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 . Claims 1-20 of the amended claim set received 9/05/2025 are pending.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 6-20 are withdrawn by the Applicant from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 9/05/2025.
Applicant elected the species of Figs. 3B, 11, and 15. Claims 1-5 appear directed towards a non-elected species because the claim 1 feature of “a saltwater treatment system in which steam exhausted from the steam turbine and a waste heat exhaust stream from the boiler or other heat exchanger is used to flash dry a saltwater concentrate and then preheat saltwater by direct contact such that CO2 from the waste heat exhaust stream is absorbed by the saltwater” is not found attributed to the elected species. The amine system of claim 2 also appears to be attributed to the species which includes Fig. 8A and the piston engine of claim 4 appears attributed to the species which include Fig. 10. In order to expedite prosecution, the claims are examined anyways as best understood. An explanation including correlation of the feature recited above and of the remaining of claims 2-5 to the elected embodiment would be appreciated.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the most of the reference numbers mentioned in the description: e.g. the reference numbers mentioned in paras. 00095 and 000102.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include almost innumerable reference character(s) not mentioned in the description, almost all of the figures appears to have this failure in some capacity: e.g., 1XX in most figures; 200, 500, 800, 900, etc. in Fig. 3A; 400-417, etc. in Fig. 11; 3XX, ZEE OPTION 4B 104B in Fig. 15 .
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “a saltwater treatment system in which steam exhausted from the steam turbine and a waste heat exhaust stream from the boiler or other heat exchanger is used to flash dry a saltwater concentrate and then preheat saltwater by direct contact such that CO2 from the waste heat exhaust stream is absorbed by the saltwater” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: “EOR” should be written “enhanced oil recovery” and “PVC” written “poly vinyl chloride” for clarity. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a saltwater treatment system in which steam exhausted from the steam turbine and a waste heat exhaust stream from the boiler or other heat exchanger is used to flash dry a saltwater concentrate and then preheat saltwater by direct contact such that CO2 from the waste heat exhaust stream is absorbed by the saltwater” in claim 1, “an amine system which recovers additional CO2 from the waste heat exhaust stream which is routed to a pipeline for sequestration for enhanced oil recovery or deep saline formation” of claim 2.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. The amine system corresponds to an amine exhaust heat recovery CO2 extractor and a heat exchanger which receives steam from the steam turbine (see Fig. 8A).
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 3, as amended, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The claim recites, “The system of claim 1 being supplied fuel from alternate methods including:
gasification, anaerobic digestion, or torrefaction of biomass, consisting of algae, food waste, agriculture waste, tree waste, or other source
and conversion of natural gas to hydrogen by pyrolysis or partial oxidation/steam reformer with water shift and C02 separation. “
Explicit or implicit support for the recitation is not found and the feature is not inherent to the disclosed invention. As an example, a review of the specification reveals no instance of an apparatus supplied a fuel from gasification and a fuel of a conversion of natural gas. Therefore, the subject matter is not described in such a way to reasonably convey ownership.
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 1-5 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.
Claim 1 limitation “a saltwater treatment system in which steam exhausted from the steam turbine and a waste heat exhaust stream from the boiler or other heat exchanger is used to flash dry a saltwater concentrate and then preheat saltwater by direct contact such that CO2 from the waste heat exhaust stream is absorbed by the saltwater” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Fig. 16 (non-elected species) appears the closest to showing the claimed features, where it is clear what constitutes the engine, boiler and steam turbine, however there is not a clear description of what structure provides the claimed function of “a saltwater treatment system in which steam exhausted from the steam turbine and a waste heat exhaust stream from the boiler or other heat exchanger is used to flash dry a saltwater concentrate and then preheat saltwater by direct contact such that CO2 from the waste heat exhaust stream is absorbed by the saltwater”. That is, there appears to be no structure in which (1) steam exhausted from the steam turbine and a waste heat exhaust stream from the boiler or other heat exchanger is used to flash dry a saltwater concentrate and then (2) [the steam exhausted from the steam turbine and the waste heat exhaust stream from the boiler or other heat exchanger is used to] preheat saltwater by direct contact such that CO2 from the waste heat exhaust stream is absorbed by the saltwater. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Further regarding the claim 1 recitation of “a saltwater treatment system in which steam exhausted from the steam turbine and a waste heat exhaust stream from the boiler or other heat exchanger is used to flash dry a saltwater concentrate and then preheat saltwater by direct contact such that CO2 from the waste heat exhaust stream is absorbed by the saltwater,” it is unclear if the claimed apparatus requires the saltwater concentrate and saltwater of the recitation. For the purpose of examination, it is assumed the fluids are required.
Claims 2-5 are rejected at least by dependency on claim 1.
Claim 5 recites “the liquid nitrogen”, “the wet natural gas processing”, “the production additional coproducts” without antecedent basis where it is unclear how or if this structure relates to the invention of base claim 1. Claim 5 recites, “the production additional coproducts including ammonia by electrolysis or haber-bosch process, polyethylene and PC” where it is unclear what claim element constitutes coproducts to which the recitation adds additional coproducts.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-5 would be allowable if rewritten or amended 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 resolution of the issues identified above. The Applicant is encouraged to add actual structure to the claims invoking §112(f) to simplify prosecution going forward.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding Claim 1, Borseth US 7,531,144 is considered the closest prior art of record. Borseth discloses in Fig. 1, a system for producing electrical energy and coproducts, the system comprising:
a Zero Emissions Engine (ZEE) comprising (i) a turbine engine or other combustion engine 7 and (ii) a first electrical generator 9, the turbine engine or other combustion engine combusting a gas fuel (from 8) with air or other oxygen source 28;
a boiler or other heat exchanger 18, for heat recovery, which produces steam from heat recovered from an exhaust of the ZEE;
a steam turbine 31 which is driven by the steam produced by the boiler or other beat exchanger;
a second electrical generator which is driven by the steam turbine 31 (see associated generator in figure);
a saltwater treatment system (comprising elements 6 and 17) in which steam 27 exhausted from the steam turbine is used to flash dry a saltwater 5 and a waste heat exhaust stream from the boiler or other heat exchanger 77 is used to preheat saltwater 30 by direct contact such that CO2 from the waste heat exhaust stream is absorbed by the saltwater (see element 17 in Fig. 4, saltwater is mixed with the exhaust steam as described at col. 4, ll. 46-57).
Borseth does not teach structure for the “saltwater treatment system in which steam exhausted from the steam turbine and a waste heat exhaust stream from the boiler or other heat exchanger is used to flash dry a saltwater concentrate and then preheat saltwater by direct contact such that CO2 from the waste heat exhaust stream is absorbed by the saltwater.” That is, no structure is found within Borseth which can enable the claimed functions of (1) steam exhausted from the steam turbine and a waste heat exhaust stream from the boiler or other heat exchanger is used to flash dry a saltwater concentrate and then (2) [steam exhausted from the steam turbine and a waste heat exhaust stream from the boiler or other heat exchanger is used to] preheat saltwater by direct contact such that CO2 from the waste heat exhaust stream is absorbed by the saltwater as claimed and no secondary references are found which make this reasonably obvious.
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure can be found in the attached Notice of References Cited.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RENE D FORD whose telephone number is (571)272-8140. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9am-5pm.
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, Devon Kramer can be reached on (571) 272-7118. 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.
/R.D.F/ /GERALD L SUNG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3741 Examiner, Art Unit 3741