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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment filed on 20 January 2026 is acknowledged. By way of Applicant’s amendment, claim 1 is amended. Claims 1-18 and 21 are currently pending in this application.
Response to Argument
Applicant's arguments filed 20 January 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that Baek (KR-101820501-B1) is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, Baek and the claimed invention are in the same field of rotatable heat treatment apparatuses.
In response to applicant's argument that the teachings of Yoshikawa and Kobayashi are contrary to the operational principle of Baek, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
Claims 1-7, 11-12, 15-18, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baek (KR-101820501-B1) in view of Yoshikawa et al. (US-20110319659-A), hereinafter “Yoshikawa”, Kobayashi (US-6113874-A), Zeng (CN-109248637-A), and Koo (WO-2020096195-A1), citations from corresponding (US-20210273274-A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Baek discloses a heat treatment apparatus (lime calcination facility and rotary kiln; see 0010]), the apparatus comprising: a heat treatment furnace (rotary kiln, which is a round circular furnace; see [0009]) having an inlet through which an object to be treated is input (limestone is loaded into the tip; see [0010]) and an outlet through which the heat-treated object is discharged (the quicklime calcined in this way is discharged through the quicklime discharge port; see [0010]); a support section rotatably supporting the heat treatment furnace (rotation of the rotary kiln; see [0010]); a burner provided in the heat treatment furnace to supply combustion gas to the heat treatment furnace (“due to the flame of the burner…CO2 is discharged from the limestone”; see [0010]); wherein the heat treatment furnace is divided into a first region in which the inlet is disposed (tip; see [0010]), a second region connected to the first region (see e.g. Baek Fig. 1 Part 300), and a third region connected to the second region and in which the burner is disposed (see e.g. Baek [0010] and Fig. 1 Part 320).
Baek further teaches that limestone is charged into the front-end portion of the rotary kiln and moves to the rear portion and the temperature of the limestone is raised by the flame heat of the burner in order to calcinate the raw lime (see e.g. Baek [0010]). Lengthening the flame increases production of lime, while shortening the flame decreases the production (see e.g. Baek [0015]). It is advantageous for the inlet to be separated from the burner so the materials fed through the inlet have sufficient residence time to increase in temperature and to be well mixed prior to moving toward the outlet. Disposing the burner in the kiln also allows for greater control of production. These teachings would have motivated a person of ordinary skill in the art to space the inlet region apart from the region in which the burner is disposed.
Baek does not explicitly teach an exhaust gas re-supply device. However, Yoshikawa discloses an exhaust gas re-supply device re-supplying a portion of the combustion gas discharged from the heat treatment furnace to the heat treatment furnace (“recycled carbon dioxide as a diluent from the exhaust gas… are fed to the reformation reaction heating furnace”; see Yoshikawa [0051]).
Baek and Yoshikawa are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of heat treatment furnaces. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date to modify Baek by incorporating the teachings of Yoshikawa and providing a re-supply of exhaust gas back to the furnace. Recycling is a known way to reduce emissions and make processes more efficient. This teaching would motivate a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide such a feature.
Baek modified by Yoshikawa does not explicitly teach further heating the re-supply gas. However, heating a recycle stream prior to recycling is a very commonly employed and understood method in the art, as taught by Kobayashi. Kobayashi discloses the portion of the exhaust gas being re-supplied being heated before being re-supplied to the heat treatment furnace (“A portion of cooled flue gas from the regenerators is recycled and mixed with fuel gas… The fuel and flue gas mixture is heated...”; see Col. 8 Lines 46-51; and “recycled flue gas is preheated”; see Col. 6 Lie 59).
Baek and Kobayashi are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of high temperature thermal treatment systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Baek by incorporating the teachings of Kobayashi and preheating the recycle stream. Doing so saves 17.5% of both fuel and oxygen (see Col. 8 Lines 58-59).
