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 .
The prior art references are related art to the present invention (US 2019/0046947 to Strohm et al and US 2014/0159572 to Risby et al) neither reference, taken alone or in any obvious combination, teaches or suggest the specific combination of claim elements recited in independent claim 1, namely:
A gas delivery system,
A plasma reaction chamber,
A microwave subsystem, and
An effluent separation and disposal assembly, where these components are uniquely integrated to process a hydrocarbon-containing inflow gas into distinct, high purity downstream components (e.g., acetylene and hydrogen).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-28 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-24 of U.S. Patent No. 11,634,324. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because a direct claim to claim comparison demonstrate that the structural and functional limitations of pending independent claim 1 are substantially identical to, or an obvious optimization of, the feature already protected in issued independent claim 1 of the ‘324 patent. Issued claimed 1 defines a gas processing system featuring a gas delivery subsystem, a plasma reaction chamber, and a microwave subsystem configured to energize a hydrocarbon-containing inflow gas to generate acetylene and hydrogen. Claim 1 recites this identical hardware combination and merely appends minor operational ranges, specific microwave frequencies, or standard fluid communication interfaces. A person having ordinary skill in the art would consider these additions to be standard engineering choices, rendering the pending claims an obvious variation that lacks independent patentable weight.
Furthermore, the dependent claims in the pending application (claims 2-28) fails to introduce any novel, non-obvious structural deviations when mapped directly against the dependent claims of the ‘324 reference patent (claims 2-25). While the issued dependent claims established the fundamental baseline of the plasma reaction environment, the pending dependent claims merely narrow those exact limitations by specifying conventional chemical metrics, standard geometric tolerances, or expected target output concentrations. Because these minor parameter modifications represent predictable field optimizations of the plasma conversion process already claimed in the ‘324 patent, it would have been entirely obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to adjust these variables to achieve the claimed efficiency. The dependent claims are therefore rejected because their scope is fully anticipated or rendered obvious by the broader context of reference claims.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-28 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-27 of U.S. Patent No. 11,471,852. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because a direct claim to claim comparison shows that pending claim independent claim 1 is an obvious variation of issued independent claim 1 of the ‘852 patent. Issued claim 1 explicitly recites a specific microwave plasma architecture comprising a gas delivery subsystem, a waveguide assembly, and a reaction chamber where a hydrocarbon containing inflow gas is mixed with a carrier gas under precise flow rates to sustain a stable plasma discharge. Pending claim 1 recites this identical core architecture but merely adds routine, predictable parameters such as generic cooling jacket, a standard pressure transducer, or basic automated flow valves. A person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that adding these standard industrial monitoring and cooling components to the specific plasma hardware already claimed in ‘852 patent is a matter of routine engineering design. Therefore, pending claim 1 is rendered obvious by issued claim 1.
Furthermore, a comparison of the dependent claims reveals that pending claims 2-28 fail to introduce any patentable distinct features over issued dependent claims 2-27 of the ‘852 patent. The ‘852 dependent claims already map out specific operational boundaries, such as precise microwave frequencies, particular molar ratio of methane to hydrogen feed gases, and target conversion efficiencies for high purity acetylene generation. The pending dependent claims merely narrow or slightly shift exact chemical and physical thresholds such as, slightly modifying the gas velocity or internal chamber pressure ranges. Because adjusting these operational parameters represents predictable optimization within the exact plasma environment already claimed in the ‘852 patent, it would have been entirely obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to vary these metrics to maximize product yield. The dependent claims are thus rejected because their scope is fully anticipated or rendered obvious by the reference claims.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-28 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 11,634,323. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because a direct claim to claim comparison demonstrates that the structural and operational boundaries of pending claim 1 are substantially identical to or an obvious modification of, the features already protected in issue independent claim 1 of the ‘323 reference patent. Issued claim 1 defines a gas processing system explicitly featuring the core elements:
- A gas delivery system,
- A plasma reaction chamber,
- A microwave subsystem, and
- An effluent separation and disposal assembly.
Pending independent claim 1 recites this identical four-part architectural arrangement but merely appends routine, predictable configurations such as standard structural insulation, conventional fluid control valves, or basic monitoring equipment. A person having ordinary skill in the art would consider the integration of these well-known industrial components to be a matter of routine engineering design to monitor the output of the core plasma system already captured in ‘323 patent, rendering the pending independent claim an obvious variation that lacks independent patentable weight.
Furthermore, a comparative analysis of the dependent claims reveals that pending claims 2-28 fail to introduce any novel, non-obvious limitations when mapped directly against issued dependent claims 2-18 of the ‘323 reference patent. The ‘323 dependent claims establish precise structural thresholds and component characteristics that mirror or directly suggest the variations sought in the pending claims.
Gas composition optimization recites that the hydrogen-rich reactant gas comprises a recycle gas. The pending dependent claims merely narrow this step by specifying conventional recycle flow rates or standard purity limits of the recycled stream, which PHOSITA would recognize a routine process optimization.
Chamber geometry and delivery details an elongate reactor tube, and one or more nozzles oriented at an angle relative to a longitudinal axis. The pending claims merely state predictable structural dimensions or explicit angular degree metrics for these exact nozzles. Selecting a specific angle or geometric ratio within the bounds disclosed in the ‘323 patent is an ordinary design choice to stabilize plasma or optimize gas vortex flows.
Operational metrics such as, ratio in the pending claims merely narrow or slightly shift this metric into standard fractional ranges or expected mass-balance thresholds. Because adjusting these variables represents predictable engineering experimentation within the exact plasma cracking and effluent separation environment already claimed in the ‘323 reference patent, it would have been entirely obvious to a PHOSITA to vary these metrics to achieve standard chemical processing efficiencies. The dependent claims are therefore rejected because their scope is fully anticipated or rendered obvious by the broader context of the reference claims.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAFAR F PARSA whose telephone number is (571)272-0643. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:00 AM-6:30PM.
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, Scarlett Goon can be reached at 571-270-5241. 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.
/JAFAR F PARSA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1692
Prosecution Insights