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 a pressure sensor proximate a SCWO reactor inlet and outlet. However, the claim is directed to a SCWO reactor fouling prevention and mitigation system and it is unclear if the claim positively recites the SCWO reactor as part of the claimed system. For examination purposes the reactor is assumed to be present as part of the claimed system.
Claim 1 recites a controller which triggers a clean in place procedure. However, it is unclear if the recited controller is actually performing the recited procedure or if some other element is performing the procedure. For examination purposes the claim is assumed to recite a controller configured to perform a clean in place procedure.
Claim 1 also recites the clean in place procedure being triggered when there is a pressure difference between any two of the inlets, a feedstock inlet and an outlet. Based on the claim limitation, the clean in place procedure will always be triggered because there will always be a pressure difference between either of the inlets and 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 3 recites the limitation "said washing fluid". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes the claim is assumed to recite, “a washing fluid”.
Claim 6 recites the blender mixes said additive with the feedstock prior to reaching the SCWO reactor which is a process limitation. Therefore, claim 6 recites both an apparatus and method steps of using the apparatus. A single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. See In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litigation, 639 F.3d 1303, 1318, 97 USPQ2d 1737, 1748-49 (Fed. Cir. 2011). (See MPEP 2173.05(p))
Claim 6 recites the limitation "said feedstock". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes the claim is assumed to recite, “a feedstock”.
Claim 7 recites the heat exchanger preheats the at least one additive and the feedstock which is a process limitation. Therefore, claim 7 recites both an apparatus and method steps of using the apparatus. A single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. See In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litigation, 639 F.3d 1303, 1318, 97 USPQ2d 1737, 1748-49 (Fed. Cir. 2011). (See MPEP 2173.05(p))
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 the type of washing fluid which is a recitation of 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.
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Whiting US 5,560,823 in view of Coppola et al. US 2018/0010057.
Claim 1, Whiting teaches an SCWO reactor fouling prevention system comprising: a pressure sensor proximate a reactor inlet, a pressure sensor proximate a reactor outlet and a clean in place procedure initiated by monitoring the pressure difference between the pressure sensors at the inlet and outlet where a portion of the reactor is washed with a fluid supplied through the at least one feedstock tee (fig. 1, col. 9, lines 15-20). Whiting does not expressly teach a controller configured to perform the recited clean in place procedure or at least one feedstock tee and a pressure sensor located at the feedstock tee. The use of a controller to initiate a clean in place procedure such as in Whiting would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as a way to automate the system.
Coppola teaches a SCW reactor comprising at least one feed stock tee (at 122, 124, 126) which provides a feedstock to the reactor (fig. 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the feed stock tee of Coppola as the temperature of the reactor is controlled by the introduction of feedstock into the reactor in place of the heat exchangers of Whiting as this allows for both the control of the temperature of the reactor but also allows greater control of the mixture within the reactor (par 22, 25). Whiting further teaches that the pressure drop over the system is monitored by the use of measuring pressure at the inlet and the outlet of the system. Therefore, it would have been obvious to provide a pressure sensor at the feedstock tee as a way to monitor the pressure drop across the reactor from each inlet to the outlet to determine the pressure drop over the reactor and to initiate the cleaning procedure.
Claim 2, Coppola teaches three feedstock tees but does not teach a fourth. Providing an additional feed stock tee is a recitation of adding one more tee. Mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced, In re Harza, 124 USPQ 378 (1960).
Claim 3, the recitation of a washing fluid does not provide a structural limitation to the system. Coppola teaches a washing fluid is water (fig. 1).
Claim 4 does not provide any further structural limitations to the system. Coppola teaches providing additives to the system via the feedstock tee to affect the density of the fluid within the reactor and thus a thickener would be included.
Claim 5, the prior art does not expressly teach a metering system to control the supply of additives to the feed stock tee. However, such a metering system would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as a way to control the system and the use of the recited sensors are all well-known types of sensors used in the art to monitor and provide control to a system.
Claim 6, Coppola further teaches a blender (119) upstream of the feedstock tee the blender configured to mix additives with feedstock prior to reaching the reactor (fig. 1).
Claim 7, Whiting further teaches a heat exchanger located at the inlet of the reactor and thus would be located between the blender of Coppola and the reactor (fig. 1).
Claim 8, the system of Whiting in view of Coppola is capable of feeding feedstock and a co-fuel to any portion of the reactor.
Conclusion
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