Regarding the limitation claiming, “to maintain a CO2 concentration inside the heat treatment furnace is within a predetermined range using the CO2 from the combustion gas”, this is a functional limitation that does not further limit the structure of the apparatus, but merely sets forth a manner of operating the apparatus. The Courts have held that apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art in terms of structure, not function. See In re Danley, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959); and Hewlett-Packard Co. V. Bausch and Lomb, Inc., 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (see MPEP §§ 2114 and 2173.05(g)). The manner of operating an apparatus does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art, if the prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim. See Ex Parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (BPAI 1987). Further, modified Baek discloses the structural limitations that enable this function, and therefore the structure of modified Baek obtains the ability to perform this function.
Baek does not explicitly disclose a nozzle. However, Zeng discloses a nozzle for supplying gas (gas inlet on the nozzle section of the corresponding heated atomizer nozzle; see [0018]). Zeng does not explicitly teach this nozzle as being associated with the re-supply of exhaust gas. However, because Zeng discloses nozzles for the supply of gases to the apparatus, it would naturally follow that a resupply stream would be introduced via a nozzle as well.
Baek and Zeng are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of continuous heat treatment devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Baek to incorporate the teachings of Zeng and provide a nozzle for gas introduction. Doing so would help to enable a mixing effect within the chamber (see Zeng [0027]).
Baek does not explicitly teach an actuator. However, Koo discloses the ability to rotate the heat treatment furnace at a predetermined rotational speed, which may be adjusted according to an amount of a supplied waste cathode material contained in the object to be treated, combustion status of the burner, or concentration of CO2 inside the heat treatment furnace (a reaction time, a residence time and a reaction degree of reaction between the electrode active material mixture and a reductive reaction gas may be easily controlled by adjusting a rotation speed of the dry rotary heating reactor; see [0029]). Koo does not explicitly mention an “actuator”, however Koo discloses the ability to control the speed of rotation (see [0029]) and the ability to rotate the rotary device at a predetermined rate (see [0069]), which explicitly teaches controlled rotation, a defined range of rotational speed, and that rotation speed affects reaction rate and process efficiency. These functions necessitate a motor, some powered drive, or some device capable of controlling rotational speed, as a kiln or heated reactor cannot rotate at the disclosed speed without a motorized actuator.
Baek and Koo are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of continuous heat treatment. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Baek by incorporating the teachings of Koo and providing rotational speed control, which necessitates the use of an actuator. Doing so would have enabled control of reaction and residence time (see Koo, [0029]).
Further, the limitation claiming that the rotational speed “may be adjusted according to an amount of a supplied waste cathode material contained in the object to be treated, combustion status of the burner, or concentration of CO2 inside the heat treatment furnace”, this is a functional limitation that does not further limit the structure of the apparatus, but merely sets forth a manner of operating the apparatus. The Courts have held that apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art in terms of structure, not function. See In re Danley, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959); and Hewlett-Packard Co. V. Bausch and Lomb, Inc., 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (see MPEP §§ 2114 and 2173.05(g)). The manner of operating an apparatus does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art, if the prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim. See Ex Parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (BPAI 1987). Functional limitations that do not limit the structure need not be given further due consideration in determining patentability of an apparatus.
Regarding Claim 2, Baek, Yoshikawa, Kobayashi, Zeng, and Koo together teach the apparatus according to claim 1. Yoshikawa further teaches the temperature of the reformation reaction heating furnace is preferably from 800-oC to 1000oC to avoid forming an unfavorable aromatic hydrocarbon in the vicinity of the wall of the reformation reactor at temperatures above 1000oC (Yoshikawa [0047]). In order to maintain the desired temperature, feed flow rates of combustion fuel LPG, oxygen, offgas, and recycled carbon dioxide are modified and optimized (Yoshikawa [0051]). Exhaust gas is separated (Yoshikawa Fig. 1 Part 17) and the resulting recycled carbon dioxide is fed to the hydrocarbon heating furnace (Yoshikawa [0045], and Fig. 1 Part 112) and the reformation reaction heating furnace (Yoshikawa [0051] and Fig. 1 Part 132). Thus, a percentage of recycled carbon dioxide would be optimized to feed the reformation reaction heating furnace in order to maintain the desired temperature.
