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 .
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.
Response to Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I claims 1-19 in the reply filed on April 13, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claim 20 is withdrawn from consideration.
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 1-19 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.
With respect to claim 1, the preamble of said claim recites “A process for regenerating catalyst from a fluidized catalytic process comprising:…” However, the body of the claim does not recite any spent catalyst from a fluidized catalytic process that regenerate a catalyst except a regenerator unit.
Therefore, it is not clear that the claimed process is directed to regenerating a catalyst at all. Appropriated corrections are required.
All other claims depend directly or indirectly from the rejected claims and are, therefore, also rejected under 35 USC § 112(b) for the reasons set forth above.
Claim 8, directly dependent on claim 7, recites a limitation of “a boiler” in line 3. Perhaps applicant should consider amending the limitation to recite “the boiler.” because claim 7 recites the limitation of “a boiler”.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "said preheated dry carbon dioxide recycle stream" in lines 2 and 4. There are insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Perhaps applicant should consider amending the limitation to recite “said preheated [[dry] carbon dioxide recycle stream.”
Claim 18, indirectly dependent on claim 7, recites a limitation of “a boiler” in line 6. Perhaps applicant should consider amending the limitation to recite “the boiler.” because claim 7 recites the limitation of “a boiler”.
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 obviousness-type 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); and 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claims 1-19 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of US 12,415, 960 B2.
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. US ‘960 teaches a process for regenerating catalyst from a fluidized catalytic process comprising: providing a carbon dioxide rich oxidation stream; passing said carbon dioxide rich oxidation stream to a regenerator unit to provide a carbon dioxide rich flue gas stream; reacting one or more of a sulfur-containing compound, a nitrogen-containing compound, or both in said carbon dioxide rich flue gas stream with a reactant in a decontamination reactor to form a reactor effluent stream comprising reactant salt; filtering the reactor effluent stream to remove the reactant salt and catalyst fines to produce a filtered reactor effluent stream; and taking a carbon dioxide recycle stream from the filtered reactor effluent stream.
Although ‘960 does not specifically disclose preheated CO2 recycle stream as per applicant claim 1, it is known a significant amount of heat is needed just to heat the CO2 and/or air to the temperature at which the regenerator is operating (col. 3, lines 1-30). The optimization of variables, such as temperature for using a preheated CO2 in a known process is prima facie obvious. It reads on the instant claims.
Claims 1-19 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of co-pending application 18/144, 790 (Notice of Allowance was issued, however US Patent number is not assigned yet).
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. Co-pending ‘790 teaches providing an oxygen stream and a preheated carbon dioxide recycle stream; mixing said oxygen stream and said preheated carbon dioxide recycle stream to provide a carbon dioxide rich oxidation stream; passing said carbon dioxide rich oxidation stream to a regenerator unit to provide a carbon dioxide rich flue gas stream; reacting one or more of a sulfur-containing compound, a nitrogen-containing compound, or both in said carbon dioxide rich flue gas stream with a reactant in a decontamination reactor to form a reactor effluent stream comprising reactant salt; filtering the reactor effluent stream to remove the reactant salt and catalyst fines to produce a filtered reactor effluent stream; and taking a carbon dioxide recycle stream from the filtered reactor effluent stream. It reads on the instant claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YUN QIAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5834. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 10:00am-4:00pm.
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, Sally A Merkling can be reached at 571-272-6297. 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.
YUN . QIAN
Examiner
Art Unit 1738
/YUN QIAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1738
Prosecution Insights