DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-20 have been amended. Claims 1-20 are pending in the instant application.
Priority
This application is a National Phase Application of International Application Serial No. PCT/FR2022/051344, filed July 5, 2022, which claims the priority to France Patent Application No. 2107243, filed July 5, 2021.
Information Disclosure Statements
Applicants’ Information Disclosure Statement, filed on 01/03/2024, has been considered. Please refer to Applicant’s copy of the PTO-1449 submitted herewith.
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-20 are under examination on the merits.
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 1-20 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Specifically, claim 1 contains a phrase “a nuclear radiation such as alpha and beta”, which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the narrower limitation (i.e., alpha and beta) following the term “such as” is part of the broader limitation “a nuclear radiation” of the claimed invention. A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). Therefore, claim 1 is indefinite. Claims 2-20 depending on claim 1 are rejected, accordingly.
In addition, claims 2, 14, 16, and 19 also contain the term “such as”, which renders the claims indefinite because it is unclear whether the narrower limitation following the term “such as” is part of the broader limitation of the claimed invention.
Claims 2, 14, 16, and 18-19 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Specifically, claims 2, 14, 16, and 18-19 contain the term “preferably” and/or “preferred”, which render the claims indefinite because it is unclear whether the narrower scope of the limitation following the phrase is part of the broader scope of the limitation of solute.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 11 contains a phrase “at least one waveguide (Fig3-I)”, which renders the claims indefinite because the term “waveguide (Fig3-I)” is not defined.
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 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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suk Ma et al., Energy & Fuels, (2014), v.28, p.7721-7725 in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2002/0071790A1 (“the `790 publication”) to Woods et al., CN112662413A (“the`413 publication”) to Wang et al., US2010258429A1 (“the`429 publication”) to Nicolas Ugolin, CN210392588U (“the `588 patent”), and US6,855,301B (“the `301 patent”).
Applicant’s claim 1 is drawn to a device for producing dihydrogen from CO and H2O, according to the gas-water reaction: (a) CO+H2O -> CO2+H2, characterized in that it comprises: a reaction tube in which a gas mixture comprising CO and H2O is intended to circulate, this reaction tube having a diameter of between 5 mm and 500 mm, and a length of between 50 mm and 10 m, a first gasification reactor in which the reaction tube is disposed so as to subject the reaction tube to a first thermal energy generated in operation by the first gasification reactor, and at least one device for subjecting the reaction tube to at least one second electromagnetic energy, chosen from an electromagnetic radiation ranging from gamma rays to radio waves above 500 kHz, a radiation in the visible infrared and ultraviolet waves, a gamma radiation, a microwave radiation and a nuclear radiation such as alpha and beta.
Determination of the scope and content of the prior art (MPEP §2141.01)
Suk Ma et al. discloses an apparatus for gas-water reaction to generate hydrogen (H2) illustrated in Figure 1(a)-(c). Figure 1(b)
PNG
media_image1.png
317
589
media_image1.png
Greyscale
is a schematic diagram of the WGSR (water-gas shift reaction) system with a cylindrical quartz reactor. Figure 1(a) displays the structure of an atmospheric microwave plasma system consisting of the 2.45 GHZ microwave generator, with WR-340 waveguide components and a microwave plasma torch as a field applicator. The steam from a steam generator served as the discharge gas and produced a stable steam plasma torch with swirl flow. The necessary steam temperature for ignition of the plasm in the discharge tube must be 150 °C or higher. Figure 1(c) is drawing of the RVR (reverse vortex reactor). See left column at p.7722. In addition, Suk Ma et al. discloses the RVR has a length of 470 mm, an outer diameter of 48.6 mm, and an inner diameter of 27.2 mm. See right column at p.7722.
Ascertainment of the difference between the prior art and the claims (MPEP §2141.02)
The difference between the device of claim 1 and the apparatus of Suk Ma et al.
is that the prior art does not specifically teach arranging the first gasification reactor such that the reaction tubes are subjected to a first heat energy generated by the first gasification reactor in operation. Instead, Suk Ma et al. teaches the steam used as a reactant from a steam generator served as the discharge gas and produced a stable steam plasma torch with swirl flow. The disclosure by Suk Ma et al. “The necessary steam temperature for ignition of the plasm in the discharge tube must be 150 °C or higher” suggests the section for introducing steam before the plasma reaction tube in Figure 1 (b) needs to be heated in order to keep the necessary steam temperature for ignition of the plasm in the discharge tube must be 150 °C or higher.
