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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed August 5, 2026, with respect to 102 and 103 rejections of Claims 1-14 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 102 and 103 rejections of Claims 1-14 have been withdrawn. However, based on the amended Claims of Application 18/331,137 filed on June 25, 2026, the Double Patenting is maintained.
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.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 11 and 13 of copending Application No. 18/331,137. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1, 11 and 13 of the copending Application No. 18/331,137 discloses all the limitations of the present Claim 1.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim 2 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 14, 11 and 13 of copending Application No. 18/331,137. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 14, 11 and 13 of the copending Application No. 18/331,137 discloses all the limitations of the present Claim 2.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim 3 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 15, 11 and 13 of copending Application No. 18/331,137. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 15, 11 and 13 of the copending Application No. 18/331,137 discloses all the limitations of the present Claim 3.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim 4 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 16, 11 and 13 of copending Application No. 18/331,137. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 16, 11 and 13 of the copending Application No. 18/331,137 discloses all the limitations of the present Claim 4.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim 5 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 17, 11 and 13 of copending Application No. 18/331,137. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 17, 11 and 13 of the copending Application No. 18/331,137 discloses all the limitations of the present Claim 5.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim 6 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 18, 11 and 13 of copending Application No. 18/331,137. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 18, 11 and 13 of the copending Application No. 18/331,137 discloses all the limitations of the present Claim 6.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim 8 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 19, 11 and 13 of copending Application No. 18/331,137. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 19, 11 and 13 of the copending Application No. 18/331,137 discloses all the limitations of the present Claim 8.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim 11 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 12, 11 and 13 of copending Application No. 18/331,137. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 12, 11 and 13 of the copending Application No. 18/331,137 discloses all the limitations of the present Claim 11.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding Claim 7, the closest prior arts, Beck (WO99/57058A2) discloses a water splitting reactor, comprising: a protective chamber (Figure 2, numeral 20); a centrifuge situated in the protective chamber (Figure 2, numeral 36); an inlet fluidly connected to the centrifuge and configured to provide water to the centrifuge (Figure 2, numerals 26, 28 and 35); and an outlet fluidly connected to the centrifuge and configured to remove hydrogen isolated from the water from the centrifuge (Figure 2, numerals 38/43 – hydrogen and 51 – hydrogen storage). However, Beck reference does not disclose that the centrifuge being rotatable within the protective chamber such that constituents inside the centrifuge separate according to their molecular mass and the centrifuge and protective chamber made of the materials include tungsten or a tungsten alloy. Svensson (WO2010/053387 A1) reference discloses a plasma reactor for thermal decomposition of water wherein thermolysis process being conducted under a high pressure and at high temperature over 2700 degrees Celsius generated by electric arc, high-frequency field effect, or a heating element such as a tungsten rod or a flow through a pipe inside a reactor of helium heated up in a nuclear reactor. Water decomposition is supported by a vortex phenomenon and the large centrifugal force, as well as 1 is to 15 ratio of hydrogen and oxygen respective specific gravities at their separation in the hot zone of reactor (Abstract and Figure 1). However, neither Beck nor Svensson reference that the centrifuge being rotatable within the protective chamber such that constituents inside the centrifuge separate according to their molecular mass. There is no motivation/suggestion to modify the water splitting reactor of Beck with the centrifuge being rotatable since Reactor 36 is a fixed-walled tube in which the gas, not the tube, is put into circumferential motion.
Regarding Claim 9, the closest prior arts, Beck (WO99/57058A2) discloses a water splitting reactor, comprising: a protective chamber (Figure 2, numeral 20); a centrifuge situated in the protective chamber (Figure 2, numeral 36); an inlet fluidly connected to the centrifuge and configured to provide water to the centrifuge (Figure 2, numerals 26, 28 and 35); and an outlet fluidly connected to the centrifuge and configured to remove hydrogen isolated from the water from the centrifuge (Figure 2, numerals 38/43 – hydrogen and 51 – hydrogen storage). However, Beck reference does not disclose that the centrifuge being rotatable within the protective chamber such that constituents inside the centrifuge separate according to their molecular mass and the inner shell and outer shell comprise different materials. Beck (DE2020005826U1) reference discloses a solar-powered high-temperature reactor for the thermal cracking of substances containing hydrogen (e.g. methane, other hydrocarbons or water) to obtain hydrogen and by-products (e.g. solid carbon, aromatic hydrocarbons, oxygen, etc.) wherein inside the tube (1) the gas is kept at a high temperature according to the invention and the tube walls remain at a lower temperature thanks to a heat-insulating gas layer (Paragraph [0009]); thus, the inner shell and outer shell of the water splitting reactor can be made from different materials. However, neither Beck nor Beck (DE’826) reference that the centrifuge being rotatable within the protective chamber such that constituents inside the centrifuge separate according to their molecular mass. There is no motivation/suggestion to modify the water splitting reactor of Beck with the centrifuge being rotatable since Reactor 36 is a fixed-walled tube in which the gas, not the tube, is put into circumferential motion.
