DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 14 October 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: bypass control valve… “diverts a portion of separated flue gas to the flue-gas booster fan” in claim 5, and “without combusting natural gas in the air reactor” in claim 9.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
In light of the amendment, the previously presented 35 U.S.C. 112 rejections have been withdrawn. It is acknowledged that claims 1, 3-5, and 7-10 have been amended and claims 2 and 6 have been cancelled by Applicant. Claims 1, 3-5, and 7-10 are currently pending in this application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 14 October 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The respective arguments are addressed below.
Applicant argues that the prior art relied upon in the non-final office action did not teach or suggest L-shaped jet chambers as claimed in claim 1 and previously presented claim 2. Examiner respectfully disagrees and points Applicant to the figure in Transvac, which clearly shows an L shaped chamber as part of a jet device. The specific configuration is taught, as explained in the non-final office action, by Baogui, and reference is made to figures 1 and 2 which shows jet tubes on opposite sides of the fluidized bed and a fluidization medium at the bottom center of the fluidized bed, thereby meeting the limitation of “two distinct jet devices disposed on opposite sides of that nozzle”. Applicant further argues that there is not motivation to combine because “Baogui’s jets are inside a reduction reactor to improve bed fluidization”. Examiner reminds Applicant that the prior art needs to meet the claimed limitations, and being inside a reduction reactor does not exclude the prior art from meeting the claimed limitations because the test for obviousness is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). Further, the non-final office action, and this office action provide rationale regarding the obviousness of combining the prior art and the associated geometry. Please see the respective rejection of these previously addressed limitations in the non-final office action and further in this office action. Applicant argues that there is no articulated reason to combine Iya and Baogui with Hongwei. Examiner points out that Iya was used as a teaching reference to exemplify that it is well understood by those in the art that the presence of the jet in Hongwei modified by Baogui indicates the presence of a nozzle. Examiner did not suggest combining Iya with Hongwei or Baogui, but merely used Iya to teach and suggest that the existence of a jet indicates the existence of a nozzle even if not explicitly disclosed.
Applicant argues that the rationale used to reject claim 3’s pipeline allocation was merely stated as “piping is common”, but offers no reason why a POSITA would repurpose the second-cyclone outlet stream to simultaneously serve the multiple purposes claimed. Examiner invites Applicant to revisit the claim 3 rejection, which clearly defines the obviousness of the piping orientation and use of said outlet stream for the various purposes. The rejection did not rely on piping being common as rationale for obviousness of the configuration, but merely stated that “piping is the most common method used when controlled, directed, or enclosed transport of gas is occurring in a system” to exemplify that a disclosure does not need to explicitly teach “pipes” or “piping” for a person of ordinary skill in the art to understand that piping is present when fluids are being transported from one part of a system to another. This rationale was used for the word “piping”, not the configuration of said piping. Additionally, the rejection still pointed out that Baogui disclosed the use of pipelines.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 5 and 9 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Applicant further argues that “finite options/common sense” statements are the only relied upon rationale and that Kahn deems these arguments insufficient absent a reasoned explanation linked to the claimed arrangement. Examiner invites Applicant to revisit the claim 9 rejection which offers motivation to combine for every combination in addition to the arguments of finite options and common sense. Further, MPEP 2144.1 states, “Rationale may be in a reference, or reasoned from common knowledge in the art, scientific principles, art-recognized equivalents, or legal precedent”.
Applicant argues that the rejection of claim 7 does not provide any evidence-based reason to put the device specifically on the outlet tube of the second cyclone separator. Examiner respectfully disagrees and invites Applicant to revisit the claim 7 rejection where logical reasoning for why the specific CO-2 capture device placement is obvious is presented.
