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 1, claims 1-39 and the species argon, methane, and methanol in the reply filed on June 17th, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 19, 24, 27-31, and 35-46 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected inventions and species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on June 17th, 2026.
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, 3, 16, 18, and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mahyar (“Development and application of different non-thermal plasma reactors for the removal of perfluorosurfactants in water: A comparative study”, 2019).
Regarding claim 1, Mahyar teaches a method of conducting reactions utilizing a gas/liquid/plasma reactor (Mahyar, Fig. 1, left; Page 532, Paragraph 5 - Page 535, Paragraph 1), comprising the steps of:
providing a gas/liquid/plasma reactor (Mahyar, Fig. 1, left; Page 533, Paragraph 3);
providing a liquid and a gas defining a gas/liquid interface within the gas/liquid/plasma reactor (Mahyar, Page 536, Paragraph 2, gas-liquid linterface);
charging the liquid and gas inside the gas/liquid/plasma reactor (Mahyar, Page 534, Paragraphs 5-6, applying plasma), the charging comprising the application of a voltage to electrodes (Mahyar, Page 533, Paragraph 3, aluminum and copper electrodes) and thereby to the liquid and gas (Mahyar, Fig. 1, left, see circuit diagram) comprising a series of voltage bursts having an outer burst frequency (Mahyar, Page 534, Paragraphs 5-6, 1s plasma and 1s pause corresponds to a 0.5 Hz outer burst frequency), the bursts each comprising a series of voltage pulses having an inner burst pulse frequency (Mahyar, Fig. 1, left, 5-20 kHz), the electrodes being oriented such that a plasma is propagated across the gas/liquid interface when the voltage pulses are applies (Mahyar, Fig. 1, the falling film is between the Cu and Al electrodes generating the plasma, necessarily leading to a plasma at the gas/liquid interface between the liquid and the Al electrode; Page 536, Paragraph 2 further specifies that treatment of surfactants occurs at the gas-liquid interface).
Regarding claim 3, Mahyar teaches the method according to claim 1, as discussed above, wherein plasma discharge has an inner burst pulse frequency of 5-20 kHz (Mahyar, Fig. 1, left).
Regarding claim 16, Mahyar teaches the method of claim 1, as discussed above, wherein the gas is air (Mahyar, Fig. 1, left, “gas inlet (He, Ar, air)”).
Regarding claims 18 and 20, Mahyar teaches the method of claim 1, as discussed above, wherein the gas is the noble gas argon (Mahyar, Fig. 1, left, Ar).
Regarding claim 21, Mahyar teaches the method according to claim 1, as discussed above, further comprising injecting a target compound with the liquid and the gas (Mahyar, Page 537, Paragraph 3, PFOS), such that the target compound will be reacted in the gas/liquid/plasma reactor (Mahyar, Page 537, Paragraphs 3-4, decomposition).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mahyar (“Development and application of different non-thermal plasma reactors for the removal of perfluorosurfactants in water: A comparative study”, 2019), as applied to claim 16 above, and further evidenced by Patil (“Plasma nitrogen oxides synthesis in a milli-scale gliding arc reactor: Investigating the electrical and process parameters”, 2016) and by Schwartz (Schwartz, “Air”, 2016).
Regarding claim 17, Mahyar teaches the method of claim 16, as discussed above, but is silent to nitrogen oxides being formed in the gas/liquid/plasma reactor. However, in the embodiment of Mahyar using air as the gas introduced through the inlet (Mahyar, Fig. 1, left, “gas inlet (He, Ar, air)”), nitrogen oxides would necessarily have formed because of the plasma generated in the gas/liquid/plasma reactor. Patil provides evidence of this in its systematic study of the effect of process parameters affecting nitrogen oxide production in plasma reactors fed mixtures of N2 and O2 (Patil, Figs. 6-12) which are the main components of air (Schwartz, Page 26, “Air”). Under all conditions varying parameters in the plasma reactor, Patil observed the formation of nitrogen oxides (Patil, Figs. 6-12). Because both Mahyar and Patil both employ non-thermal plasma (Mahyar, Page 532, Paragraphs 2-4; Patil, Page 255, Paragraph 1), it would be unreasonable to expect Mahyar’s method using air to not also produce nitrogen oxides.
