DETAILED ACTION
This detailed action is in response to the application filed on July 14, 2023, and any subsequent filings.
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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “118” appears to have been used to designate both a condenser and an overhead stream in Figure 2. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
In addition to Replacement Sheets containing the corrected drawing figure(s), applicant is required to submit a marked-up copy of each Replacement Sheet including annotations indicating the changes made to the previous version. The marked-up copy must be clearly labeled as “Annotated Sheets” and must be presented in the amendment or remarks section that explains the change(s) to the drawings. See 37 CFR 1.121(d)(1). Failure to timely submit the proposed drawing and marked-up copy will result in the abandonment of the application.
Abstract
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claims 27, 36, and 37 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In Claim 27, the second to last line lacks a reference number after the term “condenser” which is inconsistent with the recitation of reference numbers after all other structural limitations in the claim;
In Claim 36, a space and degree symbol are required between the number and the letter “C”; and,
In Claim 36, a space and degree symbol are required between the number and the letter “C”.
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.
Claims 27-42 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.
Claim 27 recites “COD” with no units yet Claim 34 recites a COD having units of "mg/l" rendering the meaning of COD unclear.
Claim 27 recites “FT” yet does not define the term. For purposes of examination the term will be interpreted as Fischer-Tropsch.
Claim 27 recites both “an overhead stream (118)” and “a condenser (118)” rendering both term indefinite as to the meaning given the lead line in Figure 2 for reference character 118 appears to point to both an overhead stream and a condenser.
Claim 27 recites water fed to a stripper yet then references a distillate product stream and a reflux stream, terms associates with distillation not stripping. Stripping and distillation are different separation processes with the former relying upon adsorption and the later thermal effects to drive separation. That these are separate processes is recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art of treating Fischer-Tropsch water (see Miglio, et al., International Publication No. WO2009/146854A1 (page 7, lines 12-13 ("feeding the aqueous stream containing the organic by products of the reaction to a distillation or stripping column") (emphasis added)).
Claim 28 recites a distillate product stream and a reflux stream yet these terms are associated with distillation not stripping and no distillation has been identified in either this claim or Claim 27 from which the claim depends.
Claim 29 recites the limitation "the products" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 29 recites a distillate product stream yet this term is associated with distillation not stripping and no distillation has been identified in either this claim or Claim 27 from which the claim depends.
Claim 30 recites the limitation "alcohols" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 30 recites a distillate product stream yet this term is associated with distillation not stripping and no distillation has been identified in either this claim or Claim 27 from which the claim depends.
Claim 30 recites a parenthetical range rendering the claim unclear as to whether the claimed range is that inside or outside the parenthetical.
Claim 31 recites the limitation "alcohol" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 31 recites a parenthetical range rendering the claim unclear as to whether the claimed range is that inside or outside the parenthetical.
Claim 32 recites the limitation “live steam” yet neither the claim nor the specification provide any definition as to this term or how the term “live steam” contrasts with “dead steam.”
Claim 34 recites “MBR” yet does not define the term. For purposes of examination the term will be interpreted as membrane bioreactor.
Claim 35 recites the method of Claim 34 and lists a series of process steps. These steps, however, are the same as those in Claim 34 and no support exists in the application for a method that repeats the process steps of Claim 34.
Claim 35 recites “COD” with no units yet Claim 34 recites a COD having units of "mg/l" rendering the meaning of COD unclear.
Claim 35 recites “FT” yet does not define the term. For purposes of examination the term will be interpreted as Fischer-Tropsch.
Claim 35 recites both “an overhead stream (118)” and “a condenser (118)” rendering both term indefinite as to the meaning given the lead line in Figure 2 for reference character 118 appears to point to both an overhead stream and a condenser.