As the feed flow rate of CO2 into the heat treatment furnace is a variable that can be modified by adjusting the percent of exhaust gas resupplied, and the temperature of the reformation reaction heating furnace is directly affected by the amount of recycled carbon dioxide fed into the reformation reacting heating furnace, and the temperature range is preferable from 800oC to 1000oC, the percent of the exhaust gas resupplied would have been considered a result effective variable by a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date. Therefore, because this does not provide new or unexpected results, the claimed 30 to 60 percent of the exhaust gas resupplied cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have used routine experimentation to optimize the percent of resupplied exhaust gas in the process of modifying Baek to obtain the desired reformation reaction heating furnace temperature and avoid forming an unfavorable aromatic hydrocarbon. (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Regarding Claim 3, Baek, Yoshikawa, Kobayashi, Zeng, and Koo together disclose the apparatus according to claim 1. Yoshikawa further discloses the recycled exhaust gas being fed to the hydrocarbon heating furnace, along with the combustion fuel LPG and oxygen in order to perform combustion (see Yoshikawa [0045]). Feeding 3 components together implies that all 3 components are being fed in the same place. Therefore, when modifying Baek, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to feed the recycled exhaust gas taught by Yoshikawa (see e.g. Yoshikawa [0051]) to the inlet of the first region taught by Baek (see e.g. Baek [0010]). Because the material in Baek is fed to the inlet in the first region and moved to the third region in the rear portion of the furnace (see e.g. Baek [0010]), it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the recycled exhaust gas taught by Yoshikawa would be charged to the inlet where it enters the first region, then next move through the second region, then lastly enter the third region. Yoshikawa discloses a combustion reaction taking place in the furnace (see e.g. Yoshikawa [0045]). It is known by those of ordinary skill in the art that reactants are in higher concentration near the inlet of a continuous tubular reactor and at lower concentration near the outlet, thereby reactant concentration is continuously decreasing as the components move from the inlet to the outlet of the reactor. Therefore, by modifying the furnace with three regions taught by Baek (see e.g. Baek [0010] and Fig. 1) with the recycled exhaust gas taught by Yoshikawa (see e.g. Yoshikawa [0045] and [0051]), it reasonably follows that the first and second regions of the furnace would be supplied recycled exhaust gas in larger amount than the third region. The limitation claiming that the exhaust gas supplied from the re-supply is the “heated portion” of the exhaust gas is addressed in the claim 1 rejection. Please refer to the claim 1 rejection as the rejection of this limitation follows the same logic. Regarding the limitation claiming “such that a temperature difference between the first and second regions and the third region is reduced”, this is a natural consequence of the operation and structure, and does not limit the structure of the apparatus. Because the prior art discloses the structural and operational limitations as claimed thus far, then this temperature difference mitigation should naturally follow without further structural or operation manipulation.
Regarding Claim 4, Baek, Yoshikawa, Kobayashi, Zeng, and Koo together disclose the apparatus according to claim 1. Baek further discloses at least one striking device disposed on an outer circumferential surface of the heat treatment furnace (see [0026]) to apply an impact to the outer circumferential surface (strike the outer surface; see [0026]).
Regarding Claim 5, Baek, Yoshikawa, and Kobayashi together disclose the apparatus according to claim 4. Baek further discloses the at least one striking device being arranged in a plurality of rows at intervals in a longitudinal direction of the heat treatment furnace (striking members at equal intervals; see Baek [0035]).
Regarding Claim 6, Baek, Yoshikawa, Kobayashi, Zeng, and Koo together disclose the apparatus according to claim 5. Baek further discloses a greater number of striking devices being disposed in the third region than in the first and second regions (see e.g. Baek [0036] and Fig. 3-5). Baek teaches the striking members being disposed around the rotary kiln, part 310, which is analogous to the third region of the furnace. As can be seen in Fig. 3-5 of Baek, the striking members are exclusively shown as being disposed around the third region of the furnace.
Regarding Claim 7, Baek, Yoshikawa, Kobayashi, Zeng, and Koo together disclose the apparatus according to claim 1.
