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 .
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 1-21 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-15 of U.S. Patent No. 12,203,422. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the instant application are broader than the claims of Patent 12,203,422.
Claims 1-4 of the instant application corresponds with Claim 1 of Patent 12,203,422;
Claim 5 of the instant application corresponds with Claim 2 of Patent 12,203,422;
Claim 6 of the instant application corresponds with Claim 3 of Patent 12,203,422;
Claim 7 of the instant application corresponds with Claim 4 of Patent 12,203,422;
Claim 8 of the instant application corresponds with Claim 5 of Patent 12,203,422;
Claim 9 of the instant application corresponds with Claim 6 of Patent 12,203,422;
Claim 10 of the instant application corresponds with Claim 7 of Patent 12,203,422;
Claim 11 of the instant application corresponds with Claim 8 of Patent 12,203,422;
Claim 12 of the instant application corresponds with Claim 9 of Patent 12,203,422;
Claim 13 of the instant application corresponds with Claim 10 of Patent 12,203,422;
Claim 14 of the instant application corresponds with Claim 16 of Patent 12,203,422;
Claim 15 of the instant application corresponds with Claim 17 of Patent 12,203,422;
Claim 16 of the instant application corresponds with Claim 10 of Patent 12,203,422;
Claim 17 of the instant application corresponds with Claim 11 of Patent 12,203,422;
Claim 18 of the instant application corresponds with Claim 12 of Patent 12,203,422;
Claim 19 of the instant application corresponds with Claim 14 of Patent 12,203,422;
Claim 20 of the instant application corresponds with Claim 13 of Patent 12,203,422; and
Claim 21 of the instant application corresponds with Claim 15 of Patent 12,203,422.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 12, 13, 17-20, 22 and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 6,255,009 issued to Rusek et al (citation 5 in the IDS filed on 12/19/2024).
Regarding Claim 1, Rusek et al. teach a vehicle (see at least Col. 3, lines 14-18, which disclose the invention is for providing power for a variety of vehicles), comprising:
- a fuel reservoir (Col. 4, lines 23-24 disclose storage tanks) for receiving and storing a liquid diluted fuel (hydrogen peroxide is disclosed) comprising a dilutor (water);
- a fuel densifier (50) arranged for receiving liquid diluted fuel from the fuel reservoir and arranged to provide a concentrated fuel based on the diluted fuel, the concentrated fuel having a higher energy density than the diluted fuel (see at least Col. 5, lines 10-29);
- a power conversion module (70,90) arranged to convert the concentrated fuel to kinetic energy (see Col 5, lines 43 through Col. 6 line 35 where Rusek et al. disclose the high strength hydrogen peroxide is decomposed to superheated stream whose kinetic energy is applied to a steam turbine);
- a propulsion structure for propelling the vehicle (see at least Col. 6, lines 16-18 where the steam turbine 90 is mechanically coupled to a propeller 95 to provide shaft work 95, such as propelling the vessel through the water); and
- a drive train (the mechanical coupling between the steam turbine 90 and the shaft for propelling the vessel through the water) to transfer the kinetic energy from the power conversion module to the propulsion structure.
Regarding Claim 2, Rusek et al. teach the fuel densifier (50) is arranged to separate the dilutor (water) from the concentrated fuel in the diluted fuel, the concentrated fuel having a first energy density and the dilutor having a second energy density being lower than the first energy density—the high strength hydrogen peroxide has more energy than the potable water (55).
Regarding Claim 3, Rusek et al. teach the fuel densifier (50) comprises a filter to separate the dilutor (the water gets filtered to element 55) from the concentrated fuel (the concentrated fuel gets filtered to element 60) in the diluted fuel.
Regarding Claim 12, Rusek et al. teach the fuel densifier (50) comprises at least one of osmosis, centrifuging, and distillation (see at least Col. 4, lines 64-65) for separating the concentrated fuel from the dilated fuel.
Regarding Claim 13, Rusek et al. teach the power conversion module comprises:
- a reactor chamber (70) arranged to create a pressurized fluid based on the concentrated fuel;
- a mechanical power conversion module for converting kinetic energy of the fluid to rotation of a shaft (turbine 90 rotates a shaft);
- a generator (130) connected to the shaft for converting kinetic energy of the shaft to electrical energy; and
- at least one electromotor (160) arranged for converting electrical energy from the generator (130) to kinetic energy, and for providing this kinetic energy to the drivetrain (at element 165; see also Col. 6, lines 24-26).
Regarding Claim 17, Rusek et al. teach the power conversion module comprises a fuel cell (see elements 170 and 175 in Figure 2) for converting the concentrated fuel to electrical energy.
Regarding Claim 18, Rusek et al. teach the power conversion module (70) is arranged to operate with the concentrated fuel and the power conversion module (70) comprises a catalyst material (see at least Col. 5, lines 58 through Col. 6, line 2) arranged to stimulate a reaction of the concentrated fuel into a pressurised fluid.
Regarding Claim 19, Rusek et al. teach the concentrated fuel is hydrogen peroxide (see at least step 210) and the dilutor is water or another suitable solvent (Rusek disclose seawater).
Regarding Claim 20, Rusek et al. teach the concentrated fuel is high-test peroxide (see at least step 210).
Regarding Claims 22 and 23, Rusek et al. teach of a system (Figure 2) for converting chemical energy provided by a liquid diluted fuel the system comprising:
- a fuel reservoir (Col. 4, lines 23-24 disclose storage tanks) for receiving and storing a liquid diluted fuel comprising a dilutor (water);
- a fuel densifier (50) arranged to provide a concentrated fuel based on the diluted fuel, the concentrated fuel having a higher energy density than the diluted fuel (see at least Col. 5, lines 10-29); and
- a power conversion module (70,90) arranged to convert the concentrated fuel to kinetic energy (see Col 5, lines 43 through Col. 6 line 35 where Rusek et al. disclose the high strength hydrogen peroxide is decomposed to superheated stream whose kinetic energy is applied to a steam turbine) and arranged (see Figure 2) to provide the kinetic energy to a generator (130) arranged to convert the kinetic energy into electrical energy.
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.
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rusek et al. in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2013/0000596 issued to Diaz Escano. (citation no. 5 in the IDS filed on 12/19/2024).
Regarding Claim 21, Rusek et al. disclose the claimed invention except for teaching of a pre-filter arranged to filter impurities from the diluted fuel.
Diaz Escano teaches that a pre-filter (70) is a known component for a fuel system.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide a pre-filter, as taught by Diaz Escano for the invention taught by Rusek et al. to remove impurities from the diluted fuel to increase the efficiency of the electrolytic H2O2 producer by removing impurities.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN L SWENSON whose telephone number is (571)270-5572. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday (9-5).
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, Allen Shriver can be reached at (303) 297-4337. 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.
BRIAN SWENSON
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3618
/BRIAN L SWENSON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3613
Prosecution Insights