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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Paragraph 0131, line 1 delete “of a”. Paragraph 0141 line 6 delete the extra “may comprise”. Paragraph 0165 line 3 delete “DSUs” and replace it with --DCUs--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 9, 12 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claims 9 and 12 lines 19 and 20 recite “the electrical transformation” and “the low-voltage”; however, it appears that it should rea the second electrical transformation and the second low-voltage. Claim 18 should depend from claim 17 not claim 19. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Barbour (US 2020/0051184).
With respect to claim 1, Barbour discloses a flare mitigation system (paragraph 0008) comprising: an electrical power generation system comprising: a power generation module adapted to: receive a fuel gas stream comprising a fuel gas associated with a heat value of at least about 1,000 Btu/scf; and consume the fuel gas stream to generate a high-voltage electrical output associated with a first voltage (figures 1 and 2 discloses power generating modules couple to a generator to produce power. Note that the power generation system receives natural gas); and
an electrical transformation module in electrical communication with the power generation module, the electrical transformation module adapted to: receive the high-voltage electrical output generated by the power generation module; and transform the high-voltage electrical output into a low-voltage electrical output associated with a second voltage that is lower than the first voltage (figure 4 discloses a transforming module 80 to receive a high voltage and step-down the voltage); and
a distributed computing system powered by the electrical power generation system, the distributed computing system comprising:
a communications system comprising one or more data satellite antennas (antennas 96, figure 4 and 6), the communications system adapted to provide a network; and
a first mobile data center comprising:
an enclosure defining an interior space (see figure 6);
a plurality of distributed computing units located within the interior space of the enclosure, each of the plurality of distributed computing units in communication with the network (see mining processors 92, figure 4); and
a power system located at least partially within the interior space of the enclosure, the power system in electrical communication with the electrical transformation module and the plurality of distributed computing units such that the power system receives the low-voltage electrical output and powers each of the plurality of distributed computing units (figure 4 discloses distribution panel and contactor panel for distributing for powering the distributed computing units 92).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 2-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barbour (US 2020/0051184) in view of TORVUND (US 2020/0006938).
With respect to claim 2, Barbour discloses a system according to claim 1; except for, wherein: the power generation module comprises an engine-type generator; the high-voltage electrical output is from about 70 kW to about 2 MW; and the first voltage is from about 480 V to about 4.16 kV.
TORVUND discloses a 25 MW gas turbine 68 and a 5 MW that produce voltages in the ranges of 400V to 11 kV, see figure 2.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have modify Barbour and include a turbine generator that produces a desired wattages and voltage that meet a load, for example. Furthermore, it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
With respect to claims 3, 13, Barbour in view of TORVUND disclose a system according to one of the claims, wherein the second voltage is from about 208 V to about 240 V. Paragraph of Barbour discloses providing voltages of 120V and 208V.
With respect to claims 4, 6, Barbour in view of TORVUND disclose a system according to one of the claims, wherein: the high-voltage electrical output is from about 300 kW to about 400 kW; the first voltage is about 480 V; the enclosure of the first mobile data center comprises: a length of about 20 feet; a width of about 8 feet; and a height of from about 8.5 feet to about 9.5 feet; and the plurality of distributed computing units comprises at least about 200 distributed computing units. Figure 6 discloses a mobile data center the use of ship container of different sizes, paragraph 0065.
With respect to claims 5, 7, Barbour in view of TORVUND disclose a system according to one of the claims, wherein the electrical power generation system is adapted to consume from about 50 Mscf to about 100 Mscf of fuel gas per day; wherein the electrical power generation system is adapted to consume from about 100 Mscf to about 500 Mscf of fuel gas per day. Barbour and TORVUND discloses the use of generators that use natural gas, thus it would have been obvious to have use a generator that consume a desired gas per day.
With respect to claims 8-9, 11-12, Barbour in view of TORVUND disclose a system according to claim 6, wherein the distributed computing system further comprises a second mobile data center comprising: a second enclosure defining an interior space, the second enclosure having a length, width and height substantially similar to the respective length, width and height of the enclosure of the first mobile data center;
a second plurality of distributed computing units located within the interior space of the second enclosure, each of the second plurality of distributed computing units in communication with the network; and a second power system located at least partially within the interior space of the second enclosure, the second power system in electrical communication with the electrical transformation module and the second plurality of distributed computing units such that the power system receives the low-voltage electrical output and powers each of the second plurality of distributed computing units; wherein: the electrical power generation system further comprises: a second electrical transformation module in electrical communication with the power generation module, the second electrical transformation module adapted to: receive the high-voltage electrical output generated by the power generation module; and transform the high-voltage electrical output into a second low-voltage electrical output associated with the second voltage; and the distributed computing system further comprises: a second mobile data center comprising: a second enclosure defining an interior space, the second enclosure having a length, width and height substantially similar to the respective length, width and height of the enclosure of the first mobile data center; a second plurality of distributed computing units located within the interior space of the second enclosure, each of the second plurality of distributed computing units in communication with the network; and a second power system located at least partially within the interior space of the second enclosure, the second power system in electrical communication with the electrical transformation module and the second plurality of distributed computing units such that the power system receives the low-voltage electrical output and powers each of the second plurality of distributed computing units. Figure 4 and 6 discloses a computing system providing in a shipping container with its respective transformation modules; thus it would have been obvious to have provided a second shipping container with a second transformation module and a second a second power distribution system, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
With respect to claim 10, Barbour disclose a system according to claim 1; except for, wherein: the power generation module comprises a turbine-type generator; the high-voltage electrical output comprises from about 2 MW to about 30 MW; and the first voltage is from about 4.16 kV to about 12 kV.
TORVUND discloses a 25 MW gas turbine 68 and a 5 MW that produce voltages in the ranges of 400V to 11 kV, see figure 2.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have modify Barbour and include a turbine generator that produces a desired wattages and voltage that meet a load, for example. Furthermore, it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
With respect to claims 14-15, Barbour in view of TORVUND disclose a system according to claim 1, further comprising a monitoring and control system in communication with the distributed computing system via the network; further comprising a natural gas processing system in communication with the electrical power generation system, the natural gas processing system adapted to process raw natural gas into the fuel gas. Figure 4 discloses a mining components with respective sensor of the system, figures 1-3 disclose processing the natural gas, paragraph 0004.
With respect to claim 16, Barbour in view of TORVUND disclose a system according to claim 1, wherein the plurality of distributed computing units are adapted to mine a cryptocurrency. Barbour discloses providing power to a mine computing system, thus it would have been obvious to have used any known computing systems as the load.
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 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 10,862,309. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because.
With respect to claims 1-20, claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 10,862,309 disclose all the limitations of claims 1-20.
Claims 1-16 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-16 of U.S. Patent No. 10,862,307. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because.
With respect to claims 1-16, claims 1-16 of U.S. Patent No. 10,862,307 disclose all the limitations of claims 1-16.
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 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claims 17-20 of prior U.S. Patent No. 10,862,307. This is a statutory double patenting rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CARLOS AMAYA whose telephone number is (571)272-8941. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00AM-4:00PM.
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, Rexford Barnie can be reached at (571) 272-7492. 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.
/CARLOS AMAYA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2836