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
2. The information disclosure statement filed 10/25/2013 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(3) because it does not include a concise explanation of the relevance, as it is presently understood by the individual designated in 37 CFR 1.56(c) most knowledgeable about the content of the information, of each patent listed that is not in the English language. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
Claim Objections
3. Claims 1 and 19-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 is objected to because the claim recites “to produce refined oil’. It appears that this is missing an “a’, and should recite “to produce a refined oil’ for clarity.
Claims 19-20 are objected to because the claims each recite “the refined oil from which impurities are removed”. The refined oil is already discussed in claim 1 as having impurities removed and being produced in the hydrotreating operation. Thus, this recitation of “from which impurities are removed” in claims 19 and 20 is redundant, and should be removed.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
4. 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.
5. Claims 1-20 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.
With regard to claim 1, the claim recites a dehydration operation to “dehydrate
the first mixed solution” and then recitation “hydrotreating a second mixed solution
obtained by mixing the first mixed solution dehydrated in the dehydration operation...”
However, the first mixed solution, after being dehydrated in the dehydration operation,
no longer would have the same composition as the original first mixed solution. Thus, it
is unclear what is being hydrotreated in the hydrotreating step, because the dehydrating
step would produce at least an aqueous stream and a hydrocarbon containing stream,
neither of which would have a similar composition to the original “first mixed stream”.
For purposes of examination, the instant specification describes removing the
water after the dehydration and before the hydrotreating (paragraphs [0067]-[0071)).
Thus, it is understood that the stream passed to the hydrotreating is a stream of
pyrolysis oil from which moisture has been removed, as described in the dehydration
step. The Examiner suggests that giving this stream a name, such as “dehydrated
stream” or something similar would add clarity in the claims if applied to all claims that
reference this stream. Appropriate correction is respectfully requested.
With regard to claim 16, the claim recites “molybdenum-based metal” However, metal is an element, a metal either is or isn’t molybdenum, and thus it is unclear what could be meant by “molybdenum-based’. The instant specification does not recite a specific example of the catalyst or any examples of a “molybdenum-based metal’. As such, the claim is indefinite.
For purposes of examination, based on claim 16 it appears that the catalyst either comprises molybdenum alone, or molybdenum with nickel, cobalt, and/or tungsten. Thus, the phrase “molyobdenum-based” will be considered as meaning just “molybdenum”. Appropriate correction is respectfully requested.
With regard to claim 18, the claim recites “washing the gas-liquid separated stream...” This phrase lacks antecedent basis, because while the claim previously recites a gas-liquid separation, it does not recite a “gas-liquid separated stream” produced from the separation. Further, it is expected that the separation would produce both a liquid stream and a gas stream. It is unclear whether the washing is performed on the liquid stream or the gas stream produced in the separation. Thus, the claim is indefinite.
For purposes of examination, the instant specification describes that a gas stream produced as a result of the gas-liquid separation is an off-gas which is used in different ways, before describing the washing of the “gas-liquid separated stream”. Thus, the Examiner will consider that the stream which is washed is the liquid stream produced in the gas-liquid separation. Appropriate correction and clarification are respectfully requested.
With regard to claims 2-15, 17, 19, and 20, the claims are rejected as being dependent on a rejected base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. Claims 1-4 and 9-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adam et al., International Publication No. WO2021/204819 (hereinafter referred to as Adam) in view of Park et al., NPL document entitled Production of Clean Oil (hereinafter referred to as Park).
With regard to claim 1, Adam teaches a process for producing oil (refined
hydrocarbons) from pyrolysis of waste plastic (page 1, lines 5-6) comprising the
following steps:
a) pyrolysis of waste plastics (page 25, lines 13-14) to produce a gaseous pyrolysis product (page 27, lines 33-35).
b) producing a pyrolysis oil from the gaseous pyrolysis product (page 27, lines 35-36).
c) treating the pyrolysis oil in a desalting unit (page 11, lines 12-15) comprising mixing pyrolysis oil with washing water and a demulsifier, and then applying an electric field (voltage) to separate water (dehydrate) and produce a treated hydrocarbon stream (page 20, lines 15-22).
d) passing the desalted oil (first mixture having been dehydrated) to a first hydrotreating step (page 11, lines 26-27) where a diluent comprising a sulfur content is added to the desalted oil (mixing the sulfur source with the first mixed solution having been dehydrated).
e) passing a product from the first hydrotreating unit to a second hydrotreating step (page 8, line 16).
