DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 20 August 2025 has been entered.
Applicant’s amendments to the Drawings have overcome every Drawing objection. The Drawing objections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments to the Specification have overcome most of the Specification objections. However, one Specification objection still remains. Applicant’s amendments have also provided grounds for an additional Specification objection.
Applicant’s amendments have overcome the previous Claim objections. However, new Claim objections have been provided in the present Office action.
Applicant’s amendments have overcome the previous 35 USC 112 rejections. However, new 35 USC 112 rejections have been provided in the present Office action.
Applicant’s arguments, filed 20 August 2025, with respect to the prior-art rejections of the claims have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Therefore, the grounds of rejection under 35 USC § 102 and 103 still stand.
New rejections are provided in this Office action, which are not due to the Applicant’s amendments. Therefore, the present Office action is in a non-Final status.
Status of the Claims
In the amendment dated 20 August 2025, the status of the claims is as follows: Claims 1, 4-6, 8, and 12-14 have been amended.
Claims 1-14 are pending.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Paragraph 0055 “downstream (her shown” should read “downstream (here shown”.
Appropriate correction is required.
The amendment filed 20 August 2025 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows: the last sentence in paragraph 0038 is new matter- “A shroud 47 disposed in the box 46 covers the end of the tube 38 to force air into the conduit 50.”
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 6 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, recommend amending claim 1 to recite: “means for exhausting or evacuating the treated material of the chamber wherein the means for exhausting or evacuating the treated material is in direct fluid communication with an interior of the chamber and is integral the chamber.”
In claim 6, recommend amending the claim to recite: “an igniter.”
Appropriate correction is required.
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 use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: the “means for exhausting” in claims 4 and 14. Claims 4 and 14 have sufficient structure such that 35 USC 112(f) is not invoked for these claims.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends 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 remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites: “means for exhausting or evacuating the treated material of the chamber in direct fluid communication with the interior of the chamber and integral therewith.” However, neither the original Specification nor the original set of Claims disclose “means” that are in “direct fluid communication” or “integral” with a chamber. As a result, by using this limitation, the Applicant introduces new matter into the Application.
Claim 4 recites: “a blower in direct communication with the exhaust tube.” However, neither the original Specification nor the original set of Claims disclose a “blower” that is “direct communication” with an exhaust tube. As a result, by using this limitation, the Applicant introduces new matter into the Application.
Claim 14 recites: “an exhaust tube in direct fluid communication with the chamber.” However, neither the original Specification nor the original set of Claims disclose an “exhaust tube” that is “direct fluid communication” with the chamber. As a result, by using this limitation, the Applicant introduces new matter into the Application.
Claims 2-3, and 5-14 are rejected based on their dependence to claim 1. This new rejection is based on the amended portion of the claims.
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 1-14 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.
Claim 1 recites: “means for exhausting or evacuating the treated material of the chamber in direct fluid communication with the interior of the chamber and integral therewith.” It is unclear what is intended in claiming a relationship between the “means for exhausting or evacuating” (interpreted under 112f as being a stack or a tube and a blower or a fan) and the “chamber,” where the “means” are in “direct fluid communication” and “integral” with the “chamber.” Although fig. 1 of the Drawings in the Instant Application show an exhaust tube 38 that is connected to the chamber 14, it is not clear if “connected” means the same as “direct fluid communication” or “integral.” Definitions for “integral” include “essential to completeness,” “formed as a unit with another part,” and “lacking nothing essential.” Neither of these limitations are used in the Specification (please see the 112(a) rejection above). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art could not possibly know what these limitations mean in view of the Specification, since there is no context in the Specification by which the limitations could be understood.
Claim 4 recites: “a blower in direct communication with the exhaust tube.” It is unclear what is intended in claiming a relationship between the “blower” and the “exhaust tube,” where the “blower” is in “direct communication” with the “exhaust tube.” This limitation is not used in the Specification (please see the 112(a) rejection above). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art could not possibly know what this limitation means in view of the Specification, since there is no context in the Specification by which the limitation could be understood.
