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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 01/23/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 01/23/2026 has been entered into the prosecution of the application.
Previous objection for claim 29 is withdrawn in accordance with the applicant’s amendment.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is withdrawn for claim 1 in accordance with the applicant’s amendment.
Currently, claim(s) 17-32 is/are pending examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim(s) 17-32 is/are 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.
The term “substantially” in claim 17 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For examination purposes, the term “substantially” is interpreted as “lower or higher”.
Claims 18-32 are rejected for being dependent on claim 17.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 17-30, and 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over in view of Wien (WO2018177994A1).
In regards to claim 17, Wien pertains to the instant invention because Wien discloses a microwave pyrolysis reactor (Wien, abstract).
Wien discloses a microwave pyrolysis reactor (a microwave pyrolysis reactor 1; Wien, abstract and Fig. 1), comprising an elongated hollow body (outer pipe element 3; Wien, Fig. 1) extending between a bottom end (a lower end 6; Wien, Fig. 1) and a top end (an upper end 5; Wien, Fig. 1), the outer pipe element 3 defining an internal cavity.
Wien discloses a bottom body (Wien, Fig. 1) secured to the lower end 6 of the outer pipe element 3 (Wien, Fig. 1).
Wien discloses a body wall (see the labeled Fig. 1 of Wien) secured to the upper end 5 (Wien, Fig. 1) of the outer pipe element 3, the outer pipe element 3, the bottom body (see the labeled Fig. 1 of Wien) and the body wall (see the labeled Fig. 1 of Wien) forming an enclosure (flow path/conduit 37 of the inner pipe element 2; Wien, page 9, line 14) for receiving a product to be pyrolyzed at a bottom section thereof up to a fill level, the fill level defining a minimal height for the product within the reactor (during pyrolysis, volatile products formed in a lower level of the inner pipe 2 will rise; Wien, Fig 1, page 10, line 6).
PNG
media_image1.png
804
618
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 1 of Wien (WO2018177994A1)
Wien discloses that the outer pipe 3 is provided with a microwave injection aperture (a port 13; Wien, Fig. 1) located adjacent to the lower end 6 thereof below the fill level and the port 13 is sized and shaped for allowing a propagation of microwaves within the bottom section of the enclosure (the at least one opening may be of any suitable cross-section provided it has a size and shape allowing for the passage of microwaves; Wien, page 4, lines 30-33).
Wien does not explicitly teach “wherein a top surface of the product in the reactor is substantially aligned or coplanar with the fill level, and wherein the microwave injection aperture located below the fill level is wholely covered with the product”.
However, the recited term “wherein a top surface of the product in the reactor is substantially aligned or coplanar with the fill level, and wherein the microwave injection aperture located below the fill level is wholely covered with the product” is made obvious in light of Wien, as Wien, pg. 12, ln. 1-21, teaches that “a level sensor arranged in the reactor detects when a suitably low level of material in the inner pipe element is reached, and the above feeding sequence is repeated to provide a new batch of waste material to the reactor. Initially, the waste material in the inner pipe element is at the same level of pyrolysis throughout the inner pipe element, however, after a certain time with repeated batches of introduced material, the material closest to the solids outlet 11 is fully pyrolyzed, i.e. is predominantly char, while the material closest to the inlet 10 is not.”
In this instance, the prior art reads into the claim limitation under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim because the teachings of Wien already recognizes the problem of the claimed invention and teaches to maintaining the optimal level of reactant volume inside the reactor for optimizing the microwave energy absorption for the pyrolysis reaction. Specifically, Wien teaches to a lower valve for controlling the introduction rate of the waste material with nitrogen gas introduced into the waste inlet chamber, wherein a level sensor arranged in the reactor detects when a suitably a low level of material in the inner pipe element is reached, a new batch of waste material is controlled into the reactor using the lower valve (Wien, pg. 12, ln. 1-21). The lower valve is capable of controlling an introduction rate of the waste material being introduced to the reactor so that the material to be reacted is filled to a minimal height within the reactor to ensure the full delivery of the microwave from the port 13.
Further, Wien teaches to “a controller structured to control to control a flow of the product in the reactor” (a suitable control and monitoring system (not shown); Wien, pg. 10, ln. 34-35; a suction device or a pump; Wien, pg. 11, ln. 28; a first and a second valve; Wien, pg. 7, ln. 15).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Wien to arrive at the claimed invention for maintaining the optimal level of reactant volume inside the reactor for optimizing the microwave energy absorption for the pyrolysis reaction, thereby providing a microwave reactor with improved efficiency.