Adam teaches that the waste plastics can comprise chlorinated plastics (page
25, lines 21-24).
Adam is silent with regard to passing the gaseous pyrolysis product through a hot filter filled with a neutralizing agent to produce the pyrolysis oil. Park teaches a method for pyrolysis of waste plastics (Title).
Park further teaches passing the vapor pyrolysis product through a hot filter comprising lime (neutralizing agent) to remove chlorine (Section 2.2, pages 404-405). Park additionally teaches that the addition of the lime hot filter reduces the chlorine content to a value which satisfies the demand from the petrochemical industry for the further refining processes (page 411, Conclusion; page 402, Introduction, second full paragraph).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to add the hot filter step of Park to the pyrolysis of Adam, because each of Adam and Park teaches a process for pyrolysis of waste plastics for further use to produce products in downstream refinery operations (Adam page 1, lines 2-5; Park page 402, Introduction, second full paragraph).
With regard to claims 2 and 3, Adam teaches that the desalting (dehydrating) includes mixing water with the pyrolysis oil (page 20, line 15-16). Adam is silent with regard to the volume ratio of the pyrolysis oil to the water. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would know that the amount of water would affect the amount of salts which are removed from the pyrolysis oil, and that the amount of salts in the pyrolysis oil would affect the amount of water needed to dissolve the salts. Thus, the ratio of pyrolysis oil to water is a process parameter, and can be optimized. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have determined the optimum value of a ratio of pyrolysis oil to water of greater than 1:1 or 1:0.001 to 1:0.5 as claimed in instant
claims 2 and 3, respectively, through routine experimentation in the absence of a showing of criticality. See MPEP 2144.05(Il).
With regard to claim 4, Adam teaches that the desalting (dehydrating) includes mixing with a demulsifier (page 20, line 20). Adam is silent with regard to the ratio of pyrolysis oil to demulsifier. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would know that the amount of the demulsifier would affect how well the emulsion is broken, and may depend on the type of demulsifier used. Thus, the ratio of pyrolysis oil to demulsifier is a process parameter which affects the conversion of the demulsifying, and can be optimized. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have determined the optimum value of a ratio of pyrolysis oil to demulsifier of 1:0.000001 to 1:0.001 as claimed, through routine experimentation in the absence of a showing of criticality. See MPEP 2144.05(Il).
With regard to claim 9, Adam teaches the desalting (dehydration) step above. Adam is silent with regard to the ratio of a content of moisture in the pyrolysis oil before desalting to the content after desalting. However, Adam teaches the similar process comprising mixing water, demulsifier, and plastic pyrolysis oil and applying a voltage (page 20, lines 15-22). Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to expect a similar result of a ratio of moisture of the pyrolysis oil to moisture in the dehydrated pyrolysis oil of 1:0.0001 to 1:0.9, as claimed, absent any evidence to the contrary.
With regard to claim 10, Adam teaches that the desalting includes coalescence of the oil (page 20, lines 30-33). The instant specification defines condensation of the
dehydrated mixture as using a coalescer (paragraphs [0070]-[0071]), and thus the coalescence of Adam is considered to be equivalent to the claimed condensation.
With regard to claim 11, Adam teaches that the pyrolysis oil can comprise nitrogen and chlorine (page 37, lines 11-12). Adam is silent with regard to the ratio of nitrogen to chlorine in the feed to the hydrotreating step comprising the pyrolysis oil and the diluent. However, Adam teaches a similar process of desalting (dehydrating) a similar plastic pyrolysis oil and mixing the pyrolysis oil with a diluent comprising sulfur to produce a second mixed solution for hydrotreating. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably find it obvious to expect that the feed to the hydrotreating of Adam comprises a similar nitrogen to chlorine ratio of 1:1 to 1:10, as claimed, absent any evidence to the contrary.
With regard to claim 12, Adam teaches that the first hydrotreating diluent is a naphtha, diesel, or gasoil comprising sulfur (sulfur-containing oil) (page 12, lines 33-35).
With regard to claim 13, Adam teaches that the feed to the hydrotreating comprises at least 90 wt% pyrolysis oil, with the other portion (less than 10 wt%) being diluent (page 13, lines 9-10). This overlaps the range of less than 0.5 parts by weight sulfur-containing oil per 100 parts pyrolysis oil, or the equivalent of less than 0.49 wt% sulfur-containing oil of instant claim 13, and renders the range prima facie obvious.
