DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 1/2/2025 has been entered.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that are interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
a heating system capable of providing heat to the exterior of the retort structure sufficient for pyrolysis of a calorific material within the retort structure, as recited in claim 1.
means for varying the inclination of the pyrolysis structure, as recited in claims 19 and 20.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
heating system [Wingdings font/0xE0] hot gas producing furnace (para. 50).
means for varying the inclination of the pyrolysis structure [Wingdings font/0xE0] hydraulic piston/ram
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
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) 1, 3, 4, 6-11, 16, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Merola (LV 14040 B) in view of Bedard (US 20140056770 A1) and Keene (US 1686009 A), and as evidenced by Bowing (US 0627043 A).
Regarding claim 1, Merola discloses a pyrolysis apparatus comprising:
a retort structure (Fig. 1, 18) having an interior surface and an exterior surface comprising an inner drum (18) made of a solid, continuous, non-perforated sheet (Figs. 2, 3), the retort structure is a rotatable retort (abstract) and the retort structure has a first end (end proximate fuel inlet) and second end (end proximate hopper 24);
a thermally insulated housing (Fig. 1, 10) enclosing the retort structure;
a heating system (hot gas source for supplying heated gas into the heating chamber via valves 12) capable of providing heated gas to the interior of the thermally insulated housing and thereby to the exterior of the retort structure sufficient for pyrolysis of a calorific material within the retort structure (English translation, second half of pg. 4);
a pipe (Fig. 1: pipe containing a conveyor 4) having a portion located within the retort structure for delivering feedstock into the retort structure; and
an airtight housing (Fig. 1, 8) at the first end of the retort structure with the pipe passing through it, the airtight housing preventing the heated gas from entering the retort structure (English translation; pg. 4, 3rd paragraph).
Merola fails to disclose:
wherein the inner drum is made of a solid, continuous sheet of a high thermal conductivity metal affixed, at a first side of the sheet of the high thermal conductivity metal, to a framework of a high temperature strength metal, the framework of the high temperature strength metal being bonded directly to the first side of the sheet of the high thermal conductivity metal, the first side of the sheet of the high thermal conductivity metal being exposed on the exterior surface of the retort structure through open regions of the framework of the high temperature strength metal, wherein the high thermal conductivity metal comprises copper.
Bedard teaches a pyrolysis apparatus (para. 31) comprising a retort structure (5, Fig. 1), the retort structure comprising: an inner drum made of a solid, continuous, non-perforated sheet of a high thermal conductivity metal (210, Fig. 3) affixed, at a first side of the sheet of the high thermal conductivity metal, to a framework of a high temperature strength metal (205) (e.g., steel/steel alloy), the framework of the high temperature strength metal being bonded directly to the first side of the sheet of the high thermal conductivity metal, wherein the high thermal conductivity metal comprises copper (see paras. 60, 61).
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art at the time of effective filing of the application to modify Merola wherein the inner drum is made of a solid, continuous, non-perforated sheet of a high thermal conductivity metal affixed, at a first side of the sheet of the high thermal conductivity metal, to a framework of a high temperature strength metal, the framework of the high temperature strength metal being bonded directly to the first side of the sheet of the high thermal conductivity metal, wherein the high thermal conductivity metal comprises copper.
The motivation to use a high thermal conductivity metal such as copper for the inner drum is to help uniformly distribute the heat around the retort, and having a framework made of a high strength metal would support the relatively weaker copper layer (see paras. 61, 68 of Bedard).
Modifying the inner drum of Merola to be made of a high thermally conductive metal would help distribute the heat more uniformly in the drum. This would help maintain consistent temperature conditions in the retort, especially the temperature in the radial and circumferential directions inside the retort. Uniform temperatures are important for optimal biomass to energy conversion.
In Merola, heated gases are provided at the bottom (via inlets 12) of the housing. The bottom of the retort would be locally heated relative to the top of the retort. Although some of the local heating would be distributed throughout the retort by the rotation of the retort, having the retort made of a high thermally conductive metal would reduce temperature gradients between the top and bottom of the retort. Furthermore, biomass would enter the retort and sit at the bottom of the retort, which would further contribute to the non-uniform heating in the retort.
As evidentiary support, see pg. 1, lines 45-68 of Bowing discussing where an externally heated retort is made of a high thermally conductive material to help with uniform heating of the retort.
Keene teaches an electric furnace and the technique of providing open regions (Fig. 1: 62, 63) of the framework of the high temperature strength metal (pg. 2, lines 49-55; see also pg. 3, lines 20-24 discussing where the framework is a high strength metal, e.g., nickel steel). The purpose of the open regions is to reduce the weight of the framework (pg. 2, lines 49-53).
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art at the time of effective filing of the application to further modify Merola wherein the framework has the open regions such that the first side of the sheet of the high thermal conductivity metal is exposed on the exterior surface of the retort structure through open regions of the framework [the modification of Merola in view of Bedard and Keene results in a retort structure (Merola, 18) comprising two adjacent layers, an inner layer of high thermal conductivity, and an outer framework that has openings; at the openings, the inner high thermal conductivity layer would be exposed to an environment outside of the retort structure]. The motivation to combine is to reduce the weight of the retort while giving strength to the retort. As discussed in Bedard, having a framework would provide structural support for the retort; however, this benefit has the cost of added weight. Reducing the weight of the retort would serve several purposes. First, it would make transport and handling of the retort easier. Second, the motor driving the retort would not have to work as hard. And third, it would save on material cost.
