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 .
Double Patenting
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 conflicting claims 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); 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 nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) 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 www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-14 of U.S. Patent No. 12152200 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because has a different variation on the claims of the instant application.
Applicant is reminded that those portions of the specification which provide support for the patent claims may also be examined and considered when addressing the issue of whether a claim in an application defines an obvious variation of an invention claimed 1n the patent. In re Vogel, 422 F. 2d 438, 164 USPQ 619, 622 (CCPA 1970).
Claims 1-20 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of application number 18407459. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because this application has all the limitations and additional limitations.
. Claims 1-20 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-15 of application number 18629957. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because this application has all the limitations and additional limitations.
Claims 1-20 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of application number 18635015. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because this application has all the limitations and additional limitations.
Claims 1-20 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of application number 18632288. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because this application has all the limitations and additional limitations.
Claims 1-20 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of application number 18636273. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because this application has all the limitations and additional limitations.
Claims 1-20 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of application number 18633520. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because this application has all the limitations and additional limitations.
Claims 1 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 of application number 18582646. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because this application has all the limitations and additional limitations.
Claims 1-20 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-15 of U.S. application 18627446. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because has a different variation on the claims of the instant application.
Claims 1-20 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of application number 18639977. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because this application has all the limitations and additional limitations.
Allowable Subject Matter
There is no allowable subject matter due to double patenting. Below is an analysis of the closest prior art, what is taught and not taught.
Adam et al (WO 2021/024819) teaches a process for pyrolysis of plastic waste. Possible pretreatments are allowed in this art. The pyrolysis oil is mixed with washing water and a demulsifier and subject to an electric field. The dehydrated oil is than hydrotreated and a diluent comprising sulfur content is added to the dehydrated oil.
The use of a hot filter, as defined in the specification, on the pyrolysis gas before the dehydration operation is not taught or suggested. The recycling of a condensed liquid from the hot filter being reintroduced into the pyrolysis reactor is not taught or suggested.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FRANK C CAMPANELL whose telephone number is (571)270-3165. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00-5:00.
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 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.
/FRANCIS C CAMPANELL/Examiner, Art Unit 1771
/PREM C SINGH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1771