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 .
This action is in response to the application filed 01/29/2024.
Claims 1-10 are pending and being examined.
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 1-10 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.
Considering claim 1, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation “which includes the electric calciner, the contactor, the apparatus for pH correction (30) and the dosing device”. It is also unclear what “(30)” represents in the claim.
There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the steam” and “the Hydrocarbon Gas” in the first bullet point of the claim.
There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the flow of water” in the second bullet point of the claim.
In the third bullet point, it is unclear what “(230)” represents and it is also unclear whether the limitations in parenthesis are optional or not.
There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the hydroxide production unit 60” and “the flow of hydroxide” in the fourth bullet point of the claim. It is also unclear what “60” refers to. It is also unclear whether the limitations in parenthesis are optional or not.
There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the metering device” in the fifth bullet point of the claim. It is unclear whether “and possibly a quantity of hydroxide available for other uses” is optional.
Considering claim 2, it is unclear whether “A plant according to claim 1” is “the” plant of claim 1 with additional limitations or whether it is a separate plant. There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the chemical parameters”, “the buffered acidic water”, and “the metering device”.
Considering claim 3, it is unclear whether “A plant according to claim 1” is “the” plant of claim 1 with additional limitations or whether it is a separate plant.
Considering claim 4, it is unclear whether “A plant according to claim 1” is “the” plant of claim 1 with additional limitations or whether it is a separate plant. There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the WGS unit”.
Considering claim 5, it is unclear whether “A plant according to claim 1” is “the” plant of claim 1 with additional limitations or whether it is a separate plant. It is unclear what the contact time and pressure ranges are because of the term “preferably”; it is unclear whether the limitations after “preferably” are optional or not.
Considering claim 6, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the calcination of the carbonate” in the second bullet point. It is unclear whether the limitations in parenthesis are optional or not.
There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the flow of syngas” in the third bullet point.
It is unclear where the flow of syngas and flow of oxide are conveyed to.
In the 7th bullet point, the source of the carbonate being fed to the contactor is unclear; in the step prior to feeding the contactor, the carbonate was fed to the electric calciner so as to obtain the calcination of the carbonate. It is unclear whether the carbonate being fed to the contactor is a new carbonate flow stream or whether it is a portion of the carbonate being fed to the electric calciner. It is also unclear whether the limitations in parenthesis are optional or not.
In the 8th bullet point, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the flow of acidic water”.
It is unclear where acidic water is conveyed to.
It is unclear as to what steps are involved in “preparing” a hydroxide production unit.
In the 10th bullet point, it is unclear whether the limitations in parenthesis are optional or not.
It is unclear where the flow of hydroxide is conveyed to.
In the 15th bullet point, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the predetermined flow of hydroxide”.
It is unclear where the predetermined flow of hydroxide is being conveyed to.
It is unclear as to what steps are involved in “preparing” an apparatus for correcting the pH.
In the 19th bullet point (next to last bullet point), there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the flow of acidic buffered water”.
Additionally, “Method for the production of decarbonized hydrogen” should be “A method for the production of decarbonized hydrogen”.
Considering claim 7, it is unclear whether “Method for the production of decarbonized hydrogen…according to claim 6” is “the” method for the production of decarbonized hydrogen of claim 6 with additional limitations or whether it is a separate method.
There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the measurement of pH and/or alkalinity and/or hardness from the pH meter”. Although, the claim provides a control unit and a meter suitable for measuring the pH and/or alkalinity and/or hardness, there is no step of obtaining a measurement nor is there “a pH meter” (i.e., there is a meter not a “pH meter”).
Considering claim 8, it is unclear whether “Method for the production of decarbonized hydrogen…according to claim 6” is “the” method for the production of decarbonized hydrogen of claim 6 with additional limitations or whether it is a separate method.
There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the flow of hydrogen”.
Considering claim 9, it is unclear whether “Method for the production of decarbonized hydrogen…according to claim 6” is “the” method for the production of decarbonized hydrogen of claim 6 with additional limitations or whether it is a separate method.
It is unclear as to what steps are involved in “preparing” a WGS unit.
Considering claim 10, it is unclear whether “Method for the production of decarbonized hydrogen…according to claim 6” is “the” method for the production of decarbonized hydrogen of claim 6 with additional limitations or whether it is a separate method.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANITA NASSIRI-MOTLAGH whose telephone number is (571)270-7588. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6:30-3:00.
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, Jonathan Johnson can be reached at 571-272-1177. 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.
/ANITA NASSIRI-MOTLAGH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1734
Prosecution Insights