Baek fails to teach baffles disposed on the furnace. However, Zeng discloses a plurality of baffles protruding in a radial direction (baffles are uniformly distributed along the circumference of the cartridge; see Zeng Pg. 2 paragraph 4 and Fig. 1). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Baek to incorporate the teachings of Zeng and provide baffles. Doing so obstructs the airflow to create a multi directional high pressure airflow (see e.g. Zeng Pg. 2 paragraph 16) and creates a mechanical mixing effect (see e.g. Zeng Pg. 3 paragraph 1).
Regarding Claim 11, Baek, Yoshikawa, Kobayashi, Zeng, and Koo together disclose the apparatus according to claim 1. Yoshikawa further discloses a CO-2 supply device (see e.g. Yoshikawa Fig. 1 Part 17) supplying carbon dioxide to the heat treatment furnace (see Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 12, Baek, Yoshikawa, Kobayashi, Zeng, and Koo together disclose a heat treatment apparatus according to claim 1. Baek further discloses a blower (air supply fan; see e.g. Baek [0046]). As explained above, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Baek by incorporating the exhaust gas recycle system taught by Yoshikawa, therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the blower to re-supply exhaust gas to the heat treatment apparatus, as it is configured to supply air and fuel to the combustion burner (see Baek [0046]).
Baek does not explicitly teach a pulverizing device, a mixing device, a filter, and a solidification device. However, Koo discloses a pulverizing device (grinding treatment; see [0049]) configured to pulverize solid reactants discharged from the heat treatment apparatus (prepared in a powder form through a physical method such as a grinding treatment; see [0049]); a mixing device configured to mix reactant powder pulverized by the pulverizing device with water (mixture may be formed by rotating the dry rotary heating reactor; see Koo [0012], and lithium precursor may be recovered by hydrating the preliminary lithium precursor particles; see [0021]); a filter configured to filter solid metals from the mixture obtained by the mixing device (“particles may be collected through the outlet”; see [0083]); and a solidification device (hydration reaction unit; see [0075]) configured to obtain solid lithium carbonate (crystallized lithium precursor may be obtained; see [0075]) from liquid reactant that has passed through the filter (mixture 60 collected through the outlet 106 may be injected into a hydration reaction unit 210; see Koo [0074]).
Regarding the limitation claiming “a mixing device”, Koo discloses the “precursor mixture may be formed by rotating the dry rotary heating reactor” (see e.g. [0012]). Because the dry rotary heating reactor is being used to create a mixture, it is therefore, for all intents and purposes, a mixing device.
Regarding the limitation claiming, “a filter configured to filter solid metals from the mixture”, Koo discloses “the precursor particles may be collected through the outlet, and then the transition metal-containing particles may be collected by the transition metal precursor recovery unit” (see e.g. [0083]). Because the transition metal recovery precursor recovery unit is being used to filter the transition metal containing particles from the precursor particles, for all intents and purposes, it is therefore a filter.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Baek by incorporating the teachings of Koo and providing a pulverizing device, a mixing device, a filter, and a solidification device. Doing so would, respectively, enable a powdered reactant (see e.g. Koo [0049]), enable the collection of the precursor before the transition metal-containing particles (see e.g. Koo [0022]), allow for the transition metal-containing particles to be treated with an acid solution to form precursors in the form of acid salts of each transition metal (see e.g. Koo [0083]), and enable the precursor to be crystallized (see e.g. Koo [0075]).
Regarding Claim 15, Baek, Yoshikawa, Kobayashi, Zeng, and Koo together disclose the recovery apparatus according to claim 12. Yoshikawa further discloses the blower selectively discharging a part of the introduced exhaust gas to the atmosphere (see e.g. Yoshikawa Fig. 1 Part 17). Yoshikawa discloses specific flow rates of recycled CO2 (see e.g. Yoshikawa [0045]), and it is known by those skilled in the art that discharging a portion of a stream is a common way to control the flow rate.
