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
The election is noted. Claim 17 is withdrawn.
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 8, 15 and 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 8 is unclear what the protector is. Is it an apparatus feature or an infeed material? What is being protected? What activity is meant? The last two lines are unclear. What two things are being contacted, or does the claim try to say that contact is avoided?
The repeated use of ‘and’ in claim 15 and 20 makes it unclear as to what the (two?) choices are. They should be listed separately and separated by the word ‘or’.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 13, 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a2 as being anticipated by Kuhn et al. 10946362.
Kuhn teaches, especially in col. 4-8 and fig 8, a redox cycle of a metal oxide material treated with H2 and water. Also taught are CO2 and input feed lines with their own preheater and two reactors which can be alternated between oxidation and reducing cycles, with the outlets being merged.
For claim 2, this is a process limitation which does not limit the apparatus. However, see col. 9, in which the temperatures can be chosen to be the same.
For claim 13, see fig. 2.
For claim 14, Mn and Fe can be in the metal oxide.
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.
Claims 6, 7, 16, 18, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuhn et al. 10946362.
Kuhn, above, does not explicitly teach the features of these claims.
For claim 6, initial pressurization is obvious to create a fluidized bed if that embodiment is desired; see col. 8 lines 55-65.
For claim 7, assuring that the infeed gas is free of contaminants is obvious to preserve the vacancies of the catalyst; see col. 15-16.
For claim 16, col. 3 teaches any CO2 source, so using an exhaust pipe is obvious to reduce greenhouse gas.
For claim 18, this is a process limitation which does not limit the apparatus. See col. 9, in which the temperatures can be chosen to be the same.
For claim 19, see fig. 2.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuhn as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Guyomarc’h 9327986.
Guyomarc’h teaches in the figure initial heat exchange with infeed gas, in a chemical looping scheme. Using it in the process of Kuhn is obvious to provide the desired temperature for initiation of the process.
Claims 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuhn as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Shekhawat et al. 20190282992.
For claims 9-11, Shekhawat teaches, especially on pg. 4, microwave heating of a catalyst during cyclic processing. Using it in the process of Kuhn is obvious to heat the catalyst when necessary and minimize damaging it.
Claims 4, 5, 12, 15 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuhn as applied to claims 1 and 16 above, and further in view of JP 201516467.
For claims 15, 20, ‘467 teaches outlet gas purifier/compressor/dryer paras 7, 8, 14 to separate CO2 in a chemical looping system. Using a ‘cylinder’ is obvious given that it is the shape of a normal pipe. Using the separator in the process of Kuhn is obvious to separate out the CO2 for use in further looping.
For claim 4, CO2 is made from combustion; see para 13.
For claims 5 and 12, oxygen and CO are contaminants in the product, thus removing them is obvious. See para 20.
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 1-16, 18-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-7, 9-13 of copending Application No. 18/019561 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they claim common subject matter; the switching conditions are a process consideration, not an apparatus one.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-16, 18-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-7 of copending Application No. 18/019554 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they claim common subject matter.
See claim 3 of the copending case.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
The copending case has been allowed but not patented.
Claims 1-16, 18-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3, 5-7, 14, 16 of copending Application No. 17/277962 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they claim common subject matter.
Note that present clam 4 provides the initial gas feed of the copending application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
17/277962 is allowed but not patented.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STUART L HENDRICKSON whose telephone number is (571)272-1351. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 9 to 5. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Anthony Zimmer, can be reached on 571-270-3591. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
/STUART L HENDRICKSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1736
Prosecution Insights