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 .
Status of the Claims
In the reply of 01/23/2026, the following has occurred:
Claim(s) 1-2, 10, 14, 16, 18, 22-24, 26, 28, 30, 32, 34, 36, and 52-53 is/are amended
Claim(s) 27 and 29 is/are canceled
Claim(s) 1-26, 28, and 30-53 is/are pending, with claim(s) 3, 5-9, 38, and 40-44 being withdrawn and hereby rejoined, see Election/Restrictions section below.
Response to Arguments
The previous objections to the specification have been overcome as per Applicant’s supplemental abstract filed on 01/23/2026.
The previous objections to the drawings have been overcome as per Applicant’s supplemental specification and drawings filed on 01/23/2026.
The previous rejections to the claims under 35 U.S.C. §§ 112(b), 112(d) have been overcome as per Applicant’s amended claims filed on 01/23/2026.
The previous double patenting rejections to the claims have been partially overcome in view of the TD filed on 02/12/2026; however, claim 1 is still rejected as detailed further below.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 01/23/2026, with respect to the previous rejection have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of the claims has been withdrawn.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 1 and 36 are each allowable. Claims 3, 5-9, 38, and 40-44, previously withdrawn from consideration as a result of a restriction requirement, require all the limitations of an allowable claim. Pursuant to the procedures set forth in MPEP § 821.04(a), the restriction requirement among species I-VI, as set forth in the Office action mailed on 02/12/2025, is hereby withdrawn and claims 3, 5-9, 38, and 40-44 are hereby rejoined and fully examined for patentability under 37 CFR 1.104. In view of the withdrawal of the restriction requirement, applicant(s) are advised that if any claim presented in a divisional application is anticipated by, or includes all the limitations of, a claim that is allowable in the present application, such claim may be subject to provisional statutory and/or nonstatutory double patenting rejections over the claims of the instant application. Once the restriction requirement is withdrawn, the provisions of 35 U.S.C. 121 are no longer applicable. See In re Ziegler, 443 F.2d 1211, 1215, 170 USPQ 129, 131-32 (CCPA 1971). See also MPEP § 804.01.
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 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over the claims of the following copending Application Nos. (reference applications), as further detailed in the table below:
18/046,338 – Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the hydrogen and reactor or furnace of ‘338 is a material and heat consuming unit as claimed in the instant application.
18/046,321 – Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the steel of ‘321 is a material as claimed in the instant application.
18/046,333 – Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the oil of ‘333 is a material as claimed in the instant application.
18/046,357 – Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the incinerated substances of ‘357 is a material as claimed in the instant application.
Claim of Instant Application
CLAIM OF 18/046,338
CLAIM OF 18/046,321
CLAIM OF 18/046,333
CLAIM OF 18/046,357
1
26
26
24
25
These are provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejections because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-26, 28, and 30-35 are 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.
Claims 36-53 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claim 1. The claim has been amended to include the subject matter of previous claim 29, and is allowable for the reasons indicated in the 07/24/2025 Non-Final Rejection. However, this claim is currently rejected under double patenting.
Regarding claim 36. The claim has been amended to include substantially the same allowable subject matter as claim 1, and is allowed for the same reasons as claim 1.
Regarding claim 52. The claim has been amended to include substantially the same allowable subject matter as claim 1, and is allowed for the same reasons as claim 1.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
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 Kurt J Wolford whose telephone number is (571)272-9945. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 AM - 4:00 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, Michael G Hoang can be reached on (571)272-6460. 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.
/KURT WOLFORD/Examiner, Art Unit 3762 /MICHAEL G HOANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3762