DETAILED ACTION
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4-6, 8, 9, 16, 17, 19, 21, 30-33, 34 and 36-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 20010029773 A1 to Hegelson (Hegelson).
In reference to independent claim 1, Hegelson discloses:
A method for decomposing particulate pollutants in an exhaust source (see Abstract), the method comprising:
(i) injecting or spraying, via a first series of nozzles (“second set of gas injectors”, see [0014]), a reducing fluid (ammonia) into the exhaust source, wherein the exhaust source contains the particulate pollutants (see [0015]);
(ii) injecting, via the first series of nozzles (“first set of gas injectors”, see [0014]) or a second series of nozzles, a combustible gas (“natural gas (or other fuel)”, see [0014]) into the exhaust source; and
(iii) igniting the combustible gas in the presence of the reducing fluid, thereby decomposing the particulate pollutants (see [0015]).
In reference to dependent claim 2, Hegelson further discloses: wherein the reducing fluid comprises a reducing gas (see [0014]).
In reference to dependent claim 4, the claim recites “the reducing liquid is made by infusing a liquid with a reducing gas and/or an alkaline cationic silicate, wherein the infusing involves mixing under turbulent conditions, wherein infusing the reducing gas and/or the alkaline cationic silicate reacts with the liquid produces the reducing fluid, wherein the reducing fluid has an oxidation reduction potential value of about -100 mV or more negative”. Even though claim 4 is directed to a method, the recitations in question do not recite a step that is positively performed as part of the method for decomposing particulate pollutants in the exhaust source. The reducing liquid made by the process recited in claim 4 is merely a product-by-process and, as such, it is not limited to the manipulation of the recited steps, but only by the structure/composition that is implied by the steps. See MPEP 2113(I).
Hegelson discloses all the steps of the method of claim 1 including the use of the reducing liquid made by the recited process in claim 4, i.e. by infusing a liquid with a reducing gas and a metasilicate, wherein the infusing involves mixing under turbulent conditions, wherein the reducing gas and/or the metasilicate reacts with the aqueous solution to produce a reducing liquid having the oxidation reduction potential (ORP) value of about -100 mV or more negative. Thus, Hegelson anticipates the invention as claimed in claim 4.
In reference to dependent claim 5, Hegelson further discloses: the exhaust source is an exhaust stack (annular after reactor 26, see Figs. 1-2).
In reference to independent claim 16 and dependent claim 17, Hegelson discloses:
A system for decomposing particulate pollutants (see Abstract), the system comprising:
(a) an exhaust stack (26) receiving particulate pollutants;
(b) a heating source or ignition source (ignition source 86); and
(c) a plurality of nozzles (40, 42), each nozzle injecting or spraying into the exhaust stack (see Fig. 2) either:
(i) reducing fluid from a reducing fluid exit line and combustible gas from a combustible gas exit line (see [0029]), wherein the reducing fluid exit line receives reducing fluid from a reducing fluid injection line and the combustible gas exit line receives combustible gas from a combustion gas injection line (see [0031]), or
(ii) a mixture of reducing fluid and combustible gas from a single fluid exit line, wherein the reducing fluid flows into the single fluid exit line via a reducing fluid injection line and the combustible gas flows into the single fluid exit line via a combustible gas injection line, or
(iii) a combination of (i) and (ii),
wherein the nozzles and fluid injection lines are configured so that both the reducing fluid and the combustible gas are injected or sprayed into the exhaust stack (see [0029]), and wherein the heating source or ignition source ignites the combustible gas injected into the exhaust stack in the presence of the reducing fluid (see [0034]), thereby resulting in decomposition of the particulate pollutants in the exhaust stack and reduction in particulate pollutants exiting the exhaust stack (see [0030]).
In reference to dependent claim 19, Hegelson further discloses: the single fluid exit line, the reducing fluid exit line, and/or the combustible gas exit line laterally encircle the exhaust stack in a ring arrangement (tubular injection ring 54, see [0031]) and are connectively linked to the plurality of nozzles (see [0032]) and optionally are supported by a support member connectively linked to a wall of the exhaust stack (this is optional and thus not addressed).
In reference to dependent claims 6 and 21, Hegelson further discloses: the exhaust stack is in communication with a manufacturing plant or a vehicle (jet engine 12, see e.g. [0015]).
In reference to dependent claim 30, Hegelson further discloses:
A method for decomposing particulate pollutants (see Abstract) from the system of claim 16, the method comprising:
(i) injecting or spraying, via the plurality of nozzles, the reducing fluid and the combustible gas into the exhaust stack (see [0014]); and
(ii) igniting the combustible gas in the presence of the reducing fluid, wherein the particulate pollutants are decomposed and the amount of the particulate pollutants exiting the exhaust stack is reduced (see [0015]).
In reference to dependent claim 31, Hegelson further discloses: the reducing fluid comprises a reducing gas (Ammonia functions as a reductant, see [0015]).
In reference to dependent claims 8 and 33, Hegelson further discloses: the combustible gas (natural gas, see [0015]) comprises hydrogen, oxygen, and/or an alkane (natural gas is mainly composed of methane, which is the simplest alkane).
In reference to dependent claims 9 and 34, Hegelson further discloses: the combustible gas is ignited by an ignition source (86) (see [0034]) or by heating the exhaust stack to a temperature of at least 454 degrees Fahrenheit.
In reference to dependent claims 36-38, Hegelson further discloses: the exhaust emitted from the exhaust stack is substantially or essentially free of particulate pollutants (ammonia when injected into the exhaust as a reductant eliminates up to 90% of NOx therein, see [0030]) having an average diameter of about 500 nm or more (emission standards for PM10 and PM2.5 in emissions including in jet engine exhaust, see [0005]). In other words, particulate pollutants in the exhaust exiting the exhaust stack have decomposed by at least 50% from the method.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 18 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 20 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 22, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to independent claims 1 and 16, Applicant argued that the prior art Helgeson does not disclose igniting the combustible gas in the presence of the reducing fluid. This is unpersuasive because Helgeson discloses injecting the reductant, such as ammonia (NH.sub.3) or related compounds (e.g., urea), when the exhaust temperature is 1650-1850oF (see [0035]), and igniting the natural gas to raise the exhaust temperature to 1850-2200oF (see [0015] and [0033]). In other words, natural gas in being ignited when exhaust temperature is below 1850oF in order to raise exhaust temperature to at least 1850oF (i.e. to 1850-2200oF). At the same time, ammonia/urea is concurrently being injected as exhaust temperature is below 1850oF (i.e. between 1650oF and 1850oF). As such, Helgeson discloses igniting the natural gas in the presence of ammonia/urea.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Ngoc T Nguyen whose telephone number is (571)272-7176. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Steve McAllister can be reached at (571) 272-6785. 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.
/NGOC T NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3799