DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 19 December 2025 has been entered.
Claim Status
Claims 21 and 26 are amended. Claims 1-20 and 24 are cancelled.
Claims 21-23 and 25-43 are pending for examination below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments and amendments, see Remarks, filed 19 December 2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 21-23 and 25-43 under USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of a newly discovered issue with claim 27. The Examiner reached out to Applicant’s representative to propose changing the wording of claim 1 to “an ethanol solution” or alternative wordings to overcome the below 112(b) and 112(d) rejections of claim 27 on 28 May 2026. However, Applicant did not respond to the request in the allotted time frame, and thus the Examiner has moved forward with the rejection below. The Examiner appreciates the assistance of Applicant’s representative in the matter of the proposed amendments.
Claim Objections
Claim 26 is objected to because of the following informalities:
The claim recites “menthol” in the last line. This is a typographical error of “methanol”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 27 is 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 regard to claim 27, the claim recites “wherein the ethanol solution has a concentration of from 10% ethanol to 100% ethanol.” There are two issues. The first issue is that “ethanol solution” lacks antecedent basis, as the ethanol in claim 21 is in a “ethanol-in-water” solution, and it is unclear if this is the same thing as an “ethanol solution”. The second issue is that there are no units on the percentage. A solution comprising 50 wt% ethanol is different from a solution comprising 50 mol% ethanol. Thus, the amount of ethanol in the solution is indefinite.
For purposes of examination, the Examiner will consider that the “ethanol solution” is the “ethanol-in-water” solution of claim 1. This leads to the 112(d) recited below. The Examiner will also consider that the amount of ethanol is in weight percent, as any other specified percentages in the specification are weight percentages.
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.
Claim 27 is 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.
With regard to claim 27, the claim recites “wherein the ethanol solution has a concentration of from 10% ethanol to 100% ethanol.” However, claim 21 recites that the solution is a “ethanol-in-water” solution, and as above in the 112(b), the term “ethanol solution” is interpreted as referring to the claimed “ethanol-in-water” solution. If the solution comprises 100% ethanol, then the solution can no longer be an “ethanol in water” solution as claimed, and thus claim 27 does not further limit claim 1.
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.
Reasons for Allowance
Claims 21-23, 25, and 28-43 are allowed. Claim 26 would be allowable if amended to overcome the claim objection above.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Applicant’s arguments and amendments filed 19 December 2025 are persuasive. Specifically, the argument that one of ordinary skill in the art would not be motivated to separate and recycle only the carbon dioxide from the effluent because Joensen teaches recycling the whole effluent is persuasive in combination with the amendment to independent claim 21. Therefore, the claims are allowed.
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
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALYSSA L CEPLUCH whose telephone number is (571)270-5752. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8:30 am-5 pm, EST.
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, In Suk Bullock can be reached at 571-272-5954. 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.
/Alyssa L Cepluch/Examiner, Art Unit 1772
/Renee Robinson/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1772
Prosecution Insights