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
Applicant's election with traverse of group I in the reply filed on 1/7/26 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that independent claims 9 and 15 include all of the subject matter of independent claim 1. This is not found persuasive because claim 9 does not require a controller and claim 15 does not require any pressure sensors among other elements not required by claims 9 and 15.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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 1-8 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 1 recites the controller is configured to perform the clean in place procedure only when there is a pressure difference between the pressure at any one of the feedstock tees and a pressure at another downstream feedstock tee or the reactor outlet. Based on the claim limitation, the clean in place procedure will always be triggered because there will always be a pressure difference between an upstream and downstream inlet and/or the outlet as the pressure of the fluid will by necessity drop as it flows from the inlet to the outlet. If the pressure did not drop there would be no driving force to move the fluid from the inlet to the outlet and thus no flow. Additionally, it is unclear what a pressure difference between the two inlets would indicate about the status of the reactor or any need to provide a cleaning of the reactor.
Claim 1 recites that during the CIP procedure the controller is configured to not impair operation of the SCWO reactor and at least one other section of the SCWO reactor remains at a sufficiently high temperature so that proper reaction takes place. The specification discusses that the operation of the reactor is not impaired because other sections of the reactor remain at a sufficiently high temperature (par 15 of the printed publication). Therefore, it is unclear what the controller is configured to do to not impair the operation of the reactor because the high temperature of another section of the reactor is also required to be maintained (line 34-35 of claim 1).
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the CIP operating mode". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes the claim is assumed to recite, “the CIP procedure”.
Claim 21 recites the limitation "the CIP operating mode". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes the claim is assumed to recite, “the CIP procedure”.
Claim 21 recites the limitation "said at least one of said plurality of feedstock tees". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The additional claims are rejected as depending from claim 1.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 3-4 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 3 recites a type of fluid to be used within the system but does not provide any further structural limitations to the recited system.
Claim 4 recite the type of additive supplied to the system but does not provide any further structural limitations to the system.
Claim 8 recites a process of which feedstock tee is receiving a co-fuel and where the cleaning procedure is taking place. Claim 8 does not recite any further structural limitations to the system. Additionally, claim 1 has been amended to recite the controller is configured to not impair operation of the SCWO reactor during the CIP procedure. The process recited in claim 8 is what the controller is configured to do to not impair the operation of the SCWO reactor as discussed in the specification.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-8 and 21 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Applicant’s arguments regarding the combination of Whiting and Coppola with respect to the claims as amended on 4/28/26 are persuasive and the claims are allowable over the prior art for the reasons stated by applicant.
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
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 BENJAMIN M KURTZ whose telephone number is (571)272-8211. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30-5.
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, Bobby Ramdhanie can be reached at 571-270-3240. 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.
/BENJAMIN M KURTZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1779
Prosecution Insights