Finding of prima facie obviousness--rational and motivation (MPEP §2142-2413)
The instantly claimed device would have been obvious over the apparatus of Suk Ma et al. because arranging the first gasification reactor such that the reaction tubes are subjected to a first heat energy generated by the first gasification reactor in operation is suggested by the same prior art Suk Ma et al. based on the disclosure that the necessary steam temperature for ignition of the plasm in the discharge tube must be 150 °C or higher. In addition, the difference is also further taught and/or suggested by the `790 publication. The `790 publication discloses FIG. 1, a diagrammatic cross-section through an integrated reactor of the invention showing an autothermal reformer assembly located within a waste gas oxidizer assembly, showing the configuration of an integrated reactor 10 consisting essentially of two components, namely an autothermal reformer assembly (ART) 12 contained within an exhaust gas oxidizer (WGO) assembly 14. The ATR assembly 12 is typically positioned by insertion within the WGO 14 so as to benefit from the thermal output produced by the WGO assembly 14. Although the ATR consists primarily of CPO and SMR reactions, some water gas shift (WGS) reactions can also take place within the ATR, with the WGS reaction reacting some of the CO produced during the CPO reaction with some of the steam to produce additional hydrogen (see paragraphs 17-18, 41 of the specification). As can be seen, the `790 publication teaches integrating an ATR reactor containing a WGS inside an exhaust gas oxidizer, utilizing the heat generated by oxidative combustion to provide heat to the ATR reactor. In order to increase the heat utilization efficiency, the skilled person is motivated to provide an oxidative combustion reactor (i.e., equivalent to a gasification reactor) outside the gas water reactor in Suk Ma et al. Therefore, Suk Ma et al. in view of the `790 publication would have rendered claim 1 obvious.
In terms of claim 2, Suk Ma et al. teaches the reaction tube made of quartz, see Figure 1(b).
In terms of claims 3-4, even though Suk Ma et al. teaches hydrogen production by the WGSR using atmospheric steam plasma torch system with a reverse vortex reactor (RVR) can eliminate the need for catalysts, the prior art does not teach away from using a catalyst for hydrogen production by the WGSR for disadvantage the reaction. Actually, Suk Ma et al. acknowledged using catalysts such as Pt/v-Al2O3 and Pt/TiO2 for the WGSR reaction, see right column at p.7723. The reaction tube lumen is a catalyst-coated and arranged perpendicularly to the main axis of the reaction tube is a routine optimization design in order to improve the gas-water reaction efficiency, which is further taught and suggested by the `413 publication.
In terms of claims 5-8, the use of waveguides and the generation of microwaves by magnetrons are disclosed by Suk Ma et al., see Figures 1(a)-(b). In terms of the use of an optical fiber to direct electromagnetic radiation into the reactor to provide heat is a conventional technical means of routine skill in the art.
In terms of claim 9, the specific type and structure of the gasification reactor is further taught and/or suggested by the `429 publication, see paragraphs [37-42 and 120], and Figure 2.
In terms of claim 10, the cyclonic gasification reactor comprising a longitudinal inlet comprising a double set of propellers is further taught and/or suggested by the `588 patent, see paragraph [21].
In terms of claims 11-15, see the `429 publication [0073, 0095, 0100, and 0189].
In terms of claim 16, the present specification (see page 6, paragraph 6, page 7, paragraph 4) discloses a process for preparing carbon molecular clusters from carbon monoxide, where vibrational energy modes of carbon monoxide are excited in the reaction mixture, thereby causing the carbon monoxide to undergo disproportional reactions to form carbon atoms. The method of the present invention comprises using an applied DC field on the plasma generated by the vibrational excitation. D.C. electric fields can be used to enhance the synthesis process in different ways. The `301 patent discloses the promotion of carbon monoxide disproportionation by plasma. Those skilled in the art would have been motivated to use CO generated in gas reactors for preparation of carbon materials. Further, providing a tube permeable to microwaves, permeable to electric and magnetic fields as the reactor material is easy for a person skilled in the art, and the specific material falls within the scope of conventional selection and adjustment. Providing a waveguide to facilitate microwave transmission is taught by Suk Ma et al. It is easy for a person skilled in the art to arrange a conductive shaft and a fine thruster, the material of the conductive shaft being within the category of conventional adjustments, the diameter of the fine thruster being within the category of conventional adjustments. The provision of a lid over the reactor and a collection tube in the center of the lid to collect the gas product is a routine practice, with the tube diameter is taught by Suk Ma et al. See right column at p.7722.
In terms of claims 17-20, they are conventional techniques in the art, and would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art over the disclosures of the cited prior art references above.
Conclusions
Claims 1-20 are rejected.
Telephone Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Yong L. Chu, whose telephone number is (571)272-5759. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30am-5:00pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Amber R. Orlando can be reached on 571-270-3149. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Status Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/YONG L CHU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1731
Prosecution Insights