In regards to claim 19, Wien does not disclose that a diameter of the slots 13 is one of equal to and greater than a wavelength of microwaves. However, Wien discloses that the microwave distribution element 3 comprises at least one opening for allowing passage of microwaves (Wien, page 2, lines 24-28).
Microwaves, as with other types of electromagnetic waves, do not propagate efficiently if its wavelengths are smaller than a diameter of an opening to due to an established phenomenon of waveguide cutoff to one of ordinary skill in the art. In using the port 13 of the microwave pyrolysis reactor of Wien for waste disposal, ensuring a greater diameter of the cross-sectional area of the port 13 would provide enhanced transmission of electromagnetic waves (i.e., microwaves). Therefore, the instant claim recitation is deemed obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application in light of Wien.
In regards to claim 18, Wien discloses to the apparatus of claim 17, wherein the slots 13 may be circular (wherein the slots are replaced by openings having various cross-sectional areas, such as circular; Wien, page 10, lines 18-28).
PNG
media_image2.png
439
605
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fig. 6 of Wien (WO2018177994A1)
In regards to claim 20, Wien discloses to the apparatus of claim 17, wherein the outer pipe element 3 comprises an elongated wall extending between an internal face facing the internal cavity defined by the outer pipe element 3 and an external face opposite to the internal face (a hollow cylindrical element comprising a cylindrical wall having an external surface facing the inner surface of the housing, and an internal surface facing the inner pipe element 2; Wien, line 40 of page 3 to line 2 of page 4, lines 4-12 of page 14, and Figs. 1-2 and 5-7).
PNG
media_image3.png
260
392
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Fig. 2 of Wien (WO2018177994A1)
Wien discloses a distance between the internal and external faces defining a thickness of the elongated wall, the elongated wall provided with at least one second annular space 7 (Wien, line 40 of page 3 to line 2 of page 4, lines 4-12 of page 14, and Figs. 1-2 and 5-7) extending between an inlet and an outlet (a common fluid inlet 39 and a common fluid outlet 40 for a heat exchange fluid; Wien, page 13, lines 26-27, Figs. 6-9) for receiving therein a temperature control fluid (heat exchange fluid; Wien, page 3, line 26) in order to control a temperature of the product when received in the reactor, the at least one second annular space 7 extending at least within a bottom section of the elongated wall adjacent to the bottom body (Wien, Figs. 1-9). Wien does not disclose that the at least one second annular space 7 having a width being less than the thickness of the wall.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art would modify Wien to arrive at the instant claim recitation of claim 21 because Wien teaches that minimizing the width of the second annular space, i.e., the distance between the inner surface of the outer pipe element and the outer surface of the inner pipe element improves the microwave distribution for the microwave pyrolysis reactor (Wien, page 9, line 36).
In regards to claim 21, Wien discloses to the apparatus of claim 20, wherein at least the bottom section of the elongated wall comprises a double wall structure (helical fluid channel 41 is arranged between an external and an internal surface of the microwave distribution element, or the outer pipe element 3; Wien, page 14, lines 4-12, Figs. 7-9), the double wall structure comprising an internal wall and an external wall spaced apart by a gap fluidly connected to the inlet and the outlet (a common fluid inlet 39 and a common fluid outlet 40 for a heat exchange fluid; Wien, page 13, lines 26-27, Figs. 6-9) for propagating the temperature control fluid within the gap, the gap corresponding to the second annular space 7.
PNG
media_image4.png
433
598
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Fig. 7 of Wien (WO2018177994A1)
In regards to claim 22, Wien discloses to the apparatus of claim 21, further comprising at least one tube inserted into the gap and fluidly connected to the inlet and the inlet (by having the fluid channel 38 as an integral part of the helical design, inside or outside of the microwave distribution element, or the outer pipe element 3, the heat capacity of the heat exchange system may be increased; Wien, line 40 of page 3 to line 2 of page 4, lines 4-12 of page 14, and Figs. 1-2 and 5-7).
In regards to claim 23, Wien discloses to the apparatus of claim 22, wherein the at least one tube is in physical contact with the internal wall and the external wall (at least one fluid pipe of the fluid channel 38 is connected on an internal or external surface of the microwave distribution element, or the outer pipe element 3; Wien, page 4, line 9).