Claim 35 recites water fed to a stripper yet then references a distillate product stream and a reflux stream, terms associates with distillation not stripping. Stripping and distillation are different separation processes with the former relying upon adsorption and the later thermal effects to drive separation. That these are separate processes is recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art of treating Fischer-Tropsch water (see Dancuart, International Publication No. 2009/146854 ("feeding the aqueous stream containing the organic by products of the reaction to a distillation or stripping column") (emphasis added)).
Claim 36 recites “ms” yet neither the claim nor the specification provide any type of definition for this term.
Claim 36 recites a range of unknown units “ms” followed by another narrow range of unknown units “ms” using the term “preferably” thereby rendering the claim indefinite as to the intended range (see MPEP 2173.05(c)(I)).
Claim 36 recites a parenthetical range rendering the claim unclear as to whether the claimed range is that inside or outside the parenthetical.
Claim 36 recites a broad range of temperatures followed by another narrower range of temperatures thereby rendering the claim indefinite as to the intended range (see MPEP 2173.05(c)(I)).
Claim 37 recites a parenthetical temperature rendering the claim unclear as to whether the claimed temperature is that inside or outside the parenthetical.
Claim 38 recites “MBR” yet does not define the term. For purposes of examination the term will be interpreted as membrane bioreactor.
Claim 38 recites the limitation "MBR" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 40 recites “MBR” yet does not define the term. For purposes of examination the term will be interpreted as membrane bioreactor.
Claim 40 recites the limitation "MBR" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 41 recites “MBR” yet does not define the term. For purposes of examination the term will be interpreted as membrane bioreactor.
Claim 41 recites the limitation "MBR" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 42 recites “FT” yet does not define the term. For purposes of examination the term will be interpreted as Fischer-Tropsch.
Claim 42 recites a multiplicity of combinations rendering the claim indefinite as to the metes and bounds of the claim (see MPEP 2173.05(h) regarding multiplicity).
Claim 42 recites the limitation "alcohol to acid molar ratio" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 42 recites a broad range of alcohol to acid molar ratio followed by another narrower range of alcohol to acid molar ratio thereby rendering the claim indefinite as to the intended range (see MPEP 2173.05(c)(I)).
Claim 42 recites a broad range of alcohol percentages to acid molar ratio followed by another narrower range of alcohol percentages thereby rendering the claim indefinite as to the intended range (see MPEP 2173.05(c)(I)).
Claim 42 recites the limitation "methanol" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 42 recites the limitation "ethanol" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 42 recites the limitation "C1 to C10 mono-hydroxy alcohols" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 42 recites the limitations "acetone, methyl ethyl ketone, diethyl ketone, benzene, toluene, xylenes, styrene, acetaldehyde, formic acid, acetic acid, propionic acid, butyric acid, valeric acid, hexonoic acid, methanol, ethanol, propanol, n-butanol, n-pentanol, n-hexanol, n-heptanol, n-octanol, n-nonanol, and n-decanol" in lines 8-11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Prior Art Rejections
Although an attempt has been made to determine the scope and meaning of the claimed invention, the substantive indefinite limitations are fundamental to understanding the claims and prevent a thorough search of the prior art based upon any recognizable technical features and limitations in the art. Further, "where there is a great deal of confusion and uncertainty as to the proper interpretation of the limitations of a claim, it would not be proper to reject such a claim on the basis of prior art," MPEP 2173.06(II).
Although no rejections based upon the prior art have been made, this does not mean that the prior art does not disclose the intended definite claims. From the limited understanding of the claimed invention, which may or may not be correct,
Carnelli, et al., U.S. Publication No. 2010/0193346, Dancuart, et al., International Publication No. WO03/106353A1, and Miglio, et al., International Publication No. 2009/146854A1, appear to disclose, either alone or in combination, the claims of the instant application.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICK ORME whose telephone number is (408)918-7585. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 7:30 am - 6:00 pm Pacific Time.
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, Bobby Ramdhanie can be reached at (571) 270-3240.
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.
/PATRICK ORME/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1779