Claim 11 recites: “…incinerating the material in the chamber of the apparatus of Claim 1.” It is unclear how much of claim 1 is required within the scope of claim 11. Claim 1 is directed to a “material conversion apparatus.” One of the elements of the apparatus is a “chamber.” Another element is a “housing.” Does claim 11 require only the chamber of claim 1 or is the housing of claim 1 also required? If the housing is not required, then how can claim 11 be dependent on claim 1, if not all of the limitations of claim 1 are included within the scope of claim 11? Recommend reverting claim 11 back to what was previously recited, i.e., “in the apparatus of claim 1.”
Claims 13-14 are claims that are directed to the apparatus of claim 1. However, these claims are dependent on claim 11, which is a method claim. A single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite. In this case, claims 13-14 are structural limitations that are directed to the apparatus, and the claims do not appear directed to any method steps within the framework of a “method for incinerating,” as recited in claim 11 (MPEP 2173.05.p). Recommend associating claims 13-14 with method steps so that they can be clearly understood as limiting the scope of the method that is required in claim 11.
Claim 14 recites: “an exhaust tube in direct fluid communication with the chamber.” It is unclear what is intended in claiming a relationship between the “exhaust tube” and the “chamber,” where the “exhaust tube” is in “direct fluid communication” with the “chamber.” This limitation is not used in the Specification (please see the 112(a) rejection above). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art could not possibly know what this limitation means in view of the Specification, since there is no context in the Specification by which the limitation could be understood.
Claims 2-3, 5-10, and 12 are rejected based on their dependence to claim 1. The rejections for claims 1, 4, and 14 are new rejections that are based on the amended portion of the claims. The rejection for claims 13-14 is a new rejection that is not based on the Applicant’s amendments.
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.
Claims 1, 3, and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nishi et al. (US. Patent No. 6,502,520).
Regarding claim 1, Nishi teaches a material conversion apparatus (solid material melting apparatus, column 6, line 57) comprising:
(a) a housing (housing of melting furnace, 30, fig. 1);
(b) a chamber (chamber within the furnace main body 1, fig. 1) for treating a material (“radioactive solid wastes,” column 7, line 60) disposed within the housing (column 6, lines 61-62; the construed chamber is located within the construed housing, annotated in fig. 1 below);
(c) an induction coil surrounding the chamber (induction coils 2, figure 1; the coils surround the chamber within the furnace main body 1, figure 1); and
(d) means for exhausting or evacuating (interpreted under 35 USC 112f as “an exhaust stack or tube in fluid communication with the chamber and a blower or fan disposed upstream of the chamber in communication with the stack;” the discharging port 4, discharging channel 34, airtight chamber 7, exhaust gas discharging pipeline 35, heat exchanger 14, filter 15, and blower 9 in fig. 1 are construed as the claimed “means for exhausting or evacuating”) the treated material (“molten products are discharged,” column 4, line 15) of the chamber (chamber within the furnace main body 1, fig. 1) in direct communication with the interior of the chamber (the discharging port 4 communicates with the chamber inside the furnace main body 1, fig. 1) and integral therewith (the discharging port 4 is integrated into main body 1, fig. 1).
Nishi, fig. 1 (annotated)
PNG
media_image1.png
701
1286
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Nishi teaches wherein the induction coil surrounds and envelops the chamber (column 6, lines 62-64), the induction coil generating sufficient heat to vaporize or melt waste material disposed within the chamber (column 7, lines 27-33).
Regarding claim 9, Nishi teaches wherein the housing (housing of melting furnace 30, fig. 1) is disposed along a horizontal plane (annotated in fig. 1 below; construed as being a plane that extends in a depth direction).
