DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-3, 5-11 and 17-19 are pending.
Claims 1-3, 5-11 and 17-19 are rejected.
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 .
Examiner’s Notes
Upon further consideration of page 12 of applicant’s argument regarding Tranchard not teaching claimed both first step and subsequent step, the argument is found persuasive. Upon further searches, Cruz et al. (US 2016/0153123) (Cruz) and Rusnac (WO 2009/156761 A2) (Rusnac) are brought to the examiner’s attention. This Office action set forth below is a second non-final.
Claim Objections
Claims 10 and 17-18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Each of Claims 2-3, 5-11, 17-19,
Line 1, it is suggested to amend “Method” to “The method”.
Claim 10,
Line 3, it is suggested to amend “the method” to “the method of disposing of the component containing the composite material”.
Each of claims 17-18,
Line 3, it is suggested to amend “the entire method” to “the entire method of disposing of the component containing the composite material”
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 3 is 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 3 recites, “8 volume%”. While applicant pointed to Spec, [0003, 0018-0021, 0024-0026, 0028-0029, 0034] for support, wherein “8%” is disclosed, however, the disclosure does not provide support “8%” refers to “8 volume%”, as presently claimed.
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 1-3, 5-11 and 17-19 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.
Upon further review, claim 1 contains inconsistent limitations that render the scope of the claim indefinite for the reasons as set forth below.
Claim 1 recites, “the composite material being completely broken down technically into its basic constituents”, while also reciting “in a subsequent step, the remaining starting materials and intermediate products being broken down thermally” (emphasis added). These limitations appear inconsistent, since (a) a material that has been “completely broken down” would not reasonably be expected to have any “remaining starting material” (emphasis added); and (b) what portion of the composite material remain after the first step. The examiner interprets the limitation as broadly encompassing the composite material being broken down in the first step and in a subsequent step, and intermediate products being broken down thermally. Clarification is requested.
Further, claim 1 recites, “the composite matrix being dissolved in a first step” in line 5 with the supporting disclosure in the specification of the composite matrix being dissolved at the beginning of the hydropyrolysis process (Originally filed specification, [0028]). However, a hydropyrolysis process refers to thermal decomposition of a material at specific conditions (e.g., high temperature, an atmosphere of H2) rather than dissolving of the material (emphasis added). It is unclear how the composite matrix could be dissolved during hydropyrolysis process, given the supporting disclosure in the specification, because the hydropyrolysis process inherently involves thermal decomposition rather than dissolution. The examiner interprets the first step as a process in which the composite matrix is broken down by heat rather than being dissolved. Clarification is requested.
Claims 2-3, 5-11 and 17-19, which depend on claim 1, are rejected for the same reason.
Upon further review, claim 18 contains inconsistent limitations that render the scope of the claim indefinite for the reasons as set forth below.
Claim 18 recites, “…which may be present and have been at most partially converted”. It is unclear what the conditional language “which may be present and have been at most partially converted” encompasses. Accordingly, the subject matter that is post-combusted cannot be determined with reasonable certainty. The examiner interprets the limitation as broadly encompassing any volatile products that undergo combustion. Clarification is requested.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 8, 10, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cruz et al. (US 2016/0153123 A1) (Cruz).
Regarding claim 1-2, 8, 10 and 18, Cruz discloses process for recycling composite materials and a system for treating waste gases (Cruz, Title and Abstract).
Cruz further discloses the composite materials (i.e., a component containing a composite material) being formed by mixtures of a polymeric matrix (i.e., a composite matrix), and a fibrous reinforcement, e.g., carbon fiber (i.e., a technical fiber), where the composite material is recycled for sustainable disposal (Cruz, Abstract; [0002]-[0006]).