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.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mahyar (“Development and application of different non-thermal plasma reactors for the removal of perfluorosurfactants in water: A comparative study”, 2019), as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 4, Mahyar teaches the method of claim 1, as discussed above, wherein the voltage applied to the electrodes is up to 21 kV (Mahyar, Page 533, Paragraph 3, “A Minipuls 6 generator (GBS Elektronik, Radeberg, Germany) providing up to 21 kV (RMS) at frequencies of 5–20 kHz was used to supply the high voltage.”), which overlaps with the claimed range of 1-50 kV.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the voltages because selection of overlapping portions of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP § 2144.05.I.
Claims 1-18, 20-23, and 25-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘639 (U.S. 2018/0215639 A) in view of Ozkan (“DBD in burst mode: solution for more efficient CO2 conversion?”, 2016). Reference is made below to Bresch (“Oxidized derivatives of n-hexane from a water/argon continuous flow electrical discharge plasma reactor”, 2016) and to Hsieh (“Analysis of hydroxyl radical formation in a gas-liquid electrical discharge plasma reactor utilizing liquid and gaseous radical scavengers”, 2017), both of which are incorporated into ‘639 by reference.
Regarding claim 1, ‘639 teaches a method of conducting reactions utilizing a gas/liquid/plasma reactor (‘639, Fig. 2, [0041]-[0067]), comprising the steps of: providing a gas/liquid/plasma reactor (‘639, Fig. 2);
providing a liquid and a gas defining a gas/liquid interface within the gas/liquid/plasma reactor (‘639, [0041], “injecting a mixture comprising liquid water, a gas and at least one organic compound”; Fig. 8a, [0038], [0045], “A plasma discharge channel propagates along the interface between the flowing liquid film region and the flowing gas stream inside the plasma reactor.”);
charging the liquid and gas inside the gas/liquid/plasma reactor (‘639, Fig. 2, [0085]), the charging comprising the application of a voltage to electrodes and thereby to the liquid and gas (‘639, Fig. 2, [0085]), the electrodes being oriented such that a plasma is propagated across the gas/liquid interface when the voltage is applied (‘639, [0041]).
‘639 does not teach that the application of voltage comprises a series of voltage bursts having an outer burst frequency, the bursts each comprising a series of voltage pulses having an inner burst pulse frequency. However, Ozkan teaches a method of operating a plasma reactor wherein the application of voltage comprises a series of voltage bursts having an outer burst frequency, the bursts each comprising a series of voltage pulses having an inner burst pulse frequency (Ozkan, Figure 2, bottom, Ton + Toff = 2 ms, corresponding to an outer burst pulse frequency of 500 Hz; inner burst pulse frequency = 28.6 kHz).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified ‘639’s method such that the application of voltage comprises a series of voltage bursts having an outer burst frequency, the bursts each comprising a series of voltage pulses having an inner burst pulse frequency, as Ozkan teaches that doing so improves energy efficiency (Ozkan, Fig. 4). Ozkan teaches that this results from higher electric fields in burst mode giving rise to higher electron temperatures (Ozkan, Page 8, Col. 1, Paragraph 1). A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to realize the advantage of improved energy efficiency taught by Ozkan with a reasonable expectation that such a benefit would apply to ‘639’s method, as high electric fields in burst mode giving rise to higher electron temperatures would not be expected to be limited to Okzan’s reaction system.
Regarding claim 2, modified ‘639 renders the method according to claim 1 obvious, as discussed above, wherein the plasma discharge has an outer burst frequency of 500 Hz (Ozkan, Figure 2, bottom, Ton + Toff = 2 ms, corresponding to an outer burst pulse frequency of 500 Hz; see rejection of claim 1 above regarding obviousness of employing outer burst frequency as taught by Ozkan).