In regards to claim 24, Wien discloses to the apparatus of claim 22, wherein the outer pipe element 3, or microwave distribution element, is tubular (Wien, Fig. 7). Wien discloses that the at least one tube extends around a circumference of the elongated hollow body (a helical fluid channel 41; Wien, Fig. 7).
In regards to claim 25, Wien discloses to the apparatus of claim 24, wherein the at least one tube has one of a serpentine shape and a helicoidal shape (a helical fluid channel 41; Wien, Fig. 7).
In regards to claim 26, Wien discloses to the apparatus of claim 17, wherein the at least one fluid receiving cavity form at least one canal fluidly connected between the inlet and the outlet (Wien, line 25 of page 3 to line 16 of page 4, lines 4-12 of page 14, and Figs. 1-2 and 5-7).
In regards to claim 27, Wien discloses to the apparatus of claim 26, wherein the at least one canal has one of a straight shape, a U-shape, a serpentine shape and an helicoidal shape (fluid channel 38 has a straight shape, a helical fluid channel 41 has a helical or serpentine shape; Wien, line 25 of page 3 to line 16 of page 4, lines 4-12 of page 14, and Figs. 1-2 and 5-7).
In regards to claim 28, Wien discloses to the apparatus of claim 20, wherein at least one of the inlet and the outlet are located on the elongated tubular body (a common fluid inlet 39 and a common fluid outlet 40 for a heat exchange fluid; Wien, page 13, lines 26-27, Figs. 6-9).
In regards to claim 29, Wien discloses to the apparatus of claim 17, wherein at least one of the bottom body and a top body is removably secured to the elongated hollow body (Wien, Figs. 1-9).
In regards to claim 30, Wien discloses to the apparatus of claim 17, wherein the enclosure is further provided with at least one of: an extraction aperture for extracting at least some of reacted product (a solids outlet 11; Wien, Fig. 1); a gas aperture for extracting gases from the reactor (a gas outlet 12 is arranged above the upper end of the inner pipe, such that the gas developed in a pyrolysis process is allowed to escape/exit the reactor; Wien, page 9, line 1) ; a pressure relief aperture for protecting the reactor from overpressure (the gas outlet 12 in connection to the gas handling system with a suction device, wherein the suction device is used to ensure a subatmospheric pressure; Wien, page 11, lines 26-40); and at least one sensor aperture for inserting at least one sensor into the reactor (the housing may comprise various ports for sensors, Wien, page 4, lines 18-22).
In regards to claim 32, Wien discloses to the apparatus of claim 17, wherein the microwave distribution element, or the outer pipe element 3, is tubular (Wien, Figs. 1-9). Wien does not disclose that an internal diameter is one of equal to and greater than a wavelength of the microwaves. However, it is well-known to one of ordinary skill in the art that waves do not propagate efficiently through a path that has less opening compared to the wavelength of the propagating waves. In this instance, one of ordinary skill in the art would have modified Wien to arrive at the instant claim to ensure efficient wave propagation of microwaves within the recited internal diameter. There is no apparent reason in the instant invention that would have taught one of ordinary skill in the art away from said modification.
Claim(s) 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wien (WO2018177994A1) as applied to claim 17 above, and in further view of Pringle (US20070131591A).
In regards to claim 31, Wien does not disclose an agitating device for mixing the product within the reactor. Wien teaches that it may be advantageous to mix the waste materials because the waste materials would be highly heterogeneous which may result in ineffective microwave heating (Wien, page 14, lines 22-25).
Pringle pertains to the instant invention because Pringle relates to a pyrolysis reactor (in an oxygen-deprives atmosphere; Pringle, paragraph [0056]) that uses microwave for decomposition of petroleum-based materials (Pringle, paragraphs [0010] - [0011]).
Pringle discloses mixing flight bars 1020 (Pringle, paragraphs [0119], Fig. 10A) for mixing materials within the rotating reactor drum 1004 (Pringle, paragraph [0119], Fig. 10A and 10E). Pringle teaches that uniform microwave heating is important (Pringle, paragraph [0008]). One of ordinary skill in the art would modify the known microwave pyrolysis reactor of Wien in view of the agitating device for mixing the product within the reactor of Pringle for effective microwave heating by ensuring homogeneous waste materials that are subjected to microwave heating in pyrolysis reactors.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to combine the microwave pyrolysis reactor of Wien and the agitation device of Pringle for achieving effective microwave heating by providing homogenous waste materials.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Pg. 20, line 10, of the specification 10/04/2021 discloses a paragraph: “The product to be pyrolyzed is injected into the reactor 12, for example via the port 80 of the connector 76 and the aperture 74 present in the bottom body 54. The volume of product injected into the reactor 12 is chosen so that the top surface of the product once in the reactor 62 be substantially aligned or coplanar with the level 66 to ensure that the whole surface of the aperture 58 be covered with the product.”
