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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 02/13/2026 has been entered.
This office action is responsive to the amendment filed on 02/13/2026. As directed by the amendment: claims 1 has been amended, no claims have been withdrawn, no claims have been cancelled, and new claims 19-20 have been added. Thus, claims 1-20 are presently under consideration in this application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lepez et al. (US 20150204609) in view of Heras (US 20020064204).
Regarding claim 1, Lepez et al. discloses a device (see figure 1) for subjecting a substance (¶ 0001, i.e. a biomass, a polymer material, or any other divided solid) to heat treatment (abstract), the device comprising:
an enclosure 1 (figs. 1, 2) having a lining of refractory material (¶ 0024);
a screw (10) arranged inside the lining of the enclosure (1) and mounted to rotate inside the lining about an axis of rotation X (fig. 2) in order to move the substance between an inlet (4) to the lining and an outlet (6) from the lining, the screw (10) also applying heat treatment to the substance (¶ 0001, i.e. a biomass, a polymer material, or any other divided solid) when the screw is electrically powered (¶ 0004, 0009, 0030).
Lepez discloses all the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above, except for at least one heater element for heating the lining in service, the heater element being linearly inserted and arranged within at least one of walls of the lining, so that both said at least one heater element and said screw are arranged in the same lining of the enclosure, and the heater element is only separated from the screw by the lining.
However, Heras teaches at least one heater element 7, 8 (fig. 4, i.e. heating resistors) for heating the lining (3, 4, i.e. refractory bricks and ceramic fibre) in service, the heater element (7, 8) being linearly inserted and arranged within at least one of walls of the lining (3, 4, i.e. refractory bricks and ceramic fibre), so that both said at least one heater element (7, 8) and said screw (17) are arranged in the same lining (3, 4, i.e. refractory bricks and ceramic fibre) of the enclosure (1), and the heater element (7, 8) is only separated from the screw (17) by the lining (¶ 0025-0026).
The combination of references are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor of heating treatment. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Lepez and Heras before him or her, to include such heater(s) and insulation(s)/lining(s) arrangements of Heras because the furnace as a whole is thermally insulated by refractory bricks with a temperature classification of up to 1,260 degree C, the bricks additionally providing the necessary support for the electrical resistors. The insulation is completed by high-density ceramic fibre (128 kg/m.sup.3) with a temperature classification of up to 1,260 degree C. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been obvious because the construction of the furnace enables great functional flexibility to be achieved therein in order to adapt to the quality of the raw material used, for which purpose energy consumption is adjusted according to the quality of the raw material (¶ 0011).
With respect to claim 20, Lepez in view of Heras discloses the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above in claim 1 of which Heras further discloses the screw (17) resting on a bottom of the lining (3, i.e. , i.e. refractory bricks, see figures 1 and 4).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Lepez and Heras before him or her, to include such screw arrangements of Heras because the furnace as a whole is thermally
insulated by refractory bricks with a temperature classification of up to 1,260 degree C, the bricks additionally providing the necessary support for the electrical resistors. The insulation is completed by high-density ceramic fibre (128 kg/m.sup.3) with a temperature classification of up to 1,260 degree C. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been obvious because the construction of the furnace enables great functional flexibility to be achieved therein in order to adapt to the quality of the raw material used, for which purpose energy consumption is adjusted according to the quality of the raw material (¶ 0011).
Claim(s) 2-9 and 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lepez et al. (US 20150204609) in view of Heras (US 20020064204) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mentz (US 5,531,034).
Regarding claim 2, Lepez in view of Heras discloses all of the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above except for wherein the heater element is arranged at the inlet to the lining.
However, Mentz for wherein the heater element (46’) is arranged at the inlet (22) to the lining (see figure 1).
The combination of references are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor of a heat treatment apparatus. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Lepez in view of Heras and Mentz before him or her, to include such heating elements arrangement of Mentz because they provide excellent heat transfer from the electrical
conducting heating portion of the heater element to the chamber walls without concerns about shorting the elements. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been obvious because it provides a desired temperature profile along the axis of the chamber (col. 5, lines 5-7).
