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 .
Office Action Summary
This is the initial office action for application 18/903311 filed 10/01/2024.
Claims 21-40 are currently pending and have been fully considered.
Claims 1-20 have been cancelled.
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 21-34 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-4, 7-9, 11-12, 14 and 17-19 of U.S. Patent No. 11807814. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are both directed toward a system with a reaction tank comprising a process fluid and a chamber with three zones and a shaft through all three zones.
Claims 35-38 and 40 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 15 and 20 of U.S. Patent No 12104120. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are both directed toward processes for converting biomass by employing a chamber with 3 zones with a shaft through all 3 zones.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 21-40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over UNGER (USPGPUB 20140182194)
It is noted that claim 21 states a “mechanical device submersible in the process fluid” and not that the mechanical device is submerged in the process fluid.
It is also noted that claim 35 states a “submersible mechanical device disposed in a reactor vessel” and not a submersible mechanical device submerged in the process fluid in a reactor vessel.
UNGER teaches a universal method for producing synthetic products.
Regarding claims 21 and 35, UNGER teaches a method for the chemical conversion of mixtures of materials produced from solid and liquid hydrocarbons into gas/vapor mixtures and carbonaceous materials with a device.
UNGER teaches in paragraphs 1-26 that an aim is a universal process that can be used to treat biomass. Biomass would be considered a solid hydrocarbon that may be fed as part of the material feed.
UNGER teaches in paragraph 72 and Fig 1 an embodiment of the device and the process with the device.
UNGER teaches in Fig 1 a main reactor R1 comprising a chambered reaction wall 1 and a heating jacket 2.
The heating jacket 2 may be considered a reaction vessel configured to hold a process fluid.
The main reactor R1 further comprises an input region 8, a reaction mixing chamber 9, and high temperature region 10 and high temperature chamber 11.
The input region 8 may be considered the first zone.
The reaction mixing chamber 9 may be considered the second zone.
The high temperature region 10 and/or high temperature chamber 11 may be considered the third zone.
The zones are taught in paragraph 42 to be configured vertically.
The multiple zones would be considered to make up a chamber with an interior space and be a mechanical device submersible in a process fluid.
The multiple zones would be considered to be disposed in the heating jacket 2.
A built in screw agitator 3 is shown in Fig 1 and passes though input region 8, a reaction mixing chamber 9, and high temperature region 10 and high temperature chamber 11.
Regarding claim 34, the main reactor would be considered insertable into the heating jacket given that the heating jacket surrounds the main reactor.
Regarding claim 22, UNGER teaches in paragraph 42 a vertical screw.
Regarding claim 36, a vertical screw is taught in paragraph 42 to be a part of the screw agitator 3 with the reaction mixing chamber 9 being alternatively considered a first zone, and the high-temperature region 10 being considered the second zone and the high-temperature chamber 11 being considered the third zone.
Regarding claim 25, UNGER teaches in paragraph 82 a support stand 4 to drive the screw agitator 3.
Regarding claims 23-24 and 37-38, UNGER do not place any limits on the type of rotors that may be mounted on the screw agitator and it would be well within one of ordinary skill in the art to use different types of rotors with a reasonable expectation of success.
One motivation to use conical rotors can be found in the fact that UNGER teach that in paragraph 83 that the high-temperature chamber 11 is conical and a conical rotor on agitator along that portion of the high-temperature chamber 11 may be better fitted.
Regrading claim 26, UNGER teaches in paragraph 68 that a1 material mixture is fed into the main reactor and y1 steam is fed into the apparatus. An output of c1 carbon exits the main reactor R1.
Regarding claims 27 and 39, UNGER teaches in paragraph 6 that the processes employ include a process temperature below 500 C.
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)
Regarding claims 28-29, UNGER teaches a cracking reactor that is filled with zeolite. The cracking reactor has an organic vapor component that is fed into the main reactor and some non-zero amount of zeolite may be transported along into the main reactor and thus into the high temperature region 10 and high temperature chamber 11.
Furthermore, UNGER teaches in paragraphs 86 and 54 that high-temperature chamber 11 of main reactor R1 is where a cracking reaction occurs. Employing a zeolite catalyst for cracking reaction where UNGER has already recognized that zeolite may be used as catalyst for cracking in the process would be well within one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 30, UNGER teaches in paragraphs 1-26 that an aim is a universal process that can be used to treat biomass. Biomass would be considered a solid hydrocarbon that may be fed as part of the material feed. Material feed is taught in paragraph 85 to be conveyed by a screw conveyor into the input region 8.
Regarding claims 31-32, and 40 UNGER teaches in paragraph 41 that distillation may be used to separate the hydrocarbon products generated.
UNGER further teaches in paragraphs 59-67 that downstream process B after process A occurs to produce the products include fractional condensation.
Regarding claim 33, UNGER further teaches in paragraphs 59-67 that downstream process B after process A include other processes. to remove noxious substances, such as gas scrubbing. (polishing)
Therefore, the invention as a whole would have been considered prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
PECCI (WO2008023246) teach an apparatus for cracking molecular structure of organic molecules with a mixing shaft and a plurality of blades.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MING CHEUNG PO whose telephone number is (571)270-5552. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-6.
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 5712726381. 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.
/MING CHEUNG PO/Examiner, Art Unit 1771
/ELLEN M MCAVOY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771
Prosecution Insights