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
This action is responsive to correspondence filed on 05/18/2026.
Claims 1-2, 4-15 and 16-21 are pending. Claims 3 is canceled. Claims 16-20 are withdrawn. New claim 21 is entered. Claims 1-2, 4-10 and 12 are amended.
The previous rejection of claims 1-2 and 4-20 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are withdrawn, necessitated by the Applicant amendment.
The previous rejection of claims 1, 7, 12 and 15 under 35 U.S.C 102(a)(2) are withdrawn, necessitated by the Applicant amendment.
The previous rejection of claims 2-3, 5 and 10 under 35 U.S.C. 103 are withdrawn, necessitated by the Applicant amendment.
However, after reconsideration of the record new rejections are entered, necessitated by the Applicant amendment.
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.
Claim 2, 4 and 21 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 respect to claims 2, 4 and 21, the claims recite the limitation to an isotropic pitch. However, it is unclear if the Applicant is addressing the pitch produced by claim 1 or a secondary pitch. Clarification is required. Examiner notes, an isotropic pitch promoter is identified in claim 13.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nelson et al (US 3,477,941).
With respect to claim 1, Nelson discloses a method of forming a high carbon-containing coal tar pitch from raw coal, the method comprising: generating a slurry flow configured to provide fluid driven ablation (see col 2 lines 45-65, col 3 lines 34-45); and converting the raw coal directly to solvated products (bottoms, 25)(see col 8 lines 15-30).
Nelson does not explicitly disclose converting raw coal to pitch.
However, Nelson further discloses that in a separate embodiment, the solvent is vaporized thus leaving the coal bottoms, free of solvent (i.e. producing pitch).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Nelson with the claimed step of producing pitch, as Nelson discloses wherein solvent may be vaporized from the said solvated coal bottoms.
With respect to claim 12, Nelson discloses the limitation of claim 1.
Nelson further discloses wherein slurry flow comprises a co feed including petroleum distillates (see col 9 lines 5-15 and col 10 lines 5-10).
With respect to claim 13, Nelson discloses the limitation of claim 12. Nelson further discloses wherein the co-feed includes a promoter (hydrogen).
Nelson does not disclose wherein promoter comprises at least one of a graphite, a graphene, a mesophase pitch, or an isotropic pitch.
However, as currently written, claim 12 does not positively require the utilization of a promoter.
Thus, the limitations of claim 13, do not overcome the rejection of claim 12.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 5-6 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nelson as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hoffman (US 9,939,197) .
With respect to claim 5, Nelson discloses the limitation of claim 1.
Nelson does not disclose wherein the process uses a twin-screw device as claimed.
However, in a related field Hoffman discloses a system for separating solids from various compositions comprising oil, water and solids, wherein solids are separated with the use of a twin-screw device (see figure 11A- 11B).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date to modify the Nelson with the twin-screw device disclosed by Hoffman, as said devices are conventional within the art.
With respect to claim 6, the prior combination teaches the limitation of claim 5.
Nelson further discloses wherein slurry flow comprises a co feed including petroleum distillates (see col 9 lines 5-15 and col 10 lines 5-10).
With respect to claim 10, Nelson discloses the limitation of claim 1.
Nelson further discloses wherein slurry flow comprises a co feed including petroleum distillates (see col 9 lines 5-15 and col 10 lines 5-10).
Nelson does not disclose wherein the process uses a twin-screw device as claimed.
However, in a related field Hoffman discloses a system for separating solids from various compositions comprising oil, water and solids, wherein solids are separated with the use of a twin-screw device (see figure 11A- 11B).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date to modify the Nelson with the twin-screw device disclosed by Hoffman, as said devices are conventional within the art.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-9, 11 and 14-15 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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 JUAN C VALENCIA whose telephone number is (571)270-7709. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10am - 6pm.
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 C Singh can be reached at 571 272-6381. 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.
/JUAN C VALENCIA/Examiner, Art Unit 1771
/Randy Boyer/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771
Prosecution Insights