Nishi, fig. 1 (annotated)
PNG
media_image2.png
698
699
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 10, wherein the housing (housing of melting furnace 30, fig. 1) is disposed and extends vertically (the cylindrical walls 31 of the housing extend vertically, fig. 1).
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 2 and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishi et al. (US. Patent No. 6,502,520) as applied to claim 1 above, and in view of Tsantrizos et al. (US. Patent No. 6,152,050).
Regarding claim 2, Nishi teaches wherein the housing comprises an insulating element formed from refractory materials (Nishi, cylindrical side wall, column 6, lines 65-67), the housing surrounding the chamber (the housing of the melting furnace 30 surrounds the chamber within the furnace main body 1, fig. 1).
Nishi does not explicitly disclose that the insulating element formed from ceramic fibers.
However, in the same field of endeavor of material conversion apparatuses, Tsantrizos teaches that the insulating element (wall construction, fig. 4) formed from ceramic fibers (ceramic fiber insulating material 54, fig. 4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Nishi, in view of the teachings of Tsantrizos, by having the cylindrical side walls, as taught by Nishi, include ceramic fibers, as taught by Tsantrizos, because ceramic fibers offer low thermal conductivity (Tsantrizos, column 7, lines 9-10).
Regarding claim 11, Nishi teaches a method for incinerating and reducing to ash (column 8, lines 4-7) comprising: incinerating the material in the chamber of the apparatus of claim 1 (the materials are incinerated inside the chamber of the main body 1, fig. 1).
Nishi does not explicitly disclose that the material is organic material.
However, in the same field of endeavor of material conversion apparatuses, Tsantrizos teaches that the material is organic material (column 4, lines 60-63).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Nishi, in view of the teachings of Tsantrizos, such that the combustible materials, as taught by Nishi, included organic materials, as taught by Tsantrizos, because some wastes are organic, such as paper, which will burn in an oxygen rich environment, and it would have been an obvious modification to one of ordinary skill in the art to include paper in the radioactive waste that is incinerated according to Nishi (Tsantrizos, column 1, lines 55-60).
Regarding claim 12, Nishi teaches wherein the induction coil surrounds and envelops the chamber (column 6, lines 62-64), the induction coil generating sufficient heat to pyrolyze the organic material (column 1, lines 14-26, and column 7, lines 27-33).
Regarding claim 13, Nishi teaches wherein the housing comprises an insulating element (cylindrical side wall 31, fig. 1) formed from refractory materials (column 6, lines 65-67), the housing surrounding the chamber (the housing of the melting furnace 30 surrounds the chamber within the furnace main body 1, fig. 1).
Nishi does not explicitly disclose that the insulating element formed from ceramic fibers.
However, in the same field of endeavor of material conversion apparatuses, Tsantrizos teaches that the insulating element (wall construction, fig. 4) formed from ceramic fibers (ceramic fiber insulating material 54, fig. 4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Nishi, in view of the teachings of Tsantrizos, by having the cylindrical side walls, as taught by Nishi, include ceramic fibers, as taught by Tsantrizos, because ceramic fibers offer low thermal conductivity (Tsantrizos, column 7, lines 9-10).
Claim 4-5 and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishi et al. (US. Patent No. 6,502,520) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Greenberg (US-3974784-A).
Regarding claim 4, Nishi teaches wherein the means for exhausting (the discharging port 4, discharging channel 34, airtight chamber 7, exhaust gas discharging pipeline 35, heat exchanger 14, filter 15, and blower 9 in fig. 1 are construed as the claimed “means for exhausting or evacuating”) comprises:
an exhaust tube (discharging port 4, channel 34, pipeline 35, and filter 15, fig. 1), the exhaust tube being in communication with the chamber (discharging port 4 is in communication with the chamber inside the main body 1, figure 1), a blower (blower 9, figure 1) in direct communication with the exhaust tube (blower 9 is in direct communication with the filter 15, fig. 1)
Nishi does not explicitly disclose a power fan for creating a negative pressure to draw residue through the exhaust tube.
