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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment filed on 10/21/2025 is acknowledged.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/21/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues KR ‘277 to Jae “does not suggest anywhere that its system is suitable for the treatment of exhaust gases from livestock sheds” (see Remarks, page 8, 2nd full paragraph). The argument is not persuasive because Jae specifically discloses treating waste gas containing ammonia and water (see [0001]) and that its system is applicable to many air environments in which contain these waste gases (see [0002] and [0003]).
Applicant argues “Jaes does not disclose or suggest the H2S sorbent material upstream of the ammonia storage material that the present claims require”. This argument is not persuasive because, firstly, Jae was relied upon solely for the missing claimed dehumidifier system. Secondly, copending claim 11 in Application No. 18/163,940 (now U.S. Patent No. 12,427,475) recites “a contaminant sorbent material upstream of the plurality of sorbent beds wherein the contaminant is selected from … H2S”, claim 1 in U.S. Patent No. 12,325,003 comprises “an H2S sorbent material upstream of the ammonia storage material”, and claim 7 in U.S. Patent No. 12,011,690 recites “a contaminant sorbent material upstream of the plurality of sorbent beds wherein the contaminant is selected from … H2S”.
Applicant argues “Joes does not disclose or suggest the problem of poisoning of either an adsorbent material or a catalyst” (see Remarks, page 8, last paragraph bridging page 9). The examiner agrees; however, Jae was relied upon for the missing claimed dehumidifier system. Jae recognizes desire to remove moisture prior to treatment of ammonia to increase efficiency of ammonia removal (see [0013] and [0019]).
Applicant argues that the dehumidifier system of Jae differs from the type required by Applicant (see Remarks, page 9, 1st full paragraph). The argument is not persuasive because Jae discloses, “The relative humidity controller 130 may be composes of any device and apparatus …” (see [0020]). Thus, Jae’s disclosure would encompass Applicant’s claimed dehumidifier system.
With respect to Applicant’s position that it is “premature to determine whether a need exists to file a terminal disclaimer” over copending Application No. 18/069579, the provisional double patenting rejections are maintained since pending claims are not allowable at this point in the prosecution.
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.
Claims1-10, 12, 15-20, 22, and 24-25 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-13, 15-17, and 19-22 of copending Application No. 18/069579 (hereinafter “copending Application ‘579”). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because each set of claims is directed to an exhaust system for treatment of a humid exhaust gas comprising ammonia. Claims 1, 4, 5, 7 and 11 in copending Application ‘579 encompass instant claim1. The remaining claims are substantially similar to one another.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1, 4-10, 12, 15-20, 22, and 24-25 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 11 and 15-18 of copending Application No. 18/163940, now U.S. Patent No. 12,427,475 (hereinafter “Patent ‘475”) in view of KR 20160012277 (hereinafter “KR ‘277”). The instant claims and the copending Application ‘579 are each directed to an exhaust system for treatment of a humid exhaust gas comprising ammonia. The claims in Patent ‘475 do not teach or suggest a dehumidifier system as recited in the instant claims. KR ‘277 is directed to a waste gas treatment apparatus for treating waste gas containing ammonia and water (equivalent to claimed humid exhaust gas). See [0001]. The reference teaches the waste gas is sent to a relative humidity controller such as a dehumidification apparatus to reduce the relative humidity [0006] and [0020] and then passes to an adsorption concentrator [0022] and [0023]. The adsorption concentrator comprises a front-end material which adsorbs moisture [0040]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicants’ invention to modify the copending Application ‘940 by incorporating therein dehumidification apparatus and a front-end adsorption concentrator (instant claimed dehumidifier system) to reduce humidity and to further adsorb moisture of the waste gas to achieve increased efficient treatment of ammonia containing waste gas [0013].
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claims 1, 4-10, 12, 15-20, 22, and 24-25 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-21 of U.S. Patent No. 12325003 (hereinafter “Patent ‘003) in view of KR 20160012277 (hereinafter “KR ‘277”). The instant claims and the claims of Patent ‘003 are each directed to an exhaust system for treatment of an exhaust gas comprising ammonia. The claims in the Patent ‘003 do not include a dehumidifier system as recited in the instant claims. KR ‘277 is directed to a waste gas treatment apparatus for treating waste gas containing ammonia and water (equivalent to claimed humid exhaust gas). See [0001]. KR ‘277 reference teaches the waste gas is sent to a relative humidity controller such as a dehumidification apparatus to reduce the relative humidity [0006] and [0020] and then passes to an adsorption concentrator [0022] and [0023]. The adsorption concentrator comprises a front-end material which adsorbs moisture [0040]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicants’ invention to modify Patent ‘003 by incorporating therein dehumidification apparatus and a front-end adsorption concentrator (instant claimed dehumidifier system) to reduce humidity and to further adsorb moisture of the waste gas to achieve increased efficient treatment of ammonia containing waste gas [0013].
Claims 1, 4-10, 12, 15-20, 22, and 24-25 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-13 of U.S. Patent No. 12011690 (hereinafter “Patent ‘690) in view of KR 20160012277 (hereinafter “KR ‘277”). The instant claims and the claims of Patent ‘690 are each directed to an exhaust system for treatment of an exhaust gas comprising ammonia. The claims in the Patent ‘690 do not include a dehumidifier system as recited in the instant claims. KR ‘277 is directed to a waste gas treatment apparatus for treating waste gas containing ammonia and water (equivalent to claimed humid exhaust gas). See [0001]. KR ‘277 reference teaches the waste gas is sent to a relative humidity controller such as a dehumidification apparatus to reduce the relative humidity [0006] and [0020] and then passes to an adsorption concentrator [0022] and [0023]. The adsorption concentrator comprises a front-end material which adsorbs moisture [0040]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicants’ invention to modify Patent ‘690 by incorporating therein dehumidification apparatus and a front-end adsorption concentrator (instant claimed dehumidifier system) to reduce humidity and to further adsorb moisture of the waste gas to achieve increased efficient treatment of ammonia containing waste gas [0013].
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 IN SUK C BULLOCK whose telephone number is (571)272-5954. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 AM-4:30 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.
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.
/IN SUK C BULLOCK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1772
Prosecution Insights