 2 using the depressurizing means 17, it is possible to further increase the yield of hydrogen gas in the hydrogen containing gas 16.” - If it is possible to increase the yield of hydrogen gas, it is possible for the conversion to be less than 100%).
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.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aketagawa (U.S. 2022/0144631 A1), as evidenced by Tuchin ("Fluorescence and Inelastic Light Scattering", 2015), as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Woods (GB 2613021 A), and further in view of Roychoudhury (U.S. 2008/0044347 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Aketagawa teaches the method of claim 1, as discussed above, where an active control system is used to minimize power consumption by changing the frequency and voltage of energy (Aketagawa, Fig. 4, [0032]-[0035] and [0069], frequency setting means 13; [0036] and [0059], magnitude of high voltage of the external power supply 12 - Both frequency and magnitude (voltage) of energy are adjusted to minimize power consumption and maximize energy efficiency).
Aketagawa does not explicitly teach that measured energy input of the system is used in the changing of the frequency and voltage of energy. However, frequency and voltage are explicitly adjusted to minimize power consumption (Aketegawa, [0032]-[0036], [0059], [0069]). Woods teaches that, when adjusting power to a power supply to a reactor with variable power consumption requirements (Woods, Page 18, lines 25-34), measuring the power input can be integrated into the control system to minimize the power consumed (Woods, Page 3, lines 39-34; Page 18, lines 29-32). Woods is analogous to the instant claim because it is directed to solving the same problem of minimizing energy input into a reactor system via a power supply.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have measured the energy input of Aketagawa’s system. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (see MPEP 2143.A.). The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 - 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143.B.). In the instant case, Woods’ teaching of measuring the power consumed (and thereby the energy input) would predictably inform Aketegawa’s task of minimizing power consumption and, therefore, changes to frequency and voltage.
Aketegawa teaches that a loss of yield is used in the changing of the frequency and voltage of energy (Aketagawa, Figs. 1a and 4, [0032], the yield of the product gas 11 is reduced due to the frequency of the external power supply 12 being too low) but does not explicitly teach that this yield (and thereby, loss of yield) is measured. However, Roychoudhury teaches measuring hydrogen yield in a reforming operation to determine the yield (Roychoudhury, [0014]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have measured the hydrogen gas yield, as taught by Roychoudhury, in Aketegawa to thereby determine the loss of yield resulting from having the frequency too low. Doing so would predictably inform Aketegawa’s task of adjusting the frequency to optimize yield.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZACHARY J. BAUM whose telephone number is (571)270-0895. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30-5:00.
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, Anthony Zimmer can be reached at 571-270-3590. 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.
/ZACHARY JOHN BAUM/Examiner, Art Unit 1736
/ANTHONY J ZIMMER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1736