With respect to claim 3, Lepez in view of Heras and Mentz discloses the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above of which Mentz further discloses only heater elements (46’) that are arranged at the inlet (22) to the lining (45, 47, i.e. called insulating layer).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Lepez in view of Heras and Mentz before him or her, to include such heating elements arrangement of Mentz because they provide excellent heat transfer from the electrical conducting heating portion of the heater element to the chamber walls without concerns about shorting the elements. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been obvious because it provides a desired temperature profile along the axis of the chamber (col. 5, lines 5-7).
With respect to claim 4, Lepez in view of Heras and Mentz discloses the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above of which Mentz further discloses at least one pair of heater elements (46) extending in opposite sides (see figure 1, i.e. all sides) of the lining (45, 47, i.e. called insulating layer).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Lepez in view of Heras and Mentz before him or her, to include such heating elements arrangement of Mentz because they provide excellent heat transfer from the electrical conducting heating portion of the heater element to the chamber walls without concerns about shorting the elements. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been obvious because it provides a desired temperature profile along the axis of the chamber (col. 5, lines 5-7).
With respect to claim 5, Lepez in view of Heras and Mentz discloses the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above of which Mentz further discloses wherein at least one heater element (46, 46’) is arranged so as to extend in at least one of the side flanks (see figure 2) of the lining (45, 47, i.e. called insulating layer).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Lepez in view of Heras and Mentz before him or her, to include such heating elements arrangement of Mentz because they provide excellent heat transfer from the electrical conducting heating portion of the heater element to the chamber walls without concerns about shorting the elements. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been obvious because it provides a desired temperature profile along the axis of the chamber (col. 5, lines 5-7).
With respect to claim 6, Lepez in view of Heras and Mentz discloses the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above of which Mentz further discloses at least two heater elements (46, 46’) extending parallel (see figure 1, i.e. in vertical position) to each other and to the walls (43) in which they extend (see figure 2).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Lepez in view of Heras and Mentz before him or her, to include such heating elements arrangement of Mentz because they provide excellent heat transfer from the electrical conducting heating portion of the heater element to the chamber walls without concerns about shorting the elements. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been obvious because it provides a desired temperature profile along the axis of the chamber (col. 5, lines 5-7).
With respect to claim 7, Lepez in view of Heras and Mentz discloses the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above of which Mentz further discloses at least two heater elements (46, 46’) extending vertically (see figure 1).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Lepez in view of Heras and Mentz before him or her, to include such heating elements arrangement of Mentz because they provide excellent heat transfer from the electrical conducting heating portion of the heater element to the chamber walls without concerns about shorting the elements. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been obvious because it provides a desired temperature profile along the axis of the chamber (col. 5, lines 5-7).
With respect to claim 8, Lepez in view of Heras and Mentz discloses the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above of which Mentz does not specifically disclose wherein the heater element (46, 46’) extends over 75% to 95% of a height of the lining (see figure 1).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include such heater dimensions for the purpose of heated treating materials, since applicant has not disclosed that having such dimensions provides an advantage, solves any stated problem, or is used for any particular purpose and it appears that the device would perform equally well with either designs. Furthermore, this particular arrangement is deemed to have been known by those skilled in the art since the instant specification and evidence of record fail to attribute any significance (novel or unexpected results) to a particular arrangement. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553,555,188 USPQ 7, 9 (CCPA 1975).
With respect to claim 9, Lepez in view of Heras and Mentz discloses the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above of which Mentz further discloses wherein the heater element (46, 46’) is a resistance heater element (col. 4, lines 48-53).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Lepez in view of Heras and Mentz before him or her, to include such heating element(s) of Mentz because they provide excellent heat transfer from the electrical conducting heating portion of the heater element to the chamber walls without concerns about shorting the elements. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been obvious because it provides a desired temperature profile along the axis of the chamber (col. 5, lines 5-7).