Applicant argues, again, the Examiner’s use of commonality is not sufficient and that the rejection of claim 8 does not offer a reason to combine. Again, Examiner respectfully disagrees and invites Applicant to revisit the claim 8 rejection, which provides motivation to combine in addition to the common-sense argument. Examiner reminds Applicant of the motivation, which states, “it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hongwei by incorporating the teachings of Li and including a slag discharge device. Doing so would enable slag discharge (see Col. 2 Lines 47-52)”.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
In response to applicant's argument that the instant specification identifies and solves a problem the art did not squarely recognize, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
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 5 and 9 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. Specifically, the limitation claiming, “diverts a portion of separated flue gas to the flue-gas booster fan” in claim 5 and the limitation claiming, “without combusting natural gas in the air reactor” in claim 9 are not directly supported by the instant specification or drawings. An applicant complies with the written description requirement “by describing the invention, with all its claimed limitations, not that which makes it obvious,” and by using “such descriptive means as words, structures, figures, diagrams, formulas, etc., that set forth the claimed invention.” Lockwood, 107 F.3d at 1572, 41 USPQ2d at 1966. In this case, because the newly added limitations are not explicitly supported by the instant specification or drawings, it is new matter that does not comply with the written description requirement.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1 and 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hongwei (CN-108730964-A) in view of Baogui (CN-101975395-A) and further in view of Iya (US-4424199-A) and Transvac (How An Ejector Works).
Regarding Claim 1, Hongwei discloses an apparatus for removing pollutants from an organic solid waste (multi-solid fuel; see [0012]) by a pyrolysis (pyrolysis gasification reactor; see [0012]) coupled with a chemical looping combustion (chemical chain combustion; see [0012] and chemical looping combustion; see [0028]), comprising: an air reactor (see [0012]), a fuel reactor (see [0012]), and a pyrolysis gasifier (pyrolysis gasification reactor; see [0012]), wherein the pyrolysis gasifier is directly adjacent to the fuel reactor (the pyrolysis gasification reactor is sandwiched between the first fuel reactor and the second fuel reactor, and the walls of the reactors are in contact with each other; see [0033] and Fig. 1); the air reactor is connected with the fuel reactor by a U-type (see Fig. 1 Part 5-4) refeeder (The air reactor is connected to the second fuel reactor through a fourth return feeder; see [0012]); a top end of the air reactor is connected with a first end of a top delivery pipe (The air reactor 1 is connected to the first and second cyclone separators 2-1, 2-2 and 2-3 through a riser 6; see [0033] and Fig. 1), a second end of the top delivery pipe is connected with a top end of a first cyclone separator (The air reactor 1 is connected to the first and second cyclone separators 2-1, 2-2 and 2-3 through a riser 6; see [0033] and Fig. 1), and a bottom end of the first cyclone separator is connected with an oxygen carrier refeeder provided at a top end of the fuel reactor (“the lower discharge end of the first cyclone separator 2-1 is connected to the feed end of the first return feeder 5-1, the discharge end of the first return feeder 5-1 is connected to the first fuel reactor 3-1”; see [0033] and “the oxidized oxygen carrier enters the first fuel reactor 3-1 through the first return feeder 5-1”; see [0038]); an air inlet is provided at a bottom of the air reactor (the air reactor is a bubbling fluidized bed, and a first air distribution plate is arranged at the bottom thereof; see [0014]), and a feeder is provided at one side of the pyrolysis gasifier (Solid fuel enters the pyrolysis gasification reactor from the solid fuel feed port; see [0020] and Fig. 1 Part 9).
Regarding the limitation claiming that the “pyrolysis gasifier is sleeved at an outside of the fuel reactor”, the instant specification does not offer any new or unexpected results occurring from this feature, nor does it specify an alternative operation resulting from or required by the placement of the pyrolysis gasifier. Hongwei discloses a similar relative placement of the two reactors, in which the walls of the reactors are touching, and the functions of the reactors are the same as those of the instant application. Still, Baogui discloses an annular reactor design in which the inner and outer rings enable different reactions (see [0007]. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hongwei by incorporating this design because it has more reasonable energy utilization (see Baogui [0006]).
Hongwei does not explicitly teach fluidization nozzles and jets. However, Baogui discloses a fluidized gas nozzle and a plurality of jet devices provided at a lower part of the fuel reactor (in order to improve the fluidization characteristics of the oxygen carrier and coal particles inside the reduction reactor, jet tubes with different angles are designed 5 cm above the distribution plate at the bottom of the reduction reactor; see [0008]). It is understood that almost all fluidization jets involve a nozzle, and the presence of a jet strongly indicates the presence of a nozzle, as taught by Iya (see Col. 2 Line 57).
Hongwei and Baogui are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of fluidized bed chemical looping processes. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hongwei by incorporating the teachings of Baogui and providing jets at the bottom of the fuel reactor. Doing wo would have improved fluidization characteristics (see Baogui [0008]).