Further, Ozkan teaches indirectly that the outer burst pulse frequency is related to the energy efficiency of the process (Ozkan, Fig. 4a). As detailed on Page 3, Col. 1, Paragraph 2, Ozkan investigates the duty cycle by keeping a TON constant while varying a TOFF. As TON + TOFF is equivalent to the outer burst period and therefore inversely related to the outer burst frequency, varying TOFF has the effect of increasing or decreasing the outer burst frequency. In doing so, Ozkan indirectly relates the outer burst frequency to the energy efficiency.
As the energy efficiency is a variable that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the outer burst frequency, with energy efficiency both increasing/decreasing as outer burst frequency is increased/decreased, the precise outer burst frequency would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the outer burst frequency in ‘639 to obtain the desired energy efficiency as taught by Ozkan (Ozkan, Fig. 4a) (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223). “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
Regarding claim 3, modified ‘639 renders the method according to claim 1 obvious, as discussed above, wherein plasma discharge has a frequency of 10 kHz (‘639, [0106]). While ‘639 does not teach that this frequency is an “inner burst frequency”, this frequency corresponds to fsignal as taught by Ozkan in the 100% duty cycle limit (Ozkan, Fig. 4). Modifying the duty cycle from 100% to a lower value is the same as going from a continuous mode of discharge to a burst mode of discharge, in which case the inner burst frequency is the same as fsignal, whereas the outer burst frequency is the same as frepetition as contemplated by Ozkan. Therefore, by adopting the burst mode of operation taught by Ozkan, it would have been obvious for ‘639’s discharge frequency to become the inner burst pulse frequency as claimed, as this frequency is already known to be effective.
Regarding claim 4, modified ‘639 renders the method according to claim 1 obvious, as discussed above, wherein the voltage applied to the electrodes is 20 kV (‘639, [0106]).
Regarding claim 5, modified ‘639 renders the method of claim 1 obvious, as discussed above, comprising:
injecting a mixture comprising the liquid and the gas into at least one inlet to the gas/liquid/plasma reactor, the inlet comprising an inlet electrode (‘639, Fig. 2, [0041] [0072], inlet capillary 201);
charging the liquid and the gas inside the inlet with the inlet electrode (‘639, [0041], “plasma discharge is propagated along the flowing liquid film region from the at least one
electrically-conductive inlet electrode to at least one electrically-conductive outlet electrode at an opposing end of the continuously-flowing plasma reactor.”), injecting the charged liquid and gas into the gas/liquid/plasma reactor, the injecting of the charged liquid and gas generating a continuously flowing film region with the liquid on one or more internal walls of the gas/liquid/plasma reactor and with a gas stream of the gas flowing along the flowing liquid film region (‘639, Fig. 2, [0045], [0073], flowing liquid film region 203);
the injecting propagating a plasma discharge channel pattern along the interface between the flowing liquid film region and the flowing gas stream inside the gas/liquid/plasma reactor (‘639, [0045]); and,
flowing the liquid, gas, and plasma to an outlet comprising an outlet electrode (‘639, Fig. 2, [0045], [0073], outlet capillary 205)).
Regarding claim 6, modified ‘639 renders the method of claim 5 obvious, as discussed above, wherein the inlet electrode and the outlet electrode are electrically-conductive capillary tube electrodes (‘639, Fig. 2, [0046], [0072]-[0073], inlet capillary 201 and outlet capillary 205, respectively).
Regarding claim 7, modified ‘639 renders the method of claim 6 obvious, as discussed above, wherein the electrically-conductive capillary inlet tube electrode has a first internal diameter, the gas/liquid/plasma reactor is tubular and has a second internal diameter, the electrically-conductive capillary outlet tube electrode has a third diameter, and wherein the third internal diameter is larger than the first internal diameter and smaller than the second internal diameter (‘639, Fig. 2, [0091], “For example, according to certain preferred embodiments, the cylindrical body portion 217 can have a first diameter 0.1 to 1 cm. The at least one electrically-conductive inlet capillary can have a second diameter that is less than the first diameter. The at least one electrically-conductive outlet capillary can have a third diameter that is greater than the second diameter and less than the first diameter.”). In both the instant claim and in ‘639, the order of diameters is as follows: inlet < outlet < reactor.