With respect to claim 11, Lepez in view of Heras and Mentz discloses the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above of which Mentz further discloses a fastener plate 33, 35 (fig. 1, i.e. called plate) for fastening heater elements (46, 46’) to the enclosure (12, i.e. the chamber) (col. 3, lines 43-65).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Lepez in view of Heras and Mentz before him or her, to include such plate(s) of Mentz because it provides support for the heating elements and/or the walls. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been obvious because it provides a safe, simple, and high heating efficiency (col. 2, lines 35-36).
With respect to claim 12, Lepez in view of Heras and Mentz discloses the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above of which Mentz further discloses wherein the plate 33, 35 (fig. 1, i.e. called plate) includes at least one opening (15) having arranged therein at least one strip with at least one orifice suitable for receiving the at least one heater element (46, 46’) (col. 3, lines 43-65).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Lepez in view of Heras and Mentz before him or her, to include such plate(s) of Mentz because it provides support for the heating elements and/or the walls. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been obvious because it provides a safe, simple, and high heating efficiency (col. 2, lines 35-36).
With respect to claim 13, Lepez in view of Heras and Mentz discloses the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above of which Mentz further discloses at least one measurement member (54, 54’, i.e. a thermocouple) for measuring a temperature within at least one of the walls (43) of the lining (45, 47, i.e. called insulating layer).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Lepez in view of Heras and Mentz before him or her, to include such temperature measurement of Mentz because it uses to regulate the power applied to the heating elements and to provide a desired temperature profile along the axis of the chamber. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been obvious because it maintains the temperature to the desired selected level by monitoring the output indication of the thermocouples, applying and interrupting power to the different heating elements so as to maintain a uniform temperature profile along the chamber (col. 5, lines 12-16).
With respect to claim 14, Lepez in view of Heras and Mentz discloses the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above of which Mentz further discloses at least one control unit 52 (fig. 1,i.e. a controller) controlling the at least the heater element (46, 46’) on the basis of data exchanged with the measurement member (54, 54’, i.e. a thermocouple).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Lepez in view of Heras and Mentz before him or her, to include such controller of Mentz because it uses to regulate the power applied to the heating elements and to provide a desired temperature profile along the axis of the chamber. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been obvious because it maintains the temperature to the desired selected level by monitoring the output indication of the thermocouples, applying and interrupting power to the different heating elements so as to maintain a uniform temperature profile along the chamber (col. 5, lines 12-16).
With respect to claim 15, Lepez in view of Heras and Mentz discloses the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above of which Mentz further discloses a tube (28, i.e. a port) connected firstly to the inlet (22) of the lining and secondly to an air inlet (i.e. called heated medium – typically heated air) in order to insert a controlled flow of air into the enclosure (12) (col. 1, lines 40-45).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Lepez in view of Heras and Mentz before him or her, to include such medium of Mentz because it provides efficient in removing a volatile fluid from the materials/substances. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been obvious because it enhances the operation of treating material.
Claim(s) 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lepez et al. (US 20150204609) in view of Heras (US 20020064204) and Mentz (US 5,531,034) as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Grimm (US 3,698,844).
Regarding claim 10, Lepez et al. in view of Heras and Mentz discloses all the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above, except for wherein the heater element is a cartridge heater.
However, Grimm teaches wherein the heater element 7a-7d (fig. 1a) is a cartridge heater (col. 2, lines 4-6).
The combination of references are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor of heating material device. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Lepez et al. in view of Heras, Mentz and Grimm before him or her, to include such a cartridge heater of Grimm because such heating elements may be used to provide virtually any desired temperature and they can easily be controlled by a control of the electric power supplied thereto The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been obvious because it enables a highly exact control of the temperature (col. 2, lines 29-30).
Claim(s) 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lepez et al. (US 20150204609) in view of Heras (US 20020064204) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Thomas (US 20170258125).