However, in the same field of endeavor of material conversion apparatuses, Greenberg teaches a power fan (cyclone exhaust blower 65, fig. 3; “fan,” column 6, line 36) for creating a negative pressure (“creates a negative pressure within the system,” column 6, lines 39-40) to draw residue through the exhaust tube (draws residue from the wastes 33 via the exhaust gas flow 48, fig. 3).
Greenburg, fig. 3
PNG
media_image3.png
406
498
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Nishi, in view of the teachings of Greenburg, by using the cyclonic exhaust blower, as taught by Greenburg, as the blower 9, as taught by Nishi, in order to use a blower that creates a vortex that becomes a spiral line of gas flow, for the advantage of creating negative pressure within the reaction chamber, which provides a safety factor against unwanted pressure build up (Greenberg, column 6, lines 46-64).
Regarding claim 5, Nishi teaches further comprising an igniter (auxiliary combustion burner, column 9, lines 35-37) disposed within the exhaust tube (disposed as part of the combustion chamber 10, column 9, lines 35-37, within the pipeline 35, fig. 1) for combusting vapors.
Regarding claim 7, Nishi teaches the invention as described but in the fig. 1 embodiment but does not explicitly disclose which further comprises a lid which opens and closes the exhaust tube.
However, in the fig. 3 embodiment, Nishi teaches which further comprises a lid (opening/closing device 21, figure 3) which opens and closes the exhaust tube (opens and closes the chamber 20, which is construed as being part of the channel 34, fig. 3; column 12, lines 47-63).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the fig. 1 embodiment of Nishi, in view of the teachings of the fig. 3 embodiment of Nishi, by using an opening/closing device 21, as taught by in the fig. 3 embodiment, to open and close the discharging channel, as taught in fig. 1 embodiment, in order to use the opening/closing device as a seal when the air tight chamber 7 is being used as molten product storage, for the advantage of inhibiting external air from flowing into the air tight chamber 7, where the molten products are located (Nishi, column 12, line 63-column 13, line 12).
Regarding claim 8, Nishi teaches the invention as described but in the fig. 1 embodiment but does not explicitly disclose which further includes a second induction coil surrounding the exhaust tube, the second induction coil and the blower cooperating to define a thermal oxidizer
However, in the fig. 3 embodiment, Nishi teaches which further includes a second induction coil (induction coil 38, figure 3) surrounding the exhaust tube (molten product storage chamber 20, figure 3, which is construed as being part of the channel 34), the second induction coil and the blower cooperating to define a thermal oxidizer (“Exhaust gases are passed through an exhaust gas discharging pipeline 35, purified and then discharged from an exhaust cylinder,” column 12, lines 50-52; the blower 9 and the coil 38 cooperate to pass exhaust gas, which is construed as being a “thermal oxidizer”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the fig. 1 embodiment of Nishi, in view of the teachings of the fig. 3 embodiment of Nishi, by using an induction coil 38, as taught by in the fig. 3 embodiment, around the air tight chamber 7, as taught in the fig. 1 embodiment, in order to keep the molten products in a liquid form, until the molten products can be safely removed and sored in a storage chamber (Nishi, column 12, lines 53-63).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishi et al. (US. Patent No. 6,502,520) in view of Greenberg (US-3974784-A) as applied to claims 1 and 4 above, and further in view of Flannery et al. (US. Patent No. 6,153,158).
Nishi teaches further including a re-burner box (gas combustion chamber 10, figure 1); and a secondary exhaust tube (exhaust gas discharging pipeline 35, figure 1) in fluid communication with the re-burner box (as shown in fig. 1).
Nishi does not explicitly disclose the re-burner box is disposed upstream from the igniter (although Nishi teaches an “auxiliary combustion burner,” which can be construed as an igniter, Nishi does not explicitly disclose that this burner is upstream of the combustion chamber 10, column 9, lines 34-36).
