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 .
Applicant’s response to restriction letter of 3/5/26 is acknowledged. Applicant elected Group II, claims 11-18 and species 1, without traverse.
Claims 1-10 are hereby withdrawn as drawn to non-elected invention.
The species election is hereby withdrawn and species 2 is hereby rejoined with the elected species.
On 4/3/26, the examiner called up the attorney of applicant, namely, Ms./Mr. Iona N. Kaiser to discuss the merits of the elected invention, but no response was received.
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 11-17 are under examination on the merits. In view of applicant’s species election claim 18 is also withdrawn.
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 11-17 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. In claim 11 (and its dependent claims 12-17), the following terms and phrases are indefinite:
“gas-oil separation plant” (GOSP) recited in line 2 of claim 11, has not been defined in the disclosure and it is unclear what components constitute said plant,
the phrase “configured to” in line 3, is indefinite and said phrase has not been defined in the disclosure either. Applicant should define said term structurally in response to this office action,
the phrase “GOSP carbon dioxide line for conveying emitted …” in line 5, again is ambiguous as its length, dimeter, material it is made of, and other specifics thereof are unknown. In addition, it is unknown if by using the term “conveying” applicant is referring to transport means such as inlet line or outlet line or something else,
in line 6 of claim 11, the relevance of “electrolyte solution” to the structure of the system and the “reaction chamber” claimed is unknown as said system and said chamber can comprise any solution such as saline, juice etc. Also, in lines 11 and 19 of said claim, in what way cathode and anode are respectively immersed in “the electrolyte solution” is irrelevant to the product(s) claimed,
in claim 11, line 12, it is unclear what structural features define “fluidly connected to”,
in claim 11, line 21, the phrase “wherein the semi-permeable membrane conveys” is confusing. It is unclear what exactly is meant by “conveys”. According to public database dictionaries, said term refers to “communicates” but that dictionary meaning does not make sense in the context in which said term is used in this invention. If by said term applicant is referring to “operates”, then he/she must substitute said term with something more specific and finally,
in claim 11, lines 23-24, it is unclear if the potentiostat constantly maintains an electric potential across the cathode and anode or whether the potentiostat needs to be turned on only when the system is operating. Applicant is reminded that instant invention is a product and not a process.
Claims 12-17 are merely rejected for depending from claim 11.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim(s) 11-12, 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaplan et al., “Kaplan” (US2016/0045841, 2/2016). As mentioned above, instant invention is totally confusing as there are many phrases in base claim 11 (and its dependent claims 11-12, 14-18), that have not been defined in the disclosure. However, in the spirit of cooperation the examiner did her best to cite relevant art.
Kaplan in [0003] discloses the following:
“The present integrated matrix encompasses interconnected modules including a starting feedstock module where feedstock from various sources is received and stored and/or directly routed to modules of the matrix system for processing. The matrix system can be comprised of pretreatment process modules from which an upstream feed can be pre-purified and then sent to the petroleum refining module with poisoning materials separated from the feedstock (which can be gas-oil, see [0040]) during pretreatment then being further recycled to provide useful materials such as, for example, separated metals, carbon and fullerenes for production of nano materials, sulfur, water, sulfuric acid, gas, heat and carbon dioxide for energy production. As a consequence of the matrix system, method and apparatus, by-products from the petroleum refining process which were previously discarded now can be recycled as a renewable source of energy (water, waste oil and rubber/coal derived pyrolyic (pyrolysis) oil, carbon gases and process gases) or recyclable resources such as metals and precious metals, oxides, minerals and others to the various modules of the present integrated matrix to provide useful end products”.
In [0029], Kaplan proposes that, anywhere in its EFSMP (Eco-friendly systems, see abstract) when CO2 is vented off, it is reused, regenerated, recycled, captured and the like, in that it can also be processed into Advanced Carbon Fiber material, gases, Carbon Credits, Carbon Dioxide Gases, in any form whatsoever, for sale into the market, or for in-house use, either on an inter-campus location basis, or an intra-campus location basis. In [0116], reference is made to methane (namely a fixed carbon product) which may be recovered for internal use of Kaplan’s system.
According to Kaplan, see [0784], fuel cells convert a fuel and an oxidizing agent into electricity, heat, and water, and gasses. Fuel cells are composed of a polymer electrolyte membrane sandwiched between an anode and a cathode, and the polymer electrolyte membrane also serves to keep the fuel and oxidizing agent locally separated. The polymer electrolyte membrane is selectively permeable and non-conductive, for example, the polymer electrolyte membrane is permeable only to hydrogen ions in a hydrogen/oxygen fuel cell.
In [0779] of said publication it is recited that fuels cells, mentioned earlier, and their hybrid forms are disclosed and incorporated in the present invention, without limitation, and are widely used devices designed to generate electric power. In a fuel cell an electrochemical reaction involving a substrate occurs in the presence of a catalyst. In a conventional fuel cell, the catalyst is an inorganic catalyst. In other permutations of FC's, and in conjunction with the Refugium, the Eco-friendly systems, methods and processes/processing (EFSMP) of the present invention proposes also using a specialized fuel cell type, that is, a biological fuel cell is utilized, and the catalyst is a biological catalyst such as an enzyme or, in the case of a microbial fuel cell (MFC), a bacterium or microbe, wherein said biological catalyst is inherently capable of reducing carbon dioxide to an organic acid. The substrate, sometimes referred to as the fuel of the fuel cell, is a substance that is consumed in the electrochemical reaction. Conventional fuel cell substrates typically include hydrogen gas and hydrocarbons such as methane. In a biological or microbiological fuel cell the substrate typically includes complex organic compounds such as volatile fatty acids, starches and sugars that are digested by the enzymes or bacteria of the cell. Substrate is loaded into a chamber in which the anode is situated (the “anode chamber”) and reacts in an electrochemical reaction catalyzed by the catalyst to produce electrons and positively charged ions. In order for an electrical circuit to be completed, electrical charge must be transferred between the electrochemical reaction site and the electrodes. The electrons produced in an electrochemical reaction in a fuel cell flow from the anode through an external circuit (load) to the cathode. The positive ions (cations) travel through the electrolyte to the cathode. At the cathode electrons are combined with cations in a further electrochemical reaction. In some instances, an ion-exchange membrane is present that separates the fluid-containing chamber of a fuel cell into an anode chamber and a separate cathode chamber. The positive charge is transferred from cations in the anode chamber across the ion-exchange membrane to form cations in the cathode chamber.
Therefore, it is believed that the teachings of Kaplan in terms of assembly of a series of products such as carbon dioxide outlet line (see [0813]), cathode and anode chambers inherently having a potentiostat, a semi-permeable membrane etc. which could be used for carbon dioxide separation form gas-oil, as a whole, render this invention obvious.
No claim is allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARYAM MONSHIPOURI whose telephone number is (571)272-0932. The examiner can normally be reached full-flex.
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, Melenie L Gordon can be reached at 571-272-8037. 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.
/MARYAM MONSHIPOURI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1651
Prosecution Insights