Regarding claim 16, Lepez et al. in view of Heras discloses all the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above including a method of applying heat treatment to a substance, the method being performed by a device according to claim1 (see claim 1 as set forth above), except for the method comprising the step of using the heater element while the screw is not being powered electrically.
However, Thomas teaches the method comprising the step of using the heater 105 (fig. 1) element while the screw (e.g. 103/112, i.e. screw element/extruder; and other embodiments) is not being powered electrically (¶ 0088, 0105, 0106, 0121,…).
The combination of references are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor of a material to be treated. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Lepez et al. in view of Heras and Thomas before him or her, to include such control arrangement(s)/configuration(s) of Thomas because the heaters can be arranged in a plurality of treatment zones where the individual heaters can be equipped with independent heater controls for creating separate treatment zones where desired temperatures are maintained in the treated material as it is conveyed down the extruder. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been obvious because it optimizes the overall efficiency of the treatment process (¶ 0110).
With respect to claims 17-18, Lepez et al. in view of Heras and Thomas discloses the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above in claim 16 of which Lepez further discloses wherein the substance (¶ 0001, i.e. a biomass, a polymer material, or any other divided solid) inserted inside the lining (¶ 0024) produces little or no residue when subjected to the heat treatment; (claim 18) wherein the substance is a polymer material (¶ 0001, 0003, 0046, 0057).
Claim(s) 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lepez et al. (US 20150204609) in view of Heras (US 20020064204) and Mentz (US 5,531,034).
Regarding claim 19, Lepez et al. discloses a device (see figure 1) for subjecting a substance (¶ 0001, i.e. a biomass, a polymer material, or any other divided solid) to heat treatment (abstract), the device comprising:
an enclosure 1 (figs. 1, 2) having a lining of refractory material (¶ 0024);
a screw (10) mounted to rotate inside the lining about an axis of rotation X (fig. 2) in order to move the substance between an inlet (4) to the lining and an outlet (6) from the lining, the screw (10) also applying heat treatment to the substance (¶ 0001, i.e. a biomass, a polymer material, or any other divided solid) when the screw is electrically powered (¶ 0004, 0009, 0030).
Lepez discloses all the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above, except for at least one heater element for heating the lining in service, the heater element being linearly inserted and arranged within at least one of walls of the lining, wherein the heater element is arranged at the inlet to the lining.
However, Heras teaches at least one heater element 7, 8 (fig. 4, i.e. heating resistors) for heating the lining (3, 4, i.e. refractory bricks and ceramic fibre) in service, the heater element (7, 8) being linearly inserted and arranged within at least one of walls of the lining (3, 4, i.e. refractory bricks and ceramic fibre) (¶ 0025-0026).
The combination of references are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor of heating treatment. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Lepez and Heras before him or her, to include such heater(s) arrangement of Heras because the furnace as a whole is thermally insulated by refractory bricks with a temperature classification of up to 1,260 degree C, the bricks additionally providing the necessary support for the electrical resistors. The insulation is completed by high-density ceramic fibre (128 kg/m.sup.3) with a temperature classification of up to 1,260 degree C. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been obvious because the construction of the furnace enables great functional flexibility to be achieved therein in order to adapt to the quality of the raw material used, for which purpose energy consumption is adjusted according to the quality of the raw material (¶ 0011).
Furthermore, Mentz teaches wherein the heater element (46’) is arranged at the inlet (22) to the lining (see figure 1).
The combination of references are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor of a heat treatment apparatus. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Lepez in view of Heras and Mentz before him or her, to include such heating elements arrangement of Mentz because they provide excellent heat transfer from the electrical
conducting heating portion of the heater element to the chamber walls without concerns about shorting the elements. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been obvious because it provides a desired temperature profile along the axis of the chamber (col. 5, lines 5-7).
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Jeney (20120217442).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KET D DANG whose telephone number is (571)270-7827. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Wednesday 7:30 AM - 4:30 PM.
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, Steven W. Crabb can be reached at (571) 270-5095. 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.
/KET D DANG/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/STEVEN W CRABB/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761