Regarding Claim 13, the closest prior arts, Beck (WO99/57058A2) discloses a water splitting reactor, comprising: a protective chamber (Figure 2, numeral 20); a centrifuge situated in the protective chamber (Figure 2, numeral 36); an inlet fluidly connected to the centrifuge and configured to provide water to the centrifuge (Figure 2, numerals 26, 28 and 35); and an outlet fluidly connected to the centrifuge and configured to remove hydrogen isolated from the water from the centrifuge (Figure 2, numerals 38/43 – hydrogen and 51 – hydrogen storage) and wherein the outlet includes an oxygen release line (Figure 2, numeral 39). However, Beck reference that the centrifuge being rotatable within the protective chamber such that constituents inside the centrifuge separate according to their molecular mass. There is no motivation/suggestion to modify the water splitting reactor of Beck with the centrifuge being rotatable since Reactor 36 is a fixed-walled tube in which the gas, not the tube, is put into circumferential motion.
Regarding Claim 14, the closest prior arts, Beck (WO99/57058A2) discloses a water splitting reactor, comprising: a protective chamber (Figure 2, numeral 20); a centrifuge situated in the protective chamber (Figure 2, numeral 36); an inlet fluidly connected to the centrifuge and configured to provide water to the centrifuge (Figure 2, numerals 26, 28 and 35); and an outlet fluidly connected to the centrifuge and configured to remove hydrogen isolated from the water from the centrifuge (Figure 2, numerals 38/43 – hydrogen and 51 – hydrogen storage) and wherein the outlet is concentrically inside the inlet (Figure 2, numerals 35 – water inlet, 39 – oxygen outlet being concentrically inside the inlet 35). However, Beck reference that the centrifuge being rotatable within the protective chamber such that constituents inside the centrifuge separate according to their molecular mass. There is no motivation/suggestion to modify the water splitting reactor of Beck with the centrifuge being rotatable since Reactor 36 is a fixed-walled tube in which the gas, not the tube, is put into circumferential motion.
Regarding Claim 21, the closest prior arts, Beck (WO99/57058A2) discloses a water splitting reactor, comprising: a protective chamber (Figure 2, numeral 20); a centrifuge situated in the protective chamber (Figure 2, numeral 36); an inlet fluidly connected to the centrifuge and configured to provide water to the centrifuge (Figure 2, numerals 26, 28 and 35); and an outlet fluidly connected to the centrifuge and configured to remove hydrogen isolated from the water from the centrifuge (Figure 2, numerals 38/43 – hydrogen and 51 – hydrogen storage). However, Beck reference that the centrifuge being rotatable within the protective chamber such that constituents inside the centrifuge separate according to their molecular mass and a bearing at a connection between the centrifuge and at least one of the inlet or the outlet, the bearing permitting rotation of the centrifuge relative to the at least one of the inlet or the outlet while allowing fluid to pass therethrough. There is no motivation/suggestion to modify the water splitting reactor of Beck with the centrifuge being rotatable since Reactor 36 is a fixed-walled tube in which the gas, not the tube, is put into circumferential motion.
Claim22 directly depend on Claim 21.
Regarding Claim 23, the closest prior arts, Beck (WO99/57058A2) discloses a water splitting reactor, comprising: a protective chamber (Figure 2, numeral 20); a centrifuge situated in the protective chamber (Figure 2, numeral 36); an inlet fluidly connected to the centrifuge and configured to provide water to the centrifuge (Figure 2, numerals 26, 28 and 35); and an outlet fluidly connected to the centrifuge and configured to remove hydrogen isolated from the water from the centrifuge (Figure 2, numerals 38/43 – hydrogen and 51 – hydrogen storage) and wherein the centrifuge contains at least one of an inert gas or a metal that forms a protective layer along a wall of the centrifuge under centrifugal force (Claim 11). However, Beck reference that the centrifuge being rotatable within the protective chamber such that constituents inside the centrifuge separate according to their molecular mass. There is no motivation/suggestion to modify the water splitting reactor of Beck with the centrifuge being rotatable since Reactor 36 is a fixed-walled tube in which the gas, not the tube, is put into circumferential motion.
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
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 HUY-TRAM NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-3167. The examiner can normally be reached M-W, 7:00am - 3pm, 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, Claire X Wang can be reached at 571-270-1051. 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.
/HUY TRAM NGUYEN/Examiner, Art Unit 1774
Prosecution Insights