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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-15 in the reply filed on 01/05/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 16-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 01/05/2026.
Claim Interpretation
With respect to term ablation: the term will be defined as the process of ablating: such as, loss of a part by melting or vaporization.
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 1-15 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.
The terms “high velocity and highly loaded” in claim 1 are relative terms which renders the claim indefinite. The terms “high velocity and highly loaded” are not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
With respect to claims 1-15, the claims recite generating high-velocity, highly loaded slurry which is indefinite as the specification and the claims fail to define what the meet and bounds are of said high-velocity, highly-loaded slurry.
With respect to the claims, the terms “specialized solvent” in claims 10 and 12-13 are relative terms which renders the claim indefinite. The terms “specialized solvent” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Examiner notes, the claim use of the term "specialized solvent" without the limitation defined in the specification is indefinite as it is not l clear how a "specialized" solvent is any different from any other (non-specialized?) solvent.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 7, 12 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Pietzka et al (US 4,219,405).
With respect to claim 1, Pietzka discloses a method of forming high carbon-containing coal tar pitch from raw coal, comprising generating high-velocity, highly-loaded slurry flow configured to provide fluid driven ablation (see abstract).
With respect to claim 7, Pietzka discloses the limitation of claim 1. Pietzka further discloses wherein flow is affected by a gas cushion (see col 5 lines 10-40).
With respect to claim 12, Pietzka discloses the limitation of claim 1. Pietzka further discloses further comprising a co-feed including at least one of a petroleum distillate (see col 5 lines 1-15).
With respect to claim 15, Pietzka discloses the limitation of claim 1. Pietzka wherein the high carbon-containing coal tar pitch comprises from about 30% mesophase content to about 90% mesophase content (see col 8 lines 20-60).
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) 2-3, 5 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pietzka in view of Hoffman (US 9,939,197).
With respect to claim 2, Pietzka discloses the limitation of claim 1.
Pietzka further wherein generating the high-velocity, highly-loaded slurry flow comprises feeding an isotropic pitch into an inlet of a screw device with rotating screws to convert the isotropic pitch to a mesophase pitch (see abstract, see col 7 lines 10-67, col 8 lines 1-15 and figure 2).
Pietzka 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 Pietzka with the twin-screw device disclosed by Hoffman, as said devices are conventional within the art.
With respect to claim 3, the prior combination teaches the limitation of claim 2.
The prior combination further discloses wherein the twin screw device is configured to convert the isotropic pitch to a mesophase pitch (see abstract).
With respect to claim 5, Pietzka discloses the limitation of claim 1.
Pietzka further wherein generating the high-velocity, highly-loaded slurry flow comprises feeding an isotropic pitch into an inlet of a screw device with rotating screws to convert the isotropic pitch to a mesophase pitch (see abstract, see col 7 lines 10-67, col 8 lines 1-15 and figure 2) and generating the high-velocity, highly-loaded slurry flow comprises treating the raw coal with a solvent extraction process prior to feeding the raw coal into an inlet of a twin screw device with co-rotating screws (see col 5 lines 1-10).
Pietzka 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 Pietzka with the twin-screw device disclosed by Hoffman, as said devices are conventional within the art.
With respect to claim 10, Pietzka discloses the limitation of claim 1. Pietzka further wherein generating the high-velocity, highly-loaded slurry flow comprises feeding an isotropic pitch into an inlet of a screw device with rotating screws to convert the isotropic pitch to a mesophase pitch (see abstract, see col 7 lines 10-67, col 8 lines 1-15 and figure 2) and generating the high-velocity, highly-loaded slurry flow comprises treating the raw coal with a solvent extraction process prior to feeding the raw coal into an inlet of a twin screw device with co-rotating screws (see col 5 lines 1-10).
Pietzka 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 Pietzka with the twin-screw device disclosed by Hoffman, as said devices are conventional within the art.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 6, 8-9, 11, 13-14 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
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