Cruz further discloses the process comprising a pyrolysis step in a primary reactor that aims to gasify (i.e., chemically gasify) the components of the elements constituting the polymeric matrix (i.e., composite matrix) of the composite material, where the thermal decomposition of the polymeric matrixes of the composite material takes place, with only soot residues on the fiber surface and waste gases deriving from composite material degradation being expelled and released from the primary reactor (i.e., the polymeric matrixes of the composite completely broken down technically into its constituents), followed by oxidation of the residual carbon remaining on the fiber surface and treating the waste gases that are toxic and/or polluting (Cruz, [0030]-[0031]; [0038]-[0039]).
Cruz further discloses treating the waste gases being produced by thermal decomposition of composite material matrixes in a secondary reactor (i.e., a subsequent step), where the secondary reactor receives the waste gases and reagent gases (i.e., added process gases), performs ionization of the waste gases a temperature ranging between 2,000 °C and 15,000 °C (i.e., more than 800 °C), where the chemical bonds between the atoms of the molecules constituting these gases are broken and transformed into ions of their constituting elements during the ionization of the waste gases (i.e., broken down thermally). Upon ionization of these gases, the ions are combined between them producing molecules of combustible gases, e.g., hydrogen (H2) and carbon monoxide (CO), inert gases such as carbon dioxide (CO2), or neutralizable gases which are acid or alkaline gases deriving from reactions between hydrogen (H+) and oxygen (O−2) ions with sulfur (S−2), fluorine (F−), chlorine (Cl−), boron (B+3) and others (Cruz, [0017]; [0041]-[0043]).
Given that a plasma art feed by a plasma torch and high temperature are employed in the secondary reactor where the waste gases are treated (i.e., the subsequent step) (Cruz, [0041]), the treatment of the waste gases (i.e., the subsequent step) would be necessarily conducted endothermically.
Cruz further discloses the combustible gases being burned or oxidized (i.e., a reactive gas that contains oxygen) in a combustion chamber, whilst neutralizable gases are neutralized in a gas washer (i.e., post-combusted) to be expelled into the atmosphere (i.e., at the end of the entire method) (Cruz, [0017]; [0041]-[0043]).
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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cruz et al. (US 2016/0153123 A1) (Cruz), in view of Feih et al. "Tensile properties of carbon fibres and carbon fibre–polymer composites in fire" (Feih), taken in view of evidence by USNRC “Module III- Fire Analysis” (USNRC).
Regarding claim 3, as applied to claim 2, Cruz does not explicitly disclose the oxygen supplied amounts to a maximum of 8 volume% of the reaction atmosphere, as presently claimed.
With respect to the difference, Feih teaches tensile properties of carbon fibres and carbon fibre–polymer composites in fire (Feih, Title and Abstract).
Feih further teaches the oxygen content of fire within an enclosed space can vary between about 8% and 21% depending on the availability of air, and at oxygen levels below 8% the fire will self-extinguish (Feih, page 766, left column – first paragraph).
Feih and Cruz are analogous art as they are both drawn to processing carbon fiber.
In light of the motivation of using an appropriate oxygen content disclosed by Feih as described above, it would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the fire content to be a maximum of 8%, in order to avoid fire, because fire would cause an exothermic reaction as evidenced by USNRC (USNRC, page 2) rather than the claimed endothermic reaction.
Claims 1, 8-11, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rusnac (WO 2009/156761 A2) (Rusnac) in view of Cruz et al. (US 2016/0153123 A1) (Cruz).
Regarding claims 1 and 8-11, Rusnac discloses processing of waste (Rusnac, Title and Abstract).
Rusnac further discloses disposal of waste (i.e., disposing a component), where the waste refers to matter that contains hydrocarbons and can be treated by pyrolysis and/or gasification (, e.g., plastics, rubbers, or any matter generally containing hydrocarbons such as organic and synthetic material (Rusnac, page 1, first to four paragraphs), thus it is clear that the waste (i.e., the component) would be necessarily and inherently a composite material.