Regarding claim 8, modified ‘639 renders the method of claim 7 obvious, as discussed above, wherein the liquid is water (‘639, [0041]), and further comprising the step of dissociating the liquid at the interface with the plasma discharge to form a plurality of dissociation products, and producing hydrogen peroxide from the plurality of dissociation products (‘639, [0041]), and dissolving the hydrogen peroxide into the flowing liquid film region (‘639, [0042]).
Regarding claim 9, modified ‘639 renders the method of claim 8, as discussed above, wherein flowing the liquid, gas, plasma, and hydrogen peroxide to the electrically conductive outlet capillary tube electrode further comprises the step of recovering at least a portion of the hydrogen peroxide from the electrically conductive outlet capillary tube electrode (‘639, [0069], “The two plasma reactors can be controlled to adjust the relative production rates of nitrates and hydrogen peroxide that are delivered to the bioreactor.” As hydrogen peroxide is delivered to a reactor external to the gas/liquid/plasma reactor, it is recovered.).
Regarding claim 10, modified ‘639 renders the method according to claim 9 obvious, as discussed above. While ‘639 is silent to the hydrogen peroxide dissolved into the flowing liquid film region being protected from degradation as the hydrogen peroxide flows through the flowing liquid film region and exits the continuously-flowing gas/liquid/plasma reactor via the electrically conductive outlet capillary, this must be the case for the hydrogen peroxide to have been delivered to a bioreactor external to the gas/liquid/plasma reactor as taught by ‘639 (‘639, [0069]). See MPEP 2144.01, stating, “’[I]n considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom.’ In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826, 159 USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968)”. See also MPEP 2112, stating, “The express, implicit, and inherent disclosures of a prior art reference may be relied upon in the rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 103”. In the instant case, the hydrogen peroxide is implicitly protected from degradation because it is delivered to a subsequent process step (‘639, [0069]).
Regarding claim 11, modified ‘639 renders the method according to claim 8 obvious, as discussed above, wherein the liquid water has a temperature of from greater than 0 to less than 100 degrees Celsius (‘639, [0041], the water is liquid). While ‘639 is silent to the pressure of the gas/liquid/plasma reactor, Bresch, which is incorporated by reference in ‘639, teaches that a similar plasma reactor and method can operate under ambient temperature and pressure conditions (Bresch, Page 557, Paragraph 4).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have selected ambient temperature and pressure as taught by Bresch in the gas/liquid/plasma reactor, corresponding to about 1.01 bar and 25°C. 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, a pressure of 1.01 bar and a temperature of 25°C would yield the predictable result of rendering the method of ‘639 operable (Bresch, Page 557, Paragraph 4) without the need for additional means of supplying heat or pressure to the gas/liquid/plasma reactor.
Regarding claim 12, modified ‘639 renders the method according to claim 8 obvious, as discussed above, but is silent to the conductivity of the liquid water. However, Hsieh, which is incorporated by reference in ‘639, teaches that a similar plasma reactor and method can operate with liquid water having a conductivity of less than 2 μS cm-1 (Hsieh, Page 2, Col. 2, Paragraph 1), which overlaps with the claimed range of near 1 microSiemens/cm (μS cm-1) to 50 milliSiemens/cm (mS cm-1).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have s a conductivity of less than 2 μS cm-1 for the liquid water as taught by Hsieh in the gas/liquid/plasma reactor. 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, a conductivity of less than 2 μS cm-1 would yield the predictable result of rendering the method of ‘639 operable (Hsieh, Page 2, Col. 2, Paragraph 1).
Regarding claim 13, modified ‘639 renders the method according to claim 5 obvious, as discussed above, wherein the flowing liquid film region has an annular shape (‘639, [0046]).
Regarding claim 14, modified ‘639 renders the method according to claim 6 obvious, as discussed above, wherein the inlet and the outlet to the gas/liquid/plasma reactor comprise an electrically conductive material (‘639, Fig. 2, [0041], [0074], electrically-conductive inlet capillary 201 and electrically-conductive outlet capillary 205).