Moreover, a person having skilled in the art would have been motivated to incorporate the open regions in the framework, and not in the copper layer, for several reasons. First, if the open regions were in the copper layer, then it would significantly weaken the copper layer. Copper is considered a soft metal and could easily deform due to stresses and strains. Second, if the open regions were placed in the copper layer, then waste material would be deposited in the open regions, which would compromise the retort. The heated waste deposited in the open regions would turn to caked on hardened char that would create non-uniform temperatures in the framework. The non-uniform temperatures would cause differential straining in the framework. Moreover, the framework would be exposed to the harsh conditions of the pyrolysis process. Third, if the open regions were in the copper layer, then cleaning the interior of the retort would be extremely difficult since there would be many crevices to clean. Lastly, if the open regions were placed in both the copper layer and in the framework, then the retort would be rendered inoperable since waste would fall out of the inner drum before the pyrolysis process is complete.
Regarding claim 3, modified Merola discloses wherein the high temperature strength metal is a nickel alloy (Bedard: para. 61).
Regarding claim 4, modified Merola discloses wherein the high temperature strength metal is a stainless steel (Bedard: para. 61).
Regarding claim 6, Merola discloses wherein said retort (18) has a circular cross- section (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 7, Merola discloses wherein said retort is cylindrical (Figs. 1, 2).
Regarding claim 8, Merola discloses a first body (Fig. 1, 25) of co-rotating inner (Fig. 1, 18) and outer bodies (25).
Regarding claim 9, Merola discloses wherein said first body is said outer body (25) of said co-rotating inner and outer bodies
Regarding claim 10, modified Merola discloses the apparatus according to claim 9, further comprising a second body (Merola,18) of said co-rotating inner and outer bodies, said second body being constructed of a high thermal conductivity metal such as copper (see rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 11, Merola discloses wherein the inner body contains holes (apertures in grid basket 21) to allow particulate material to pass therethrough.
Regarding claim 16, Merola discloses a rotatable drive capable of rotating the retort (abstract).
Regarding claims 19, Merola discloses means (13) for varying the inclination of the pyrolysis structure.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Merola (LV 14040 B) in view of Bedard (US 20140056770 A1) and Keene (US 1686009 A), and as evidenced by Bowing (US 0627043 A), as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Ricklefs (US 20100024243 A1)
Regarding claim 17, Merola fails to disclose said rotatable drive is reversible, and controllable to periodically alternate the direction of rotation of the retort structure. However, Ricklefs teaches a clothes dryer comprising a drive motor, wherein said rotatable drive is reversible, and controllable to periodically alternate the direction of rotation of the drum (para. 8, 33, 56). Ricklefs teaches this reversible feature to loosen the clothing items for faster drying (para. 33).
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art at the time of effective filing of the application to modify Merola wherein said rotatable drive is reversible, and controllable to periodically alternate the direction of rotation of the retort structure. The motivation to combine is so that the material inside the drum can be loosened for a more efficient and complete pyrolysis process.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Merola (LV 14040 B) in view of Bedard (US 20140056770 A1), and as evidenced by Bowing (US 0627043 A)., as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Bottinelli (US 4983214 A).
Regarding claim 20, Merola fails to disclose wherein the means for varying the inclination of the pyrolysis structure comprises a hydraulic arrangement.
However, Bottinelli teaches hydraulics (80, Fig. 4) for varying the inclination of a kiln. It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art at the time of effective filing of the application to modify Merola wherein the means for varying comprises hydraulics, since it is a simple substitution with predictable results of one type of tilting mechanism for another. Moreover, the use of hydraulics is a well-known reliable technology.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12-15 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant asserts the following on page(s) 6 of the Remarks:
PNG
media_image1.png
328
704
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s response:
The motivation statement has been amended; therefore, Applicant’s argument is moot.
Applicant asserts the following on page(s) 6 of the Remarks:
PNG
media_image2.png
174
698
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s response:
The copper layer is not a heat sink that permanently removes thermal energy from the system. The heat would eventually penetrate through the copper layer and into the feedstock. For example, if the enclosed space (Merola, 17) is kept at a constant temperature, then the interior of the retort would also be at the same temperature given enough time for the temperature to equilibrate.
Applicant asserts the following on page(s) 6 of the Remarks:
PNG
media_image3.png
328
700
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s response:
Steel is used to create beams but it is common practice for beams to have an I-shaped cross-section, rather than a circular or square cross-section. This is done in order to reduce the weight and material of the beams, while still retaining much of its strength. This concept is similarly applied to the modification. The framework is made of steel to give it strength but formed as a lattice to reduce its weight.
Applicant asserts the following on page(s) 7 of the Remarks:
PNG
media_image4.png
484
700
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s response:
While bonding the copper layer to the high strength metal would significantly strengthen the copper layer, having cutouts in the copper layer might cause the edges of the cutouts to deform or chip away when exposed to coarse biomass that is being rotated in the retort.
Regarding the second point, the statement has been modified to say that the hardened deposits on the framework would create non-uniform temperatures in the framework, resulting in differential straining in the framework.
It is common knowledge in the art that these systems must be periodically cleaned, otherwise, material would continue to build up on the inner wall of the retort.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON LAU whose telephone number is (571)270-7644. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00-6:00.
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, Michael Hoang can be reached on 571-272-6460. 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.
/JASON LAU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762
Prosecution Insights