Rusnac further discloses the process comprising: having the waste (i.e., the composite material) being broken down within a reactor vessel by pyrolysis (i.e., a first step) to produce pyrolysis gases and remnants, e.g., char (i.e., basic constituents of the composite material); decomposing the pyrolysis gases by heating the pyrolysis gases (i.e., intermediate products being broken down thermally) to temperatures in the range of 1200-1800 °C within a plasma chamber in the presence of ionized plasma gases generated from a plasma generator (i.e., reacted with added process gases, a reactive gas being supplied at least in the subsequent step), while applying an electric field to the pyrolysis gases (Rusnac, Abstract; page 4, second full paragraph; page 7, second full paragraph; page 16, third full paragraph). Accordingly, and with the disclosure of the present invention that gasification is the conversion of a solid or liquid into a gas, as disclosed by the Specification (Originally filed specification, [0014]), the processing of waste (i.e., the component) of Rusnac would be necessarily chemically gasified.
As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Given that heat and an electric field are applied to the pyrolysis gases when heating the pyrolysis gases within a plasma chamber in the presence of ionized plasma gases (i.e., the subsequent step), the decomposition of the pyrolysis gases (i.e., the subsequent step) would be necessarily and inherently conducted endothermically.
Rusnac further discloses the waste is continuously mixed in the reactor vessel by using a central rotating member having a helical screw configuration with drive means (i.e., the action of mechanical energy) that enables rotation of the central member of the reactor vessel, to enable effective mixing and efficient generation of pyrolysis gases (Rusnac, page 6, first to second full paragraphs).
Rusnac does not explicitly disclose the composite material comprising a composite matrix and an engineered a technical fiber, as presently claimed.
With respect to the difference, Cruz teaches process for recycling composite materials and a system for treating waste gases (Cruz, Title and Abstract).
Cruz further teaches the composite materials (i.e., a component containing a composite material) being formed from a polymeric matrix (i.e., a composite matrix), and a fibrous reinforcement, e.g., carbon fiber (i.e., a technical fiber) (Cruz, Abstract; [0002]).
As Cruz expressly teaches, composite materials having a polymeric matrix present a wide variety of combinations of matrixes and reinforcements, which provide them with characteristics of mechanical strength and specific stiffness allowing structural application thereof. The carbon fiber technology, particularly, has been evolving quickly in the last few years, resulting in benefits involving a variety of high performance reinforcement options. The most important characteristic of the carbon fiber is the high elasticity module, higher than that of the other reinforcement fibers. However, the production are wastes and the end-of-life or non-conformant parts are not sustainably disposed, since these materials are usually sent to industrial landfills or incinerators for final disposal. Accordingly, recycling is one of the most intelligent manners of managing the wastes since it creates jobs, is not harmful to the environment it and stimulates product reuse (Cruz, [0003]-[0006]).
Cruz and Rusnac are analogous art as they are both drawn to processing (e.g., disposing) waste material.
In light of the motivation of disposing the composite material of Cruz as described above, it would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the composite material of Rusnac to be those formed from a polymeric matrix (i.e., a composite matrix), and a fibrous reinforcement, e.g., carbon fiber (i.e., a technical fiber), in order to achieve sustainable disposal for environmental protection and stimulation of product reuse, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 18, as applied to claim 1, Rusnac further discloses the process comprising passing the decomposed gases through a catalytic process and rapidly cooling the formed gases (i.e., post-combusted at the end of the entire method) for optimising prevention of the formation of harmful dioxins and other unwanted products) (Rusnac, Abstract; page 9, third full paragraph).
Claims 5-7, 17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rusnac (WO 2009/156761 A2) (Rusnac) in view of Cruz et al. (US 2016/0153123 A1) (Cruz) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mishra et al. "Pyrohydrolysis, a clean separation method for separating non-metals directly from solid matrix" (Mishra), taken in view of evidence by Mishra et al. “Direct Separation of Molybdenum from Solid Uranium Matrices Employing Pyrohydrolysis, a Green Separation Method, and Its Determination by Ion Chromatography” (Mishra2).
Regarding claim 5-7, 17 and 19, as applied to claim 1, Rusnac in view of Cruz does not explicitly teach the first step comprises pyrohydrolysis, as presently claimed.