Regarding claim 15, modified ‘639 renders the method according to claim 14 obvious, as discussed above, wherein the electrically conductive material is stainless steel (‘639, [0074]).
Regarding claim 16, modified ‘639 renders the method of claim 1 obvious, as discussed above, wherein the gas is air (‘639, [0044], “Air can be used as the gas or as part of the gas.”).
Regarding claim 17, modified ‘639 renders the method of claim 16 obvious, as discussed above, wherein nitrogen oxides are formed in the gas/liquid/plasma reactor (‘639, [0041]).
Regarding claims 18 and 20, modified ‘639 renders the method of claim 1 obvious, as discussed above, wherein the gas is the noble gas argon (‘639, [0044], [0069], [0104]).
Regarding claim 21, modified ‘639 renders the method of claim 1 obvious, as discussed above, further comprising injecting a target compound with the liquid and the gas (‘639, Fig. 4, [0097], 1,4-dioxane), such that the target compound will be reacted in the gas/liquid/plasma reactor (‘639, [0098], “The hybrid liquid/gas discharge reactor convers dioxane, TCA, and TCE to more biodegradable intermediates”).
Regarding claim 22, modified ‘639 renders the method of claim 21 obvious, as discussed above, but the embodiment contemplated for claim 21 above (‘639, Fig. 4, [0097]-[0098]) does not have an alkane as the target compound. However, ‘639 teaches generally that methane is a suitable organic compound for the method (‘639, [0015]-[0016]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have selected methane as the organic compound in ‘639 and for methane to thereby be the target compound to be reacted. The selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960), Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945), and MPEP § 2144.07. In the instant case, because methane was known to be a suitable material to react in ‘639’s method (‘639, [0012], [0015]-[0016]), it would have been obvious to select.
Regarding claims 23 and 25-26, modified ‘639 renders the method according to claim 22 obvious, as discussed above, wherein the alkane is methane (claim 26) (see rejection of claim 22 above), which is linear (claim 23) and a C1 alkane (claim 25).
Claims 1-4, 18, 20-23, 25-26, and 32-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bi (“One-step direct conversion of methane to methanol with water in non-thermal plasma”, 2022) in view of Ozkan (“DBD in burst mode: solution for more efficient CO2 conversion?”, 2016).
Regarding claim 1, Bi teaches a method of conducting reactions utilizing a gas/liquid/plasma reactor (Bi, Fig. 1 and Supplementary Figs. 5-6; Page 5, Col. 2, Paragraph 2), comprising the steps of:
providing a gas/liquid/plasma reactor (Bi, Supplementary Fig. 5);
providing a liquid and a gas defining a gas/liquid interface within the gas/liquid/plasma reactor (Bi, Page 5, Col. 2, Paragraph 2, flowing methane gas and 3mL H2O; Fig. 6a, CH4+He);
charging the liquid and gas inside the gas/liquid/plasma reactor (Bi, Page 5, Col. 2, Paragraph 2, plasma generated in the reactor), the charging comprising the application of a voltage to electrodes and thereby to the liquid and gas (Bi, Supplementary Figs. 5-6), the electrodes being oriented such that a plasma is propagated across the gas/liquid interface when the voltage is applied (Bi, Fig. 1 and Supplementary Figs. 5-6; Page 2, Col. 2, Paragraphs 1-2).
