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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1 – 20 are pending.
Claims 1 – 20 are rejected.
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.
Claims 1- 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the expression “divalent treatment… to reduce dissolved divalent cations in the portion of the recycle”, in line 2 – 3. The expression is indefinite and lacks clarity because it is not clear in the claim what is being treated. (see specification paragraph [020]).
Claim 6 recites the expression “divalent treatment to reduce dissolved divalent cations in the portion of the recycle”, in line 2 – 3. The expression is indefinite and lacks clarity because it is not clear in the claim what is being treated. (see specification paragraph [020]).
Claim 15 recites the expression “divalent treatment unit”, in line 2. The expression is indefinite and lacks clarity because it is not clear in the claim what is being treated within the unit. (see specification paragraph [020])..
Claims 2 – 5, 7 – 14 and 16 – 20 are rejected for being dependent on an indefinite base claim.
Double Patenting
A rejection based on double patenting of the “same invention” type finds its support in the language of 35 U.S.C. 101 which states that “whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process... may obtain a patent therefor...” (Emphasis added). Thus, the term “same invention,” in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter. See Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186 (1894); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Ockert, 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957).
A statutory type (35 U.S.C. 101) double patenting rejection can be overcome by canceling or amending the claims that are directed to the same invention, so they are no longer coextensive in scope. The filing of a terminal disclaimer cannot overcome a double patenting rejection based upon 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 1- 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claims 1-20 of prior U.S. Patent No. 12,037,308 (‘308”). This is a statutory double patenting rejection.
Claim 1 of the instantly claimed invention cover inter alia, A method of MEG recovery, comprising: withdrawing a portion of a recycle of a MEG vaporization unit; performing a divalent treatment on the portion of the recycle to reduce dissolved divalent cations in the portion of the recycle; performing a sulfate treatment to reduce dissolved sulfate ions in the portion of the recycle, the sulfate treatment comprising: adding an underdose of one or more calcium halides, one or more lower calcium carboxylates, or a mixture thereof, to a treatment stream; and precipitating calcium sulfate from the treatment stream; performing a solids removal treatment to reduce solids in the portion of the recycle; and returning the portion of the recycle, depleted in divalent cations, sulfate ions, and solids, to the MEG vaporization unit.
Claim 1 of ‘308 cover, inter alia, A method of MEG recovery, comprising: withdrawing a portion of a recycle of a MEG vaporization unit; performing a divalent treatment on the portion of the recycle to reduce dissolved divalent cations in the portion of the recycle; performing a sulfate treatment to reduce dissolved sulfate ions in the portion of the recycle, the sulfate treatment comprising: adding an underdose of one or more calcium halides, one or more lower calcium carboxylates, or a mixture thereof, to a treatment stream; and precipitating calcium sulfate from the treatment stream; performing a solids removal treatment to reduce solids in the portion of the recycle; and returning the portion of the recycle, depleted in divalent cations, sulfate ions, and solids, to the MEG vaporization unit.
This is a statutory double patenting rejection, and the filing of a terminal disclaimer cannot overcome a double patenting rejection based upon 35 U.S.C. 101.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YATE' K. CUTLIFF whose telephone number is (571)272-9067. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (8:30 - 5:30).
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, Scarlett Y. Goon can be reached at (571) 270-5241. 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.
/YATE' K CUTLIFF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1692