With respect to the difference, Mishra teaches pyrohydrolysis is employed for the separation of non-metals, e.g., fluorine, chlorine, from solid samples (Mishra, Title and Abstract).
Mishra further teaches the pyrohydrolysis comprises the formation of volatile compounds of halogens (e.g., gaseous hydrogen halides), and subsequently, the volatile compounds of halogens is condensed and collected by passing a carrier gas, e.g., air, oxygen, argon, through water (Mishra, page 389, Introduction; Apparatus).
Mishra further teaches the halides are converted into their respective acids, e.g., fluorine is converted in to HF, and the volatile acids are condensed and trapped (i.e., subsequently isolated) in a dilute alkaline trapping solution, e.g., a dilute solution of NaOH or Na2CO3 (i.e., by neutralization in an alkaline washing solution) (Mishra, page 389, Introduction)
Mishra further teaches using pyrohydrolysis for separating Mo from uranium matrix as described in the non-patent literature [57], i.e., Mishra2, where complete recovery of Mo is achieved (Mishira, page 391, right column, first full paragraph). Given that the complete recovery of Mo is achieved and further given that Mishra2 further teaches the uranium matrix being a solid matrix of UO2 (i.e., metal compound; uranium compound) (Mishra2, Abstract and page 10730, right column, “TGA of the UO2 + MoO3 Standard” and “Kinetics of Mo Separation”), therefore, only uranium compounds would remain necessarily as solids in the slag at the end of the entire method.
As Mishra expressly teaches, the advantages of pyrohydrolysis is being used on routine basis to separate halogens from nuclear materials (e.g., nuclear waste material) (Mishra, page 389 – right column; page 391 – Pyrohydrolysis in nuclear industry).
As Mishra further expressly teaches, pyrohydrolysis has the advantage to handle the radioactive materials safely and it provides a sample solution free from radioactive matrix elements like Pu etc., it is widely employed for separating halogens and boron in nuclear fuels and associated materials, and recently, for separating Mo from uranium matrix (Mishra, page 391 – Pyrohydrolysis in nuclear industry).
As Mishra2 expressly teaches, pyrohydrolysis (PH) is a well-known technique for separating halogens and boron from solid matrices such as petroleum products, coal, cement, soil, carbon nanotubes, hard materials such as SiC, and nuclear materials, especially the fuels. Pyrohydrolysis of uranium matrices leads to the formation of pure U3O8 which remains in the sample holder, and it can be reused for fuel fabrication and also as an accelerator for pyrohydrolyzing several other materials (Mishra2, page 10728, right column, first full paragraph).
Mishra and Mishra2 are analogous art as they are drawn to a pyrolysis process for recycling material.
In light of the motivation of employing pyrohydrolysis disclosed by Mishra and Mishra2 as described above, it would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use pyrohydrolysis process in the first step of Rusnac in view of Cruz, in order to separate halogens from nuclear materials, e.g., uranium, to be reused for fuel fabrication and also as an accelerator for pyrohydrolyzing several other materials.
Claim 3 is alternatively rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cruz et al. (US 2016/0153123 A1) (Cruz) in view of Gehr et al. (US 2019/0039266 A1) (Gehr).
Regarding claim 3, as applied to claim 2, Cruz does not explicitly teach oxygen supplied amounts to a maximum of 8% of the reaction atmosphere, as presently claimed.
With respect to the difference, Gehr teaches a pyrolysis process for recycling carbon fibers from carbon fiber-containing plastics (CFPs), e.g., carbon fiber-containing or carbon fiber-reinforced composites comprising carbon fibers embedded in a matrix (Gehr, Title and Abstract; [0007]).
Gehr further teaches regulating the oxygen content, e.g., a low oxygen content in a first pyrolysis zone and a higher oxygen content in a second pyrolysis zone, where the oxygen content in the first pyrolysis zone is set to be from 0.1% to 12% by volume (Gehr, [0041]; [0071]; [0075]; [0094]; [0129]-[0131]), which overlaps the claimed range.