Regarding Claim 16, Baek, Yoshikawa, Kobayashi, Zeng, and Koo together disclose the recovery apparatus according to claim 12. Baek further discloses a support section supporting the heat treatment apparatus. See the annotated figure below.
PNG
media_image1.png
372
508
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 17, Baek, Yoshikawa, Kobayashi, Zeng, and Koo together disclose the recovery apparatus according to claim 16. Baek further discloses the support section comprising a first frame supporting the heat treatment furnace; a second frame fixed to the ground on which the heat treatment apparatus is installed to support the first frame; and first and second columns disposed between the first frame and the second frame. See the annotated figure below.
PNG
media_image2.png
390
527
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding the limitation claiming, “the second column has a different length than the first column”, Baek discloses the furnace having an inclination of about 3 degrees (see e.g. Baek [0010]), indicating that the support is angled to create such an incline. Because the support taught by Baek is in the form of columns, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make one column shorter than the other. Additionally, it can be seen in the annotated figure above that column 2 is shorter than column 1.
Regarding Claim 18, Baek, Yoshikawa, Kobayashi, Zeng, and Koo together disclose the recovery apparatus according to claim 17. The limitation claiming “the length of the second column is variable” is not considered patentable as it would be an obvious adjustment to a person of ordinary skill in the art. In re Stevens, 212 F.2d 197, 101 USPQ 284 (CCPA 1954) states, “adjustability, where needed, is not a patentable advance”.
Regarding Claim 21, Baek, Yoshikawa, Kobayashi, Zeng, and Koo together discloses the apparatus according to claim 3.
Modified Baek does not explicitly teach nozzles. However, Zeng discloses at least one of a single nozzle and a multi nozzle, positioned inside the heat treatment furnace (the inner wall of the reaction chamber is evenly distributed with a plurality of rows of high-pressure air nozzles; see [0011]), the single nozzle being inclined toward a rotational direction of the heat treatment furnace (“sprayed into the silo… by the heating atomizer nozzle… generating mechanical mixing”; see [0062]; this indicates that the nozzle is disposed and inclined/aimed to project in a direction that promotes mixing, which is understood to be the rotational direction), and the multi-nozzle arranged on an annular shape structure along a circumferential direction of the heat treatment furnace (nozzles arranged in an annular shape; see [0011] and Fig. 1 Parts 1-2 and 1-5). Zeng does not explicitly teach the nozzles as being part of a re-supply device, however Zeng does teach surface modification gas being introduced through the nozzle (see [0056]). It is known by those of ordinary skill in the art that carbon dioxide is effective surface modification gas, especially for lime coated surfaces. Because Baek discloses reason for removing a lime coating layer on the inner surface (see [0036]), and Yoshikawa discloses recycling of carbon dioxide (see [0045]), it would logically follow when using Zeng to modify Baek, previously modified by Yoshikawa, that the nozzles would be used to supply the recycled carbon dioxide taught by Yoshikawa. Using nozzles would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because it would have promoted mechanical mixing (see Zeng [0062]).
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baek (KR-101820501-B1), Yoshikawa (US-20110319659-A), Kobayashi (US-6113874-A), Zeng (CN-109248637-A), and Koo (WO-2020096195-A1), citations from corresponding (US-20210273274-A1), as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Soo (KR-101927044-B1).
Regarding Claim 8, Baek, Yoshikawa, Kobayashi, Zeng, and Koo together disclose the apparatus according to claim 7.
Modified Baek fails to teach the majority of baffles being disposed in the second region. However, Soo discloses a greater number of baffles being disposed in the second region (see e.g. Soo Fig. 2 part 100) than in the first region (see e.g. Soo Fig. 2 part 200).
Baek and Soo are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the same field of continuous heat treatment devices for solid extraction. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Baek to incorporate the teachings of Soo and include more baffles in the second region than in the first. Disposing the baffles close to the burner would increase reaction and production rate (see e.g. Soo [0087]), as it would increase residence time in that region.
