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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 1-13 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on May 11, 2026.
Applicant's election with traverse of Group IV in the reply filed on May 11, 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that Applicant submits that Group I, Group II, and Group III are related to similar subject matter as elected Group IV and as a result, separate searches would likely identify the same references, if any such references exist. This is not found persuasive because the inventions require different fields of search in different classes and subclasses and the inventions required different search queries.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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.
Claim 19 is 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.
It is not clear what the language “or combinations thereof” refers to. This language appears at the end of the claim. Clarification and/or correction are required.
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.
Claim 14-16 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schaffers (US 20220177312) in view of Hildago (US 5,810,474) (both references appear on the PTO-1449).
Schaffers teaches processes for the deliberate decomposition, extraction and conversion of coal into high-value products and goods via solvent extraction, chemical reaction and/or separation (see abstract). Coal slurry is pumped into an extraction reactor, for example, via or proximate to the top of the reactor. The reactor is designed as a countercurrent extractor, with solids entering the extractor near the top of the vessel and falling down through the vessel. Most of the solvent (aside from the solvent used to slurry the feed coal), enters the extraction reactor near the bottom of the vessel, so liquid flows up the vessel, contacting the solids falling down the vessel. A set of agitators such as agitator paddles on a common shaft, and static baffles between sets of agitators, improve solid/liquid contacting. The agitators may be driven by a variety of methods such as a variable speed drive, and the rotational speed may be adjusted to find a workable speed. Higher rotational speeds may improve solid/liquid contacting, which is needed to direct the solids down through the extractor. Coal residue is removed from the bottom of the extraction reactor as a slurry, which may be filtered. The solution, consisting of most of the solvent and the dissolved coal species flows out of the top of the vessel to the separation train (see para 0107).
The reactor vessel is divided into a plurality of stages by pairs of horizontal plates (see reactor vessel of Fig 2, see Slurry IN, Solvent IN, see unlabeled baffle plates and agitators defining stages, static baffles between sets of agitators), each pair of horizontal plates comprising: a stationary plate (see baffles connected to outer wall of reactor chamber between slurry inlet and solvent inlet to the opening through which coal passes through; and a rotatable plate (see unlabeled baffles on motor assembly shaft, Fig 2, positioned between slurry in and solvent inlet). Rotating the rotatable plates independent of the stationary plate are present such that the coal passes from stage to stage. The baffles on the shaft are taught rotating while the coal passes from stage to stage (see FIG 2).
The contacting step is carried out using a counter current flow (see para 0016). The coal may be sub-bituminous, and lignite (see para 0037). Schaffers teaches that the coal can be maintained in the vessel for up to 60 hours (see para 0012). The process further comprises injecting a hydrocarbon solvent or an alcohol solvent that may be polar, paraffinic, aromatic, ionic, and/or hydrogen-donating in nature, or combinations thereof (see para 0040).
The coal-based feedstock is loaded into the reactor(s). The system is then pressurized with argon to a pressure of approximately 250 psi (17 bar). Solvent is flowed through the system until the reactors are full of the solvent. The reactors are then heated to approximately 360° C. at a rate of approximately 5° C. per minute (see para 0066). Schaffers meet the limitations of the claims other than the differences that are set forth below.
Schaffers does not specifically teach the plates being circular plates; the stationary plates having a stationary plate opening through which coal passes through; and the rotatable plates having a rotatable plate opening through which the coal passes through, each rotatable member opening configured to rotate relative to each stationary member opening; and rotating the rotatable plate such that the rotatable plate opening aligns with the stationary plate opening. However, Hidalgo teaches an extractor can comprise stationary and rotating circular plates. Hildago teaches that a second pair of circular baffle plates 60, 62, and a second cavitation zone. Plate 60 is secured to the shaft 68 for rotation therewith, while plate 62 is stationarily secured to the interior wall of the housing 23', the plates each having an opening occupying less than two quadrants of the respective plate arranged such that the apertures can align while rotating (see plates 50, 52, 60, 62, 66, 68, Figs 1, Figs 4A-4G; Figs 5A-5G; col 4, lines 61-65, openings 56, 63, and 54, 64).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have provided plates as taught by Hidalgo on the system of Schaffers in order to better control mixing in the reactor.
Schaffers does not specifically teach wherein the reactor vessel is divided into at least five stages. Schaffers teaches providing four stages (Fig 2, four sets of baffles and agitators are provided). No unobviousness is seen in this difference because the courts have held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schaffers (US 20220177312) in view of Hildago (US 5,810,474) as applied to the claim above, and further in view of Scheibel (US 3,389,970-appears on the PTO-1449).
Schaffers and Hildago have been discussed above. Schaffers in view of Hildago does not specifically teach wherein the agitator is a rotating sweeper arm or a rotating impeller. Schiebel teaches that a rotating impeller can be provided between baffles in extraction columns. In each stage, the light phase liquid rising up from the next lower stage and the heavy phase liquid descending from the next higher stage both flow to impeller assembly 15, then are pumped through impeller assembly 15 in an intimate admixture (see FIG 1, part 15, col 2, In 54-58).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have provided impellers as agitators as taught by Schiebel on the system of modified Schaffers in order to provide better mixing of the materials.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CEPHIA D TOOMER whose telephone number is (571)272-1126. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
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 571-272-6368. 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.
/CEPHIA D TOOMER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771 19103251/20260530
Prosecution Insights