Gehr further teaches the oxygen content in the second pyrolysis zone, increases by from 3% by volume to 25% by volume, compared to the oxygen content in the first pyrolysis zone (Gehr, [0129]-[0131]). Accordingly, the oxygen content in the second pyrolysis zone is from 3.1% (i.e., 0.1%+3%=3.1%) to 37% (i.e., 12%+25%=37%) by volume, which is within the claimed range.
As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
As Gehr expressly teaches, pyrolysis processes are sometimes also operated in an oxygen-containing atmosphere, in particular under controlled conditions of the oxygen content and/or the temperature (Gehr, [0019]; [0057]-[0058]), where the control and/or regulation of the oxygen content in the respective pyrolysis zone is thus very easy to carry out from a process engineering point of view and does not require use of costly gases such as oxygen (Gehr, [0132]).
As Gehr further expressly teaches, control of the oxygen content in the first and second pyrolysis zones enables the polymer matrix to be pyrolyzed selectively, i.e. thermally decomposed selectively in the presence of a certain oxygen content, but without excessive oxidation on the surface of the recycled carbon fibers taking place to avoid partial or complete destruction of the carbon fibers, which would result in significantly worsened mechanical and electrical properties (Gehr, [0131]; [0134]).
Gehr is analogous art as it is drawn to a pyrolysis process for recycling material.
In light of the motivation of regulating the oxygen content disclosed by Gehr as described above, it would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to regulate the oxygen content in the process of Cruz, in order to reduce use of costly gases such as oxygen and obtain recyclable product without worsening its mechanical and electrical properties.
Claims 5-7, 17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cruz et al. (US 2016/0153123 A1) (Cruz) in view of Mishra et al. "Pyrohydrolysis, a clean separation method for separating non-metals directly from solid matrix" (Mishra), taken in view of evidence by Mishra et al. “Direct Separation of Molybdenum from Solid Uranium Matrices Employing Pyrohydrolysis, a Green Separation Method, and Its Determination by Ion Chromatography” (Mishra2).
Regarding claim 5-7, 17 and 19, as applied to claim 1, Cruz does not explicitly teach the first step comprises pyrohydrolysis, as presently claimed.
With respect to the difference, Mishra teaches pyrohydrolysis is employed for the separation of non-metals, e.g., fluorine, chlorine, from solid samples (Mishra, Title and Abstract).
Mishra further teaches the pyrohydrolysis comprises the formation of volatile compounds of halogens (e.g., gaseous hydrogen halides), and subsequently, the volatile compounds of halogens is condensed and collected by passing a carrier gas, e.g., air, oxygen, argon, through water (Mishra, page 389, Introduction; Apparatus).
Mishra further teaches the halides are converted into their respective acids, e.g., fluorine is converted in to HF, and the volatile acids are condensed and trapped (i.e., subsequently isolated) in a dilute alkaline trapping solution, e.g., a dilute solution of NaOH or Na2CO3 (i.e., by neutralization in an alkaline washing solution) (Mishra, page 389, Introduction)
Mishra further teaches using pyrohydrolysis for separating Mo from uranium matrix as described in the non-patent literature [57], i.e., Mishra2, where complete recovery of Mo is achieved (Mishira, page 391, right column, first full paragraph). Given that the complete recovery of Mo is achieved and further given that Mishra2 further teaches the uranium matrix being a solid matrix of UO2 (i.e., metal compound; uranium compound) (Mishra2, Abstract and page 10730, right column, “TGA of the UO2 + MoO3 Standard” and “Kinetics of Mo Separation”), therefore, only uranium compounds would remain necessarily as solids in the slag at the end of the entire method.
As Mishra expressly teaches, the advantages of pyrohydrolysis is being used on routine basis to separate halogens from nuclear materials (e.g., nuclear waste material) (Mishra, page 389 – right column; page 391 – Pyrohydrolysis in nuclear industry).
As Mishra further expressly teaches, pyrohydrolysis has the advantage to handle the radioactive materials safely and it provides a sample solution free from radioactive matrix elements like Pu etc., it is widely employed for separating halogens and boron in nuclear fuels and associated materials, and recently, for separating Mo from uranium matrix (Mishra, page 391 – Pyrohydrolysis in nuclear industry).
