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 .
Summary
This is the initial Office action based on application 18678043 filed 5/30/24.
Claims 1-23 are pending and have been fully considered.
Information Disclosure Statement
IDS filed on 12/18/24, 11/18/24, 10/2/24, 9/18/24, 9/5/24, 8/9/24, 7/23/24, and 5/30/24 have been considered by the examiner and copies of the Form PTO/SB/08 are attached to the office action.
Drawings
The Drawings filed on 5/30/24 are acknowledged and accepted by the examiner.
Specification
The Specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification. MPEP § 608.01
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 20 and all dependent claims 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention
The limitation “an input/output in signal communication” in claim 20 is unclear and not defined which renders the claim indefinite. The limitation “an input/output” 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. In other words is the limitation stating an input or output, or input and output. Applicant is required to further bring clarification and/or correction to claims.
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 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.
Claim 1-23 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-30 of U.S. Patent No. 12092999. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the present application and Patent claims are disclosed throughout the specification overlapping components that defines low carbon intensity fuel. 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 in the patent. In re Vogel, 422 F. 2d 438, 164 USPQ 619, 622 (CCPA 1970).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-23 have allowable subject matter.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
WILLIAMS ET AL. (US PG PUB 20170160118) is the closest prior art that teaches:
WILLIAMS teaches in the abstract a method for alternative fuel life-cycle tracking includes electronically receiving, at a remote server, fuel data of fuel in a first container. The fuel comprises first and second batches. The fuel data includes first and second sets of alternative fuel identifiers (AFIs) associated with, respectively, a first unit of the first batch and a second unit of the second batch. The method further includes electronically receiving, at the remote server, a transfer volume of the fuel being transferred to a second container. The method further includes electronically transferring, at the remote server, first and second subsets, respectively, of the first and second sets of AFIs to be associated with the second container. The transfer of the first and second subsets is based on the transfer volume and a proportion of the first unit to the second unit.
However, WILLIAMS differs from the claimed invention in that WILLIAMS does not disclose or suggest a process to provide a low carbon intensity transportation fuel obtained through one or more targeted reductions of carbon emissions associated with a combination of various feedstock procurement, feedstock transportation, feedstock refining and fuel product distribution pathways.
WILLIAMS describes tracking an alternative fuel to determine how much alternative fuel is in a blend and does not describe a method of selecting different options to achieve a carbon intensity of a transportation fuel as recited in the claimed embodiments.
In other words, WILLIAMS does not describe methods to maintain the carbon intensity of the transportation fuel below the carbon intensity threshold by selecting the refinery process. The selecting refinery processes to reduce carbon emissions associated with refining the refinery feedstock to a plurality of refined products and thereby maintain the carbon intensity of the transportation fuel below the carbon intensity threshold along with the other method steps, to provide a low CI transportation fuel is not obvious to one of skill in the art.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHANTEL GRAHAM whose telephone number is (571)270-5563. The examiner can normally be reached on M-TH 9:00 am - 7:00 pm.
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 on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CHANTEL L GRAHAM/
Examiner, Art Unit 1771
/ELLEN M MCAVOY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771