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. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement filed on 14 October 2023 does not fully comply with the requirements of 37 CFR 1.98(b) because: the certification page has not been completed. Since the submission appears to be bona fide , applicant is given ONE (1) MONTH from the date of this notice to supply the above mentioned omissions or corrections in the information disclosure statement. NO EXTENSION OF THIS TIME LIMIT MAY BE GRANTED UNDER EITHER 37 CFR 1.136(a) OR (b). Failure to timely comply with this notice will result in the above mentioned information disclosure statement being placed in the application file with the noncomplying information not being considered. See 37 CFR 1.97(i). 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 appl icant regards as his invention. Claim s 1-15 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. As to Claim 1 : The claim in part f recites “and another part of the synthesis gas stream”. It is unclear if this is the synthesis gas stream of step e) or step b. As to Claim 1 : The claim recites “the synthesis gas stream is sent to the fuel systems”. However, this lacks antecedent basis and it is unclear where in the process the synthesis gas is being sent. As to Claim 2 : The claim recites the limitation “wherein the flash gas is compressed together with steams and sent to step”. However, it is unclear what streams the flash gas is being compressed with. As to Claim 7 : The claim recites the limitations “wherein streams are directed to fuel systems g)” and also “wherein streams are directed to”. It is unclear what streams these limitations are referring too as claim 1 refers to many different streams and only certain streams would be appropriate for the different units or systems. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows: Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title. Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to natural phenomenon without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) “a method comprising using CO 2 for C O 2 storage” . This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim is only drawn to storing CO 2 which occurs in nature through things like carbon sinks in forests and wetlands which absorb CO 2 . The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the limitation to “the CO 2 obtained in step d)” has little patentable weight . Claim 1 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to natural phenomenon without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) “a method comprising using CO 2 to produce chemicals ” . This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim is only drawn to producing chemicals with the CO 2 which occurs in nature through photosynthesis . The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the limitation to “the CO 2 obtained in step d)” has little patentable weight . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale , or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Shah et al. (US 2007/0232706, hereinafter referred to as “Shah”) . As to Claim 14 : Shah teaches that carbon dioxide can be introduced to a carbon dioxide storage site for sequestration [0020]. Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Dale Robert Lutz (US 2010/0132366, hereinafter referred to as “Lutz”) . As to Claim 15 : Lutz teaches carbon dioxide can be reduced in a carbon reduction chamber to produce chemicals such as elemental carbon, methane, methyl alcohol, formaldehyde, formic acid and polyoxymethylene (Claim 18, [0031]). Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Baratto et al. (US 2020/0055738, hereinafter referred to as “Baratto”). Baratto appears to teach an ammonia synthesis process and system which could read on the instant claims once it becomes clear what the various streams are and where they are going. Correspondence Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT ANDREW J OYER whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-0347 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 9AM-6PM EST M-F . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Mark Eashoo can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-1197 . 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. /Andrew J. Oyer/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1767