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 .
Response to Amendment
The rejection of claims 1-8 under 35 USC § 103 over Lindberg and Deng is withdrawn by the examiner in view of the response filed on 3/16/2026.
A new Non-Final Office Action is follows.
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 1-8 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 10-18 and 23-24 of U.S. Patent No. 11,918,967. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the presently claimed reactor and the reactor of Lindberg share the same structural configuration, including a reaction chamber having inlets and outlets, a wellbore extending into a subterranean heat source, and heat transfer to the reaction chamber. The claims differ primarily in specifying that the thermochemical process comprises polymer decomposition. However, selecting a particular thermochemical reaction to be performed within the same reactor does not render the apparatus patentably distinct.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over McBay et al. (US 2014/0284045 A1) in view of Seldner et al. (US 2015/0117956 A1).
McBay discloses a reactor for thermochemical decomposition, including a pyrolysis reaction chamber configured to carry out decomposition reactions of feedstock into product streams (¶[0028]–[0032], ¶[0048]). The reactor includes conduits for introducing feed and removing products, i.e., functional inlets and outlets (¶[0034]–[0036]). McBay further teaches that the reaction chamber is positioned within a wellbore extending into a geothermal region, including embodiments involving magma/lava heat sources, such that the reactor is heated by heat absorbed from the wellbore environment (¶[0042]–[0045], ¶[0050]). The system operates such that material is introduced, subjected to elevated temperature within the chamber, and converted into product streams which are removed, thereby inherently supporting a flow-through reaction process (¶[0034]–[0038]).
However, McBay does not explicitly disclose that the feedstock comprises a polymer decomposed in a reaction medium (e.g., slurry) with steady flow characteristics as claimed.
Seldner discloses a geothermal pyrolysis system in which plastic-containing materials are combined with water and/or catalyst to form a reaction medium (slurry) and are pumped through a subsurface geothermal region, where the material is thermally decomposed into products (¶[0016]–[0020], ¶[0027]). Seldner further teaches a continuous flow system, wherein the slurry is introduced via an input well and removed via an extraction well after conversion, thereby explicitly disclosing steady flow from inlet to outlet (¶[0021]–[0024]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the reactor system of McBay to process a polymer-containing reaction medium (e.g., slurry) in a continuous flow manner as taught by Seldner, in order to enable efficient conversion of plastic/polymer waste into useful products using geothermal heat, since both references are directed to thermochemical decomposition processes driven by subsurface geothermal energy, and Seldner expressly teaches the advantages of slurry-based continuous processing of plastics in such systems.
Claim 2
McBay teaches heating of the reactor via thermal contact with geothermal heat in the wellbore (¶[0042]–[0045]). Seldner further teaches fluid-mediated heat transfer via a circulating reaction medium and/or injected fluids (¶[0016], ¶[0020]).
It would have been obvious to implement heat exchange via fluid or interface mechanisms as a predictable design variation of geothermal heating systems.
Claim 3
Seldner teaches a system including fluid conduits extending through the wellbore to convey material into and out of the heated subsurface region (¶[0021]–[0023]).
Claim 4
Seldner teaches that the reaction medium is supplied from a source and heated indirectly by geothermal heat absorbed in the subsurface region (¶[0016]–[0020]).
Claim 5
Both references teach catalytic processes:
McBay: catalyst may be present in pyrolysis reactor (¶[0032])
Seldner: slurry includes catalyst (¶[0016])
Claim 6
Seldner teaches decomposition of plastic materials into petroleum-like or hydrocarbon products (¶[0016], ¶[0027]), which inherently includes formation of smaller molecular products (monomers/oligomers) depending on reaction conditions.
Optimization of temperature ranges for specific polymers is a result-effective variable (In re Aller).
Claim 7
Seldner teaches conversion of plastics into hydrocarbon fuels (¶[0027]), which inherently includes olefinic products from polymer cracking.
Claim 8
McBay teaches that product streams are removed and may be further processed (¶[0036]–[0038]). Seldner explicitly teaches separation and processing of products using downstream units (e.g., separators) (¶[0024]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAM M NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1452. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Frid.
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, Prem C Singh can be reached at 571-273-6381. 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.
/TAM M NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771
Prosecution Insights