As Mishra2 expressly teaches, pyrohydrolysis (PH) is a well-known technique for separating halogens and boron from solid matrices such as petroleum products, coal, cement, soil, carbon nanotubes, hard materials such as SiC, and nuclear materials, especially the fuels. Pyrohydrolysis of uranium matrices leads to the formation of pure U3O8 which remains in the sample holder, and it can be reused for fuel fabrication and also as an accelerator for pyrohydrolyzing several other materials (Mishra2, page 10728, right column, first full paragraph).
Mishra and Mishra2 are analogous art as they are drawn to a pyrolysis process for recycling material.
In light of the motivation of employing pyrohydrolysis disclosed by Mishra and Mishra2 as described above, it would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use pyrohydrolysis process in the first step of Rusnac in view of Cruz, in order to separate halogens from nuclear materials, e.g., uranium, to be reused for fuel fabrication and also as an accelerator for pyrohydrolyzing several other materials.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cruz et al. (US 2016/0153123 A1) (Cruz), in view of Nakagome et al. “Development of rotary kiln type gasification system” (Nakagome).
Regarding claim 11, as applied to claim 1, Cruz does not explicitly disclose the chemical gasification is carried out under the action of mechanical energy, as presently claimed.
With respect to the difference, Nakagome teaches development of rotary kiln type gasification system (Nakagome, Title and Abstract).
Nakagome further teaches performing gasification process using a pyrolysis rotary kiln (Nakagome, page 372, Figure 1; page 376, 3.2. Gasification process, first paragraph; page 378). Given that a rotary kiln, e.g., a pyrolysis rotary kiln uses mechanical energy to rotate a kiln shell, the gasification would be necessarily carried out under the action of mechanical energy.
As Nakagome expressly teaches, using a pyrolysis rotary kiln in the gasification system clarifies both the control of the generation of high-temperature corrosion and dioxins and the fuel supply consideration, and improves the energy conversion efficiency of waste (Nakagome, Abstract and pages 378-379, 4. Conclusions).
Nakagome is analogous art as it is drawn to gasification process.
In light of the motivation of using the rotary kiln disclosed by Nakagome as described above, it would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the rotary kiln in the gasification process of Cruz, in order to improve the energy conversion efficiency, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Claim 18 is alternatively rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cruz et al. (US 2016/0153123 A1) (Cruz), in view of Kaimal et al. “A detailed study of combustion characteristics of a DI diesel engine using waste plastic oil and its blends” (Kaimal).
Regarding claim 18, as applied to claim 1, Cruz does not explicitly teach wherein any condensable substances of the component which may be present and have been at most partially converted are post-combusted at the end of the entire method, as presently claimed.
With respect to the difference, Kaimal teaches combustion characteristics of a DI diesel engine using waste plastic oil and its blends (Kaimal, Title and Abstract).
Kaimal further teaches pyrolysis process yielding plastic oil, solid coke residue and gaseous fractions (i.e., condensable substances of the component), where all the gaseous products (i.e., condensable substances of the component) from this process either condensed to liquids and non-condensable products being treated (i.e., post-combusted) by passing it through the water chamber before it is let out, such that the toxins are either burned out in the lack of oxygen or reduced in the presence of a catalyst (Kaimal, page 952, 2.2. Plastic oil synthesis by pyrolysis).
Kaimal is analogous art as it is drawn to processing waste material (e.g., plastic).
In light of the motivation of treating the condensable products disclosed by Kaimal as described above, it would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the condensable products (i.e., condensable substances) of Cruz to have the treatment (i.e., post-combustion) of Kaimal, in order to remove toxins before letting them out and achieve environmental protection and emission control, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JIALAN ZHANG whose telephone number is (703)756-1794. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Ching-Yiu Fung can be reached at 571-270-5713. 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.
/J.Z./Examiner, Art Unit 1732
/CORIS FUNG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1732