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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This Final Office action is based on the 18/907101 application originally filed October 04, 2024 and is a CONTINUATION of 18/024772 (abandoned).
Claims 1-12, filed May 17, 2026, are pending and have been fully considered. Claim 13 has been canceled.
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 1-12 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.
Regarding Claims 1-12, the claims disclose the term “that is operable” or “that is operable to” which are indefinite to failing to distinctly claim what part of the apparatus defines “operable”. It is not clear what defines “operable” in the entire apparatus or is “operable” intended to define “used”. Further clarification and/or amending of the claims are required.
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 1-12 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-13 of U.S. Patent No. 11,471,853. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both the current application and U.S. Patent No. ‘853 disclose an apparatus to produce a sustainable aviation fuel from a batch of coal, wherein the apparatus overlaps in structure. 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).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Liu et al. (US 2007/0000176) discloses in the abstract, a system comprises a mixed reforming zone configured to receive a first fuel steam mixture and an oxidant to produce a first reformate stream comprising hydrogen. The system further comprises at least one steam-reforming zone configured to receive the first reformate stream, a first portion of steam and a second fuel to produce a second reformate stream comprising hydrogen. The first reformate stream is mixed with the first portion of steam and second fuel before entering the steam reforming zone.
Kelfkens et al. (US 2016/0152905) discloses in the abstract, an integrated plant to generate chemical grade syngas from a steam biomass reforming in a multiple stage bio reforming reactor for use with either a high temperature or low temperature Fischer-Tropsch synthesis process to produce fuel from biomass is discussed. The first stage has a reactor to cause a chemical devolatilization of a biomass feedstock from the biomass feedstock supply lines into its constituent gases of CO, H2, CO2, CH4, tars, chars, and other components into a raw syngas mixture. A second stage performs further reforming of the raw syngas from the first stage into the chemical grade syngas by further applying heat and pressure to chemically crack at least the tars, reform the CH4, or a combination of both, into their corresponding syngas molecules. The second stage feeds the chemical grade syngas derived from the biomass feedstock to the downstream Fischer-Tropsch train to produce the fuel from the biomass. One or more recycle loops supply tail gas or FT product back into the plant.
Lucas et al. (US 2017/0058222) discloses in the abstract, fuel and fuel additives can be produced by processes that provide Fischer-Tropsch liquids having high biogenic carbon concentrations of up to about 100% biogenic carbon. The fuels and fuel additive have essentially the same high biogenic concentration as the Fischer-Tropsch liquids which, in turn, contain the same concentration of biogenic carbon as the feedstock.
Inga et al. (US 2018/0029003) discloses in the abstract, methods, systems and apparatuses are disclosed for a Fischer-Tropsch ("FT") operation including a first FT stage comprising at least one FT reactor having a first FT catalyst and a first heat transfer surface area to catalyst volume configured to receive a first feed comprising synthesis gas and to convert a first portion of the synthesis gas in the first feed into first FT products. The disclosure also provides for a separation apparatus configured to separate the first FT products into first liquid FT hydrocarbons and first FT tail gas comprising unreacted syngas and for a second FT stage comprising at least one second FT reactor, having a second FT catalyst and a second heat transfer surface area to catalyst volume different from the first heat transfer surface area to catalyst volume, and configured to receive a second feed comprising the first FT tail gas and to convert at least a portion of the second feed into a second FT products.
Roy et al. (US 2022/0049166) discloses in the abstract, process and plant for producing hydrocarbon products from a feedstock originating from a renewable source, where a hydrogen-rich stream and on off-gas stream comprising hydrocarbons is formed. A portion of the hydrogen-rich stream is used as a recycle gas stream in a hydroprocessing stage for the production of said hydrocarbon products, and another portion may be used for hydrogen production, while the off-gas stream is treated to remove its H.sub.2S content and used as a recycle gas stream in the hydrogen producing unit, from which the hydrogen produced i.e. make-up hydrogen, is used in the hydroprocessing stage. The invention enables minimizing natural gas consumption in the hydrogen producing unit as well as steam reformer size.
Mabrouk et al. (US 2015/0307351) discloses in the abstract, a pressure swing adsorption (PSA) method provides a tail gas stream that is compressed and reformed by at least one of partial oxidation and steam reforming apparatus to produce a synthesis gas with a hydrogen to carbon monoxide ratio. The synthesis gas produced is usable for downstream synthesis of synthetic fuels and/or oxygenates. An apparatus is also provided.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LATOSHA D HINES whose telephone number is (571)270-5551. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday 9:00 AM - 6:00 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 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.
/Latosha Hines/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771
Prosecution Insights