With regard to claim 14, Adam teaches that the sulfur source comprises DMDS (dimethyl disulfide) (di-sulfide based compound).
With regard to claims 15 and 16, Adam teaches that the first hydrotreating catalyst comprises Mo on a support (page Y, lines 25-30).
With regard to claim 17, Adam teaches that the hydrotreating is at a pressure of 10 to 90 bar (page 9, line 9), which overlaps the range of 50 to 150 bar of instant claim 17 and renders the range prima facie obvious.
With regard to claim 18, Adam teaches that the effluent from the second hydrotreating step is washed with water (page 12, line 27) and that the effluent from the second hydrotreating step is subjected to flash separation (gas-liquid separation) (page 11, lines 32-33). Adam does not explicitly teach the order of the washing and flash separation steps. However, it is well know that any order of steps is prima facie obvious, absent any evidence that the order of steps is critical or provides unexpected results (see MPEP 2144.04(IV)C). Adam teaches both steps, but is silent to the order, and there is no evidence of criticality in the instant specification. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to select the order of steps of washing followed by gas-liquid separation, as claimed, absent any evidence to the contrary.
With regard to claim 19, Adam teaches that the effluent from the first hydrotreating step is distilled before the second hydrotreating step (distilling the refined oil from which impurities are removed in the hydrotreating operation) (page 11, lines 32- 33).
With regard to claim 20, Adam teaches mixing the hydrotreated oil with a second diluent comprising naphtha (petroleum hydrocarbons) (page 19, lines 17-22), hydrotreating in a second hydrotreating step, and distilling (page 11, lines 26-33).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
9. Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adam in view of Park as applied to claims 1-4 and 9-20 above, and further in view of Groote, US Patent No. 1,612,180 (hereinafter referred to as Groote).
With regard to claims 5 and 6, Adam teaches that the desalting (dehydrating) electricity (voltage) is applied through a pair of electrodes (page 20, lines 32-33).
Adam is silent with regard to the arrangement of the electrodes and to the current through the electrodes.
Groote teaches a treatment of oil, water, and demulsifying agent for breaking an oil water emulsion (column 1, lines 1-5). Groote teaches that the dehydration apparatus is arranged such that an electrode 4 is arranged in the tank and an electrode 5 is arranged above the electrode 4 (vertical electrodes instant claim 6) (column 2, lines 100-105, Fig. 1). Groote also teaches that the current is preferably an alternating current (instant claim 5). Groote further teaches that this arrangement is known to break the emulsion and that adding the electricity after the demulsifying agent breaks the emulsion more effectively (column 1, lines 41-54).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use the arrangement of electrodes and alternating current of Groote in the process of Adam, because Adam and Groote each teach a process for breaking an emulsion of water, oil, and demulsifying agent by passing electricity through a pair of electrodes, and Groote teaches that the vertical arrangement and alternating current are known and that the demulsifying breaks the emulsion more effectively (column 1, lines 41-54).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
10. Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adam in view of Park as applied to claims 1-4 and 9-20 above, and further in view of Soliman et al., US Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0211274 (hereinafter referred to as Soliman).
With regard to claim 7, Adam teaches applying electricity (voltage) in the desalting (dehydrating) step.
Adam is silent with regard to the forming of a rag layer or removing the rag layer.
Soliman teaches that rag layers form in separation plants in the desalting step due to lack of clear boundaries between the aqueous and oil phases during the demulsifying (electricity) step (paragraph [0006]). Soliman further teaches that it is desired to control and/or remove the rag layer because the rag layer can cause off- specification oil production and tripping of the transformers for the electrodes (paragraph [0006)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to remove a rag layer formed in the process of providing electricity to adesalting of Adam as taught by Soliman, because Adam and Soliman teach desalting an oil water mixture by applying electricity, Soliman teaches that the electricity causes a rag layer to form, and further teaches that removing the rag layer is desirable in order to prevent transformers tripping or off-specification oil production (paragraph [0006)).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
11. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adam in view of Park as applied to claims 1-4 and 9-20 above, and further in view of Bin, Chinese Publication No. CN101613620 (hereinafter referred to as Bin).
With regard to claim 8, Adam teaches the desalting (dehydration) step above.
Adam is silent with regard to the temperature of the desalting.