Baogui further discloses the lower part of the fuel reactor being equipped with the fluidized gas nozzle (this limitation was addressed above), and a first jet device and a second jet device of the plurality of jet devices are disposed on two sides of the fluidized gas nozzle (wherein the jet tubes with 30 degrees and 90 degrees are respectively distributed on the opposite side of the bubbling fluidized bed; see [0008] and Figs. 1-2, parts A, and 13-16); the first jet device consists of a first jet nozzle (this limitation was addressed above) the second jet device consists of a second jet nozzle (this limitation was addressed above), wherein a first jet and a second jet are provided on both sides of the bottom part of the pyrolysis gasifier (see Figs. 1 and 2, parts 13-16)
Regarding the limitations claiming, “the first jet device consists of a first jet nozzle and a first L-shaped jet chamber, the second jet device consists of a second jet nozzle and a second L-shaped jet chamber” and “a jet gas in a first jet gas pipeline is ejected by the first jet nozzle at an inlet of the first L-shaped jet chamber, such that a first high-speed jet gas generates a first local negative pressure and thereby draws a pyrolysis gas of the organic solid waste within the pyrolysis gasifier into the first L-shaped jet chamber; and the jet gas in a second jet gas pipeline is ejected by the second jet nozzle at an inlet of the second L-shaped jet chamber, such that a second high-speed jet gas generates a second local negative pressure”, these describe the exact structure and function of an ejector, respectively, as disclosed by Transvac, which is a very well-known and commonly used device for fluid transfer. Hongwei discloses the transfer of pyrolysis gas from the pyrolysis gasifier to the fuel reactor (see [0021]). KSR Rationale E (see MPEP 2141) states that it is obvious to choose “from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success”. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select an ejector, as taught by Transvac, from the list of possible methods for fluid transfer in order to move the fuel gas from the gasifier to the fuel reactor, as taught by Hongwei (see [0021]).
Regarding Claim 3, Hongwei, Baogui, Iya and Transvac together disclose the apparatus for removing the pollutants from the organic solid waste by the pyrolysis coupled with the chemical looping combustion of claim 1. Hongwei further discloses the top end of the fuel reactor being connected with a second cyclone separator (and the upper end of the first fuel reactor 3-1 is respectively connected to the feed ends of the second cyclone separator 2-2; see [0033]), such that a flue gas in the fuel reactor is separated from solids by the second cyclone separator (a small part of the reduced oxygen carrier and most of the fly ash particles and CO2 gas enter the second cyclone separator 2-2 and the third cyclone separator 2-3 for cyclone separation; see [0036]); the flue gas from a gas-solid separation passes through an outlet pipe of the second cyclone separator (CO2 gas is discharged through the exhaust port; see [0036]).
Hongwei teaches the feeding of CO-2 and N2 to the second fuel reactor (see [0038]), but does not explicitly teach the recycling of the CO2, which is analogous to said flue gas, or N2. However, because CO-2 and N2 is both discharged from one section, and fed to another, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use the discharged CO2 or N2 as the feed into the second fuel reactor, thereby making it a refeed gas. Further, Baogui discloses the use of CO2 as a fluidization medium (see [0016]) and discloses that the jets can improve the fluidization characteristics (see [0016]), indicating that the gas used for fluidization is also utilized in the jets. Baogui also discloses CO2 as a flue gas discharged from a cyclone separator (see [0018]). Following this logic, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the CO2, or flue gas, discharged from the second cyclone separator as the jet gas, a fluidized gas entering the fluidized gas nozzle, and a refeed gas. Regarding the limitations claiming pipelines for the jet gas, fluidized gas, and refeed gas, piping is the most common method used when controlled, directed, or enclosed transport of gas is occurring in a system. Baogui discloses the use of pipelines for the movement of the materials within the system (see [0016]), therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used pipelines for the flue gas discharged from the cyclone separator.
Regarding Claim 4, Hongwei, Baogui, Iya and Transvac together disclose the apparatus for removing the pollutants from the organic solid waste by the pyrolysis coupled with the chemical looping combustion of claim 3. Hongwei further discloses feeding N2 gas into a bottom part of the U-type refeeder for circulating the refeeder gas (see [0038]). As explained in the claim 3 rejection, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use N2 as a refeed gas.
Claims 5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hongwei (CN-108730964-A) in view of Baogui (CN-101975395-A), Iya (US-4424199-A), Transvac (How An Ejector Works), Hossain (US-20200095898-A1), and Yang (CN-106122977-B).
