DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group 1, claims 1-16, in the reply filed on 07/20/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 8, 9, 11 and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bell (WO2020/115473).
Bell teaches a microwave plasma reactor comprising:
- a microwave generator, 2, coupled to a plasma chamber 1, see Fig. 1, [0028]
- a gas vortex generating component coupled with the chamber – see vortex portion of the chamber including directional channels 3 [0029].
In regard to the clause “for generating fixed nitrogen products”, that is an intended use of the chamber and not limiting. It has been held that claims directed to apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 847, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959). In this case, the system of Bell is useable with any gas flowed into the system.
In regard to the plurality of (quenching) channel is specifically described per [0033], but further and as per claim 9, there are a plurality of (quenching) ports, 8, arranged such that they are operably coupled to the sidewall (via ports 3) and therefore generator a vortex of (quenching) gases. It is initially noted that the use of the ports for “quenching” is intended use as above, but in any case a reactant gas would be known to have a quenching effect on a relative hot plasma (not required for rejection).
Regarding claim 11, as ports 9 and 10 are depicted, and, as noted, the use of the ports for any specific purpose is intended use, both are held as quenching ports, with the angles being at 90 degrees relative to the chamber axis.
Regarding claim 13, in the interpretation as above, the claimed ports result necessarily in concurrent flow because 8 feeds into 3.
Regarding claim 14, in alternative point of view to claim 8, there are multiple chambers, see 14 and include ignition area 16, the ports 9 and 10 are gas channels, as noted above, the use for quenching is intended use (for further clarification, the channels 8 are not relied on as the quenching channels in this claim). In regard to the further concurrent or countercurrent vortex, the structure of the prior art and instant application is the same therefore it is understood that the same flow can be effected. The instant specification does not provide any guidance to a structural difference to effect either one of the particular flows so it is considered an intended use.
Regarding claim 15, the reactor includes a portion 11 between the two plasma regions and the quenching portions are above and below that (where 9, 10 and 19) (see claim 14 above) are provided – therefore, even though quenching is an intended use, the chamber includes a reactor area with a first diameter (portion 11) and another (quenching) portion with a second, larger diameter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bell in view of Kong (2023/0166227).
The teachings of Bell are applied above, teaching the claimed reactor but not teaching a metal sleeve. Kong teaches that that it is useful to line access ports of a plasma chamber with a metal sleeve [0035], the sleeve helps maintain integrity in the heat field. It would have been obvious at the effective date of the invention to apply the metal sleeves of Kong to the apparatus of Bell for the noted benefit of maintain integrity of the heat field. In adding such sleeves, one would apply in an any area where such benefit would be desired.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bell (WO2020/115473) in view of Tanner (2021/0053829).
Bell teaches a microwave plasma reactor comprising:
- a microwave generator, 2, coupled to a plasma chamber 1, see Fig. 1, [0028]
- a gas vortex generating component coupled with the chamber – see vortex portion of the chamber including directional channels 3 and 8 [0029].
In regard to the clause “for generating fixed nitrogen products”, that is an intended use of the chamber and not limiting. It has been held that claims directed to apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 847, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959). In this case, the system of Bell is useable with any gas flowed into the system.
The teachings do not include an expansion chamber as claimed, but Tanner teaches that it is useful to include an expansion chamber on a microwave plasma system in order to reduce cleaning of parts of the system, see Fig. 3J and [0166]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the invention to the microwave system of Bell for the stated reasons; the diameter of the expansion chamber is larger than that of the plasma chamber.
Regarding claims 2-4, as depicted, there are two opposing inputs that are within the claimed range of angles with respect to the top, and as per the depiction, are adjacent to both the outer and inner surface of the gas vortex generating component.
Regarding claim 5, as per claim 1, the use of the system for any function is intended use of the chamber and therefore met by the structure as per Bell being the same as that claimed. In any case, Bell teaches nitrogen and oxygen [0040].
Regarding claim 6, the gas vortex generating component is a cylindrical collar as depicted.
Regarding claim 7, the system includes a quenching gas channel, 9 [0033], but in any case the particular gas is again intended use.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/202/206 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Initially, the amendments have overcome the rejections as previously presented. The office agrees that Bell does not teach an expansion chamber, but Tanner is applied to teach the same.
In regard to the quenching ports – the act of quenching and even forming a plasma is, again, intended use. The prior art teachings do not have to use the gas inlet ports for the same purpose as claimed. The rejection over the quenching ports is modified based on the amended language, but the ports are present per Bell.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH A MILLER, JR whose telephone number is (571)270-5825. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Michael Cleveland can be reached at 571-272-1418. The fax phone number for the organization where this application 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/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.
/JOSEPH A MILLER, JR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712
Prosecution Insights