Bin teaches a method for purification of waste plastic pyrolysis oils by combining water, flocculant (demulsifier), and the pyrolysis oil (Abstract). Bin further teaches that the process is performed at normal (room) temperature and pressure, which provides the benefits of avoiding oil loss by carbonization and coking due to high temperature so that the yield of the oil is improved, reducing energy consumption (paragraph [0007]). Room temperature is known to typically be between 20 and 27°C, which is within the range of 20 to 300°C of instant claim 8.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use the room temperature process of Bin as the desalting of Adam, because Adam and Bin each teach contacting pyrolysis oil from plastics with water and a demulsifier to remove contaminants, and Bin teaches that performing the process at room temperature provides the benefits of avoiding oil loss by carbonization and coking due to high temperature so that the yield of the oil is improved, reducing energy consumption (paragraph [0007]).
Double Patenting
12. 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 claims at issue 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); and 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form 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 http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
13. Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of co-pending application No. 18/442,103. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
The co-pending '103 application discloses the same limitations as does the instant application and would therefore be obvious in light of the disclosures discussed above and incorporated herein by reference.
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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form 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 http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Double Patenting II
14. Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of co-pending application No. 18/442,113. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
The co-pending '113 application discloses the same limitations as does the instant application and would therefore be obvious in light of the disclosures discussed above and incorporated herein by reference.
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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form 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 http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Double Patenting III
15. Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of co-pending application No. 18/443,295. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
The co-pending '295 application discloses the same limitations as does the instant application and would therefore be obvious in light of the disclosures discussed above and incorporated herein by reference.
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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form 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 http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Double Patenting IV
16. Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of co-pending application No. 18/443,305. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
The co-pending '305 application discloses the same limitations as does the instant application and would therefore be obvious in light of the disclosures discussed above and incorporated herein by reference.
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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form 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 http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Double Patenting V
17. Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of co-pending application No. 18/444,787. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
The co-pending '787 application discloses the same limitations as does the instant application and would therefore be obvious in light of the disclosures discussed above and incorporated herein by reference.
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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form 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 http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Double Patenting VI
18. Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-17 and 20 of co-pending application No. 18/582,646. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
The co-pending '646 application discloses the same limitations as does the instant application and would therefore be obvious in light of the disclosures discussed above and incorporated herein by reference.
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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form 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 http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Double Patenting VII
19. Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-17 and 20 of co-pending application No. 18/582,669. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
The co-pending '669 application discloses the same limitations as does the instant application and would therefore be obvious in light of the disclosures discussed above and incorporated herein by reference.
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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form 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 http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Double Patenting VIII
20. Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3, 11-13 and 15 of co-pending application No. 18/632,288. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
The co-pending '288 application discloses the same limitations as does the instant application and would therefore be obvious in light of the disclosures discussed above and incorporated herein by reference.
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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form 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 http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Double Patenting IX
21. Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3, 11-13 and 15 of co-pending application No. 18/633,520. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
The co-pending '520 application discloses the same limitations as does the instant application and would therefore be obvious in light of the disclosures discussed above and incorporated herein by reference.
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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form 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 http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Double Patenting X
22. Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3, 11-13 and 15 of co-pending application No. 18/635,015. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
The co-pending '015 application discloses the same limitations as does the instant application and would therefore be obvious in light of the disclosures discussed above and incorporated herein by reference.
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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form 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 http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Double Patenting XI
23. Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of co-pending application No. 18/636,273. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
The co-pending '273 application discloses the same limitations as does the instant application and would therefore be obvious in light of the disclosures discussed above and incorporated herein by reference.
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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form 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 http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Double Patenting XII
24. Claims 1-4 and 19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3, 11-13 and 15 of co-pending application No. 18/637,453. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
The co-pending '453 application discloses the same limitations as does the instant application and would therefore be obvious in light of the disclosures discussed above and incorporated herein by reference.
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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form 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 http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Double Patenting XIII
25. Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of co-pending application No. 18/639,291. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
The co-pending '291 application discloses the same limitations as does the instant application and would therefore be obvious in light of the disclosures discussed above and incorporated herein by reference.
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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form 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 http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Double Patenting XIV
26. Claims 1-4 and 19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3, 11-13 and 15 of co-pending application No. 18/639,977. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
The co-pending '977 application discloses the same limitations as does the instant application and would therefore be obvious in light of the disclosures discussed above and incorporated herein by reference.
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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form 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 http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VISHAL V VASISTH whose telephone number is (571)270-3716. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-4:30 and 7:00-10:00p.
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, Prem Singh can be reached at 5712726381. 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.
/VISHAL V VASISTH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771