Regarding Claim 9, Baek, Yoshikawa, Kobayashi, Zeng, Koo, and Soo together teach the apparatus according to claim 8. Zeng further teaches the baffle in the second region having a distal end bent with respect to a portion of the baffle other than the distal end (second baffle is provided with a convex and convex surface with a sharp angle; see e.g. Zeng Pg. 2 paragraph 12). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Baek with this teaching in order to ensure a strong collision of materials (see e.g. Zeng Pg. 2 paragraph 12).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baek (KR-101820501-B1), Yoshikawa (US-20110319659-A), Kobayashi (US-6113874-A), Zeng (CN-109248637-A), Koo (WO-2020096195-A1), citations from corresponding (US-20210273274-A1), and Soo (KR-101927044-B1) as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of and Dynamix Agitators, “Mixing 101: Baffled by Baffles?”, October 19, 2012.
Regarding Claim 10, Baek, Yoshikawa, Kobayashi, Zeng, and Soo together teach the apparatus according to claim 8. Soo further teaches the baffle as having a sheet plate shape (see e.g. Soo Fig. 2-3a, part 500). Making the baffles flat sheets that attach to the side of the tanks would prevent swirling and promote top to bottom fluid movement and generate great radial mixing, as taught by Dynamix Agitators (paragraph 6-7). Therefore, using a sheet plate shaped baffle would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baek (KR-101820501-B1), Yoshikawa (US-20110319659-A), Kobayashi (US-6113874-A), Koo (WO-2020096195-A1), citations from corresponding (US-20210273274-A1), and Zeng (CN-109248637-A), as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Hiromi (JP-2016022439-A).
Regarding Claim 13, Baek, Yoshikawa, Kobayashi and Koo together disclose the recovery apparatus according to claim 12.
Modified Baek does not explicitly teach a cyclone. However, Hiromi discloses a cyclone (see [0016] part 5) disposed between the heat treatment apparatus and the blower (see Fig. 1 parts 2 and 5) to recover powder contained in the exhaust gas discharged from the heat treatment apparatus (separates exhaust gas from the boiler into a course powder and exhaust gas containing fine powder; see e.g. Hiromi [0016]). Regarding the limitation claiming “between the heat treatment apparatus and the blower”, Hiromi discloses the cyclone being placed after the heat treatment apparatus explicitly to handle exhaust from the heat treatment apparatus. Baek teaches the blower being configured to supply air and fuel to the combustion burner (see Baek [0046]), clearly indicating placement of the blower as upstream from the heat treatment apparatus. When modifying Baek by Hiromi, it would naturally follow that the cyclone is placed between the heat treatment apparatus and the blower.
Baek and Hiromi are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of continuous heat treatment in a rotary device. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Baek with the teachings of Hiromi and incorporate a cyclone. Doing so would enable the separation of course powder from the exhaust gas (see e.g. Hiromi [0016]).
Regarding Claim 14, Baek, Yoshikawa, Kobayashi, Koo, and Hiromi together disclose the recovery apparatus according to claim 13. Hiromi further discloses a first cyclone into which exhaust gas is introduced, as explained above, and a second cyclone which has a cooling device (see e.g. Hiromi [0002]). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a cooling device because cooling the entire exhaust gas would suppress the resynthesis of dioxins (see e.g. Hiromi [0002]).
Regarding the limitation claiming the cooling device be integrated into the cyclone, instead of being separate as disclosed by Hiromi, is not patentable as it is merely a matter of obvious engineering choice. In reLarson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965) states, “that the use of a one piece construction instead of the structure disclosed in [the prior art] would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kobayashi (US-6113874-A).
Kobayashi was used to reject claim 1. Kobayashi was not directly cited to reject claim 2, but it is acknowledged that Kobayashi discloses a 33% recycle (see Col. 7 Line 11). This recycle ratio would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because it would have resulted in 133% of the original flue gas volume (see Col. 7 Lines 11-12).
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 ALYSSA LEE KUYKENDALL whose telephone number is (571)270-3806. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday 9:00am-5:00pm.
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, Claire Wang can be reached at 571-270-1051. 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.
/A.L.K./Examiner, Art Unit 1774
/CLAIRE X WANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1774