Pg. 39, line 19, of the specification 10/04/2021 discloses a paragraph: “In one embodiment, the pyrolysis system 170 further comprises a controller (not shown) for controlling the flow of products via pumps between the different elements of the system 170.” This is the only paragraph that supports a controller in the specification 10/04/2021.
Claim 1, as amended, now recites “a controller structured to control a flow in the reactor”.
The specification 10/04/2021 teaches that the pyrolysis system 170 comprises a controller via pumps between the different elements of the system 170. Pumps are specific structures that control fluid volumes, as supported by the specification 10/04/2021, pg. 39, ln. 19.
However, it is not clear whether pumps are used for controlling volume so that so that the top surface of the product once in the reactor 62 be substantially aligned or coplanar with the level 66 to ensure that the whole surface of the aperture 58 be covered with the product. Further, the term “substantially aligned” renders the claim 17 to be indefinite.
Wien, pg. 11, ln. 28, teaches to a suction device comprising pumps for controlling fluid volumes.
On pg. 8 of 10, the applicant asserts that Wien fails to disclose or suggest the claim limitation in claim 1, as amended, because Wien does not specifically teach the intended use of a controller.
The applicant’s argument is found unpersuasive because Wien teaches to using pumps for controlling fluid volumes. Prior art pumps do not have to be automatic. Mass-flow-controllers, or MFCs, are very well-known in the art of reactors MFCs can determined the desired volume and adjust the flows accordingly to the user’s need. Using a controller for providing an automatic means to replace a manual activity which accomplished the same result is not sufficient to distinguish over prior art. Please refer to MPEP §2144.04(III).
Wien does not explicitly teach “wherein a top surface of the product in the reactor is substantially aligned or coplanar with the fill level, and wherein the microwave injection aperture located below the fill level is wholely covered with the product”.
However, the recited term “wherein a top surface of the product in the reactor is substantially aligned or coplanar with the fill level, and wherein the microwave injection aperture located below the fill level is wholely covered with the product” is made obvious in light of Wien, as Wien, pg. 12, ln. 1-21, teaches that “a level sensor arranged in the reactor detects when a suitably low level of material in the inner pipe element is reached, and the above feeding sequence is repeated to provide a new batch of waste material to the reactor. Initially, the waste material in the inner pipe element is at the same level of pyrolysis throughout the inner pipe element, however, after a certain time with repeated batches of introduced material, the material closest to the solids outlet 11 is fully pyrolyzed, i.e. is predominantly char, while the material closest to the inlet 10 is not.”
In this instance, the prior art reads into the claim limitation under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim because the teachings of Wien already recognizes the problem of the claimed invention and teaches to maintaining the optimal level of reactant volume inside the reactor for optimizing the microwave energy absorption for the pyrolysis reaction. Specifically, Wien teaches to a lower valve for controlling the introduction rate of the waste material with nitrogen gas introduced into the waste inlet chamber, wherein a level sensor arranged in the reactor detects when a suitably a low level of material in the inner pipe element is reached, a new batch of waste material is controlled into the reactor using the lower valve (Wien, pg. 12, ln. 1-21). The lower valve is capable of controlling an introduction rate of the waste material being introduced to the reactor so that the material to be reacted is filled to a minimal height within the reactor to ensure the full delivery of the microwave from the port 13.
Further, Wien teaches to “a controller structured to control to control a flow of the product in the reactor” (a suitable control and monitoring system (not shown); Wien, pg. 10, ln. 34-35; a suction device or a pump; Wien, pg. 11, ln. 28; a first and a second valve; Wien, pg. 7, ln. 15).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Wien to arrive at the claimed invention for maintaining the optimal level of reactant volume inside the reactor for optimizing the microwave energy absorption for the pyrolysis reaction, thereby providing a microwave reactor with improved efficiency.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Douglas M. Van Thorre of US 2014/0208638 A1 (hereinafter, Thorre) teaches to a microwave reactor.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN LEE whose telephone number is (703)756-1254. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 7:00-16:00.
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, James Lin can be reached at (571) 272-8902. 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.
/JOHN LEE/Examiner, Art Unit 1794
/JAMES LIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1794