However, in the same field of endeavor of material conversion apparatuses, Flannery teaches the re-burner box is disposed upstream from the igniter (igniter 30 is upstream of the chamber 14, fig. 2; column 3, lines 14-19).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Nishi, in view of the teachings of Flannery, by locating the auxiliary combustion burner and the combustion chamber 10, as taught by Nishi, such that the burner or igniter was located upstream of the chamber, as taught by Flannery, in order to ignite the gases upon reaching the chamber, for the advantage of burning the inflammable gases once they arrive in the chamber so that the gases are purified from containing any inflammable gases that are harmful for the environment (Nishi, column 9, lines 26-42).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishi et al. (US. Patent No. 6,502,520) in view of Tsantrizos et al. (US. Patent No. 6,152,050) as applied to claims 1 and 11 above and further in view of Greenberg (US-3974784-A).
Nishi teaches wherein the means for exhausting (the discharging port 4, discharging channel 34, airtight chamber 7, exhaust gas discharging pipeline 35, heat exchanger 14, filter 15, and blower 9 in fig. 1 are construed as the claimed “means for exhausting or evacuating”) comprises:
(a) an exhaust tube (discharging port 4, channel 34, pipeline 35, and filter 15, fig. 1) in direct fluid communication with the chamber (discharging port 4 is in direct fluid communication with the chamber inside the main body 1, figure 1) and
(b) a blower (blower 9, fig. 1) in fluid communication with the exhaust tube (blower 9 is in fluid communication with the filter 15, fig. 1), disposed exteriorly of the housing (the blower 9 is exterior of the chamber within the main body 1, fig. 1)
Nishi does not explicitly disclose a power fan for creating a negative pressure to draw residue through the exhaust tube.
However, in the same field of endeavor of material conversion apparatuses, Greenberg teaches a power fan (cyclone exhaust blower 65, fig. 3; “fan,” column 6, line 36) for creating a negative pressure (“creates a negative pressure within the system,” column 6, lines 39-40) to draw residue through the exhaust tube (draws residue from the wastes 33 via the exhaust gas flow 48, fig. 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Nishi, in view of the teachings of Greenburg, by using the cyclonic exhaust blower, as taught by Greenburg, as the blower 9, as taught by Nishi, in order to use a blower that creates a vortex that becomes a spiral line of gas flow, for the advantage of creating negative pressure within the reaction chamber, which provides a safety factor against unwanted pressure build up (Greenberg, column 6, lines 46-64).
Response to Argument
Applicant's arguments filed 20 August 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references. The arguments make no reference to the claim limitations. Because the claim limitations are not referenced, the arguments fail to show how any of the claim limitations are not taught in the prior art references.
Page 10 of the arguments states the following:
“The Examiner contends that Nishi shows a housing at numeral 30; a chamber disposed within the housing at numeral 1; an induction coil surrounding the chamber at numeral 2; and means for exhausting or evacuating the content at numeral 34. It is evident that the Examiner has misconstrued Nishi and misapplied the law. First, Nishi teaches, unequivocally, that numeral 1 is the furnace main body 1 and numeral 30 is the furnace. Numeral 31 is the sidewall of the furnace and the means for exhausting are at numeral 34. It is unquestionable that the Examiner is applying the furnace as a teaching of both the housing and the chamber of Claim 1 hereof. 'This is absolutely wrong.”
The examiner agrees that Nishi (US6502520B1) teaches that that numeral 1 is the furnace main body 1, the interior of which is construed by the examiner as being the claimed “chamber,” and that this furnace main body 1 is part of the furnace 30, the housing of which the examiner is construeing as the claimed “housing.”
However, it is not evident to the examiner why this construction “is absolutely wrong” and why “the Examiner has misconstrued Nishi and misapplied the law.” The examiner respectfully submits that the Applicant does not explain why this conclusion is reached.
