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 .
Status of Claims
Claim 1 is currently pending
Claim 1 is currently amended
Claim 1 is currently rejected
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 5 states “regulate an emission of water and aluminum into” and instead should state “regulate an emission of the aluminum and the water into” for further clarity and to maintain consistency. FURTHERMORE, line 10 states “A condenser within at least a first of the two HT/HP” and instead should state “a condenser within at least a first of the at least two HT/HP” for further clarity. ADDITIONALLY, line 11 states “coupled to the first of the HT/HP” and instead should state “coupled to the first of the at least two HT/HP” for further clarity. Appropriate corrections are required.
Double Patenting
The non-statutory 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 non-statutory 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 non-statutory 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 non-statutory 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.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 10,752,518 B2, and unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,319,217 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claim 1 is broad enough and further disclosed by claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 10,752,518 B2 and by claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,319,217 B2.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FRICK (U.S. 2017/0065904 A9) (hereinafter “Frick”).
Regarding Claim 1:
Frick teaches a system (see FIG. 1, a fluid heating system 100) (see FIGS. 2-3, systems 200 and 300, respectively) (see paragraphs 9, 18, 52 and 56-60) comprising:
a boiler comprising a boiler combustion chamber (see FIG. 6B, boiler 604) (see FIG. 10, combustion engine 1060) (see FIG. 12B, boiler 1204) (see paragraphs 18 and 55 further discussing boilers) in which a hydrothermal oxidation reaction takes place to provide heat to superheat steam and hydrogen gas (Examiner’s note: this claim limitation is a product-by-process limitation of a boiler comprising a boiler combustion chamber);
an injector module configured to receive material and inject into the boiler combustion chamber (Examiner’s note: Examiner is broadly interpreting ‘an injector module’ to include a container/tank along with a feed pump capable of pressurizing and pumping a fluid containing material into a chamber/boiler/heating device) (see FIG. 3, preheater 326 and pump 330) (see paragraph 79);
a heater coupled to the boiler such that the heater heats contents of the boiler to a desired operational temperature (see FIG. 1, a rotary heating device 1) (see FIG. 2, a rotary heating device 204) (see FIG. 3, a rotary heating device 304) (see paragraphs 56-59 and 69) (see paragraphs 18 and 67-68 further discussing heating to a desired operational temperature);
at least two high temperature, high pressure (HT/HP) heat exchangers coupled to the boiler (see FIG. 1, heat exchangers 114 and 116) (see FIG. 2, heat exchangers 206, 214 and 216) (see FIG. 3, heat exchangers 306 and 316) (see paragraphs 58-59, 64, 69 and 73); and
a condenser within at least a first of the at least two HT/HP heat exchangers (see FIG. 12B, condensers 1278 and/or 1270) (see FIG. 12C, condenser 1279) (see FIG. 13A, condenser 1316); and
a low temperature, low pressure heat exchanger coupled to the first of the at least two HT/HP heat exchangers (see FIG. 1, heat exchangers 114 and 116) (see FIG. 2, heat exchangers 206, 214 and 216) (see FIG. 3, heat exchangers 306 and 316) (see paragraphs 58-59, 64, 69 and 73).
Although Frick teaches multiple boilers, heating devices/systems, heat exchangers, and modules capable of injecting/flowing fluid from one structural device to another, one may broadly interpret that Frick does not explicitly teach ‘an injector module configured to receive material comprising aluminum and water and to regulate an emission of the aluminum and the water’, as recited in amended, independent claim 1. However, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skilled in the art to modify the injector module of Frick to be capable of receiving an unfiltered fluid source containing aluminum and water, and to further regulate an emission of the aluminum and the water as the unfiltered fluid source passes through various and multiple fluid treatment devices and systems for optimization purposes (see FIG. 1, heat exchangers 114 and 116) (see FIG. 2, heat exchangers 206, 214 and 216) (see FIG. 3, heat exchangers 306 and 316) (see paragraph 18 further discussing control systems) (see paragraphs 58-59, 64, 69 and 73).
Other References Considered
FRICK (U.S. 2014/0021032 A1) (hereinafter “Frick2”) teaches a system and method for heating fluids.
Smith (U.S. 2008/0110417 A1) (hereinafter “Smith”) teaches a combustion disposal system of produced water.
Archibald et al. (U.S. 6,596,178 B1) (hereinafter “Arch”) teaches a fluid purification system.
Pronske et al. (U.S. 2014/0137779 A1) (hereinafter “Pronske”) teaches a high pressure steam system.
Younes et al. (U.S. 2014/0014492 A1) (hereinafter “Younes”) teaches a produced water treatment system and method.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/05/2026 have been fully considered but focus on amended claim limitations, which have been addressed above in the updated rejection (see above).
The previous claim objection regarding claim 1 has been considered and is now updated (see above).
The previous 112(f) claim interpretation/analysis has been considered and is now withdrawn.
The previous 112(b) claim rejection regarding claim 1 has been considered and is now withdrawn as a result of the current claim amendments.
The previous double patenting rejection has been considered; however, is currently still maintained and held in abeyance.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 AKASH K. VARMA whose telephone number is (571)272-9627. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9-5 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.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Benjamin L. Lebron can be reached at (571)-272-0475. 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.
/AKASH K VARMA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1773