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 Amendment
The Applicant is directed to comply with 37 C.F.R. 1.121(c) in any and all future correspondences with this office. The Applicant’s attention is directed to claim 10 at least.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the limitation “said production system send said feedstocks” should be “said production systems sends said feedstocks”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 2, the limitation “said generator” should be “said electric power generator”.
Claim 4, the limitation “a seabed piple” should be “a seabed pipe”. Furthermore, “said fossil fuel source a seabed piple” should be “said fossil fuel source is a seabed piple”
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “seawater filtration system… said seawater filtration system produces filtered sea water”; “production system… sends [sic] said feedstocks for syngas…”; “product upgrading system… converts said synthetic crude” in claims 1. Claim 2 recites “an electric power transmission system to transfer electricity” and “a flue gas separation station for separating the carbon dioxide” which invokes 112f and is interpreted in accordance with the specification as a power line and adsorption, absorption, or membrane gas separation or known equivalents, respectively.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-12 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.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “seawater filtration system…said seawater filtration system produces filtered sea water” now requires a functional recitation which places the seawater filtration system under means plus function. The disclosure states that a seawater filtration plant similar to desalination systems and has a pumping system but does not disclose the structure delimited by the term. It is additionally unclear if the seawater filtration system is a seawater filtration module. The limitations “production system and “product upgrading system” likewise have nominal recitations without explanation of the structure required.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “carbon dioxide combustion gases from said onboard electric power generation system and said intermediate temperature steam” renders the claim indefinite because its unclear how the intermediate steam comprises carbon dioxide. The electrolyzer receives a stream of CO2 but it is unclear how the intermediate temperature steam has CO2.
Regarding claim 8, the limitation “a separate ship or structure” renders the claim indefinite because its unclear whether this is the same as previously claimed.
Regarding claim 9, the limitation “carbon dioxide” renders the claim indefinite because its unclear if this is the same previously claimed in claim 1.
Claims dependent thereon are rejected for the same reasons.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-12 would otherwise be considered allowable pending resolution of the issues identified above.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: Notwithstanding the limitations in scope of from the interpretations under 112f, the prior art does not appear to teach or fairly suggest a sea water filtration system… an HRSG and an Electrolyzer wherein carbon dioxide and seawater are processed to create feedstocks for syngas, a F-T synthesis process to convert to synthetic crude in combination with the remaining elements of the independent claims. The prior art attached shows F-T synthesis is known from sequestered carbon. But no prior art shows the entirety of the structure as claimed. The amendments do not appear to affect the allowability determination.
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.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/2/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant states that all pending issues have been resolved and the claims are allowable. However, the Applicant has not addressed outstanding 112 rejections and furthermore has introduced several grammatical issues and an additional 112 rejection by bringing limitations into the scope of 112f without adequate discussion of the metes and bounds of the recitation.
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 GERALD LUTHER SUNG whose telephone number is (571)270-3765. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5 PST.
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, Devon Kramer can be reached at (571)272-7118. 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.
/GERALD L SUNG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3741