Bi does not teach that the application of voltage comprises a series of voltage bursts having an outer burst frequency, the bursts each comprising a series of voltage pulses having an inner burst pulse frequency. However, Ozkan teaches a method of operating a plasma reactor wherein the application of voltage comprises a series of voltage bursts having an outer burst frequency, the bursts each comprising a series of voltage pulses having an inner burst pulse frequency (Ozkan, Figure 2, bottom, Ton + Toff = 2 ms, corresponding to an outer burst pulse frequency of 500 Hz; inner burst pulse frequency = 28.6 kHz).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Bi’s method such that the application of voltage comprises a series of voltage bursts having an outer burst frequency, the bursts each comprising a series of voltage pulses having an inner burst pulse frequency, as Ozkan teaches that doing so improves energy efficiency (Ozkan, Fig. 4). Ozkan teaches that this results from higher electric fields in burst mode giving rise to higher electron temperatures (Ozkan, Page 8, Col. 1, Paragraph 1). A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to realize the advantage of improved energy efficiency taught by Ozkan with a reasonable expectation that such a benefit would apply to Bi’s method, as high electric fields in burst mode giving rise to higher electron temperatures would not be expected to be limited to Okzan’s reaction system.
Regarding claim 2, modified Bi renders the method according to claim 1 obvious, as discussed above, wherein the plasma discharge has an outer burst frequency of 500 Hz (Ozkan, Figure 2, bottom, Ton + Toff = 2 ms, corresponding to an outer burst pulse frequency of 500 Hz; see rejection of claim 1 above regarding obviousness of employing outer burst frequency as taught by Ozkan).
Further, Ozkan teaches indirectly that the outer burst pulse frequency is related to the energy efficiency of the process (Ozkan, Fig. 4a). As detailed on Page 3, Col. 1, Paragraph 2, Ozkan investigates the duty cycle by keeping a TON constant while varying a TOFF. As TON + TOFF is equivalent to the outer burst period and therefore inversely related to the outer burst frequency, varying TOFF has the effect of increasing or decreasing the outer burst frequency. In doing so, Ozkan indirectly relates the outer burst frequency to the energy efficiency.
As the energy efficiency is a variable that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the outer burst frequency, with energy efficiency both increasing/decreasing as outer burst frequency is increased/decreased, the precise outer burst frequency would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the outer burst frequency in Bi to obtain the desired energy efficiency as taught by Ozkan (Ozkan, Fig. 4a) (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223). “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
Regarding claim 3, modified Bi renders the method according to claim 1 obvious, as discussed above, wherein plasma discharge has a frequency of 10 kHz (Bi, Supplementary Fig. 8, period is 0.1 ms). While Bi does not teach that this frequency is an “inner burst frequency”, this frequency corresponds to fsignal as taught by Ozkan in the 100% duty cycle limit (Ozkan, Fig. 4). Modifying the duty cycle from 100% to a lower value is the same as going from a continuous mode of discharge to a burst mode of discharge, in which case the inner burst frequency is the same as fsignal, whereas the outer burst frequency is the same as frepetition as contemplated by Ozkan. Therefore, by adopting the burst mode of operation taught by Ozkan, it would have been obvious for Bi’s discharge frequency to become the inner burst pulse frequency as claimed, as this frequency is already known to be effective.
Regarding claim 4, modified Bi renders the method according to claim 1 obvious, as discussed above, wherein the voltage applied to the electrodes is approximately 27 kV (Bi, Page 5, Col. 2, Paragraph 2).
Regarding claims 18 and 20, modified Bi renders the method of claim 1 obvious, as discussed above, wherein the gas is the noble gas helium (Bi, Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 21, modified Bi renders the method of claim 1 obvious, as discussed above, further comprising injecting a target compound with the liquid and the gas (Bi, Page 5, Col. 2, Paragraph 2, flowing methane gas and 3mL H2O; Fig. 6a, CH4+He), such that the target compound will be reacted in the gas/liquid/plasma reactor (Bi, Fig. 6b, methanol produced from CH4).
Regarding claims 22-23 and 25-26, modified Bi renders the method of claim 21 obvious, as discussed above, wherein the target compound is methane (claim 26) (Bi, Page 5, Col. 2, Paragraph 2, flowing methane gas; Fig. 6a, CH4), which is an alkane (claim 22), linear (claim 23), and a C1 alkane (claim 25).
Regarding claims 32-34, modified Bi renders the method of claim 22 obvious, as discussed above, further comprising the step of generating at least one functionalized product from the organic compound (Bi, Fig. 6b, methanol), which is an alcohol (claim 33) and is methanol (claim 34).
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
Prosecution Insights