Perhaps, the Applicant is arguing that because Nishi teaches that the furnace main body 1 is part of the furnace 30, then Nishi does not teach the claimed “chamber” or “housing?” If so, then respectfully submit that this argument is not commensurate with the scope of the claims. Specifically, claim 1 requires “a chamber for treating a material disposed within the housing.” In other words, the chamber must be included within the housing. Similarly, Nishi teaches a main body 1 that is included within the furnace 30. Specifically, Nishi teaches that “the incineration and melting furnace 30 comprises a furnace main body 1” (column 6, lines 61-65 of Nishi). Thus, the examiner submits that Nishi teaches the limitation: “a chamber for treating a material disposed within the housing,” which is evidenced by fig. 1 of Nishi.
Pages 10-11 provide an argument that is not relevant to the current rejections. The Applicant appears to argue that 35 USC 102(a)(2) should be a basis for the prior-art rejections? However, respectfully submit that claims 1, 3-5, 7-8, 10, 12, and 14 were rejected under 35 USC 102(a)(1) and not under 35 USC 102(a)(2). The examiner is not sure why the Applicant is making this argument.
Page 11 of the arguments states an opinion that “Nishi certainly does not have the housing for treating the material within the housing.” In support of this opinion, the next statement appears to provide as evidence: “The Examiner is using Nishi to teach that the housing is also the chamber, when., in fact, these are not the same.”
The examiner disagrees with the statement on page 11 that “the Examiner is using Nishi to teach that the housing is also the chamber.” Instead, the examiner submits that the Applicant’s statement on the previous page (page 10) is actually accurate and supersedes this statement, i.e., that “the Examiner contends that Nishi shows a housing at numeral 30: a chamber disposed within the housing at numeral 1.” In short, Nishi teaches a furnace 30, which is not the same as furnace main body 1. Although Nishi teaches that the furnace main body 1 is part of the furnace 30, respectfully submit that claim 1 requires this arrangement. Specifically, claim 1 requires: “a chamber….within the housing.”
Pages 11-12 dispute the rejections for claims 2, 11, and 13. Specifically, the Applicant alleges that “the Examiner is using the cylindrical sidewall of the Nishi reference as defining the chamber.” However, respectfully, submit that the cylindrical sidewall 31 is being construed as the claimed “insulating element” in claims 2 and 13 and not the chamber.
Page 12 also states that “the insulating material employed herein, which includes refractory material, surrounds the housing.” However, respectfully submit claims 2 and 13 require the “housing surrounding the chamber,” and there is no mention of the “insulating element” surrounding the “housing” in claims 2 and 13.
Page 12 of the arguments states that “how the Examiner can conclude that the cylindrical sidewall of the furnace is the chamber, which excluding the housing, is not understood.” However, respectfully submit that the cylindrical sidewall 31 is construed as the claimed “insulating element,” which is different from the furnace main body 1, the interior of which is construed as the claimed “chamber.”
Page 12 of the arguments appears to suggest that Tsantrizos (US6152050) is non-analogous art because it teaches using a plasma torch and an induction coil. However, respectfully submit that Tsantrizos is directed to waste treatment, which appears to be the same problem that is address in the Instant Application. Tsantrizos also teaches a “lightweight, compact furnace is capable of converting the organic component of the wastes into a benign gaseous discharge.” Similarly, the Instant Application discloses that it “pertains to material conversion apparatus.” Thus, it appears that Tsantrizos is also in the same field of endeavor as that of the Instant Application. Therefore, Tsantrizos has been determined to analogous art for the Instant Application that is under review.
The remaining arguments on page 12 are conclusory and do not provide any supporting evidence.
For the above reasons, rejections to the pending claims are respectfully sustained by the examiner.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERWIN J WUNDERLICH whose telephone number is (571)272-6995. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30-5:30.
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, Edward Landrum can be reached at 571-272-5567. 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.
/ERWIN J WUNDERLICH/Examiner, Art Unit 3761 6/11/2026
Prosecution Insights