Regarding Claim 5, Hongwei, Baogui, Iya and Transvac together disclose the apparatus for removing the pollutants from the organic solid waste by the pyrolysis coupled with the chemical looping combustion of claim 3. Baogui further discloses a first and second jet gas pipeline (“jet pipes” see [0016] and Fig. 2). Regarding the limitation claiming, “the first jet gas pipeline is provided with a second natural gas inlet, and the second jet gas pipeline is provided with a third natural gas inlet”, Baogui teaches the jets introducing fluid to the fuel reactor. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to introduce, through the jets and through any other fluid inlet to the fuel reactor, any reactant intended for the fuel reactor.
Hongwei does not explicitly teach using natural gas as a fuel. However, Hossain discloses using natural gas as a fuel in a chemical combustion looping system (see [0089]).
Hongwei and Hossain are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of chemical combustion looping. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to introduce natural gas into the fuel reactor through the inlets for fluid. Doing so would provide a further source of carbon (see Hossain [0089]).
Hongwei also does not explicitly teach an air switching valve and flue gas booster fan. However, Yang discloses an air switching valve in an air supply line to the air inlet and is configured to selectively allow or block air flow to the air reactor (The air supply is regulated by the first regulating valve on the corresponding pipeline; see [0036]); a flue gas booster fan on an outlet pipe (The inlet end of the dust removal device 201 is connected to the second flue gas outlet 113 through a pipe, the outlet end of the dust removal device 201 is connected to the inlet end of the first air blower 202 through a pipeline; see [0067]) of a second cyclone separator (the dust removing device 201 is a cyclone separator; see [0067]); and a flue gas bypass control valve on the outlet pipe of the second cyclone separator (each branch pipe of pipe 204 is equipped with a first regulating valve 207; see [0067] and Fig. 8, which shows the outlet of cyclone 201 connected to the main pipe of manifold 204).
Hongwei and Yang are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of CO2 recovery/mitigation systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hongwei by incorporating the teachings of Yang and providing a flue gas booster fan and control valves. Doing so would, respectively, enable flue gas to be blown (see Yang [0068]) and enable regulation of gas flow (see Yang [0036]).
Regarding the limitation claiming that the flue-gas booster fan “supplies a fluidized-gas pipeline and the first and second jet-gas pipelines”, this is a consequential limitation that is a natural consequence of the presence of the flue-gas booster fan and the pipeline configuration described in claim 3. Therefore, because the prior structural limitations have been met by the prior art, this limitation is consequentially met as well.
Regarding the limitations of “a refeeder gas pipeline has a refeeder gas control valve; the second natural gas inlet has a second natural gas control valve and the third natural gas inlet has a third natural gas control valve; the fluidized gas pipeline has a fluidized gas control valve; the first jet gas pipeline has a first jet gas control valve; and the second jet gas pipeline has a second jet gas control valve”, it was established above that using control valves would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because they enable regulation of gas flow (see Yang [0036]). Yang further discloses that each branch pipe of each manifold main pipe is equipped with a regulating valve (see [0029]). When the structure disclosed by modified Hongwei is further modified by incorporating the teachings of Yang, it logically follows that each branch pipe of modified Hongwei would be equipped with a regulating valve. This would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because regulating valves enable regulation of gas flow (see Yang [0036]). Lastly, control valves are old and well-known expedients in the art and are understood to exist in systems even if they are not directly specified.
Regarding Claim 7, Hongwei, Baogui, Iya and Transvac together disclose the apparatus for removing the pollutants from the organic solid waste by the pyrolysis coupled with the chemical looping combustion according to of claim 3.
Hongwei discloses the importance of capturing CO2 (see [0004]), but does not explicitly teach a CO2 capturing device. However, Hossain discloses CO2 capture (see [0080]) using known method, and discloses that physical absorption is among the known methods (see [0013]). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a carbon dioxide capture device because chemical looping combustion is designed to be an efficient CO2 capture technology (see Hongwei [0004]), and it would be understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art that carbon capture requires a capture device. Additionally, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to specifically place the capture device on the exhaust of a cyclone separator because that is where most of the CO2 gas is discharged (see Hongwei [0021]).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hongwei (CN-108730964-A) in view of Baogui (CN-101975395-A), Iya (US-4424199-A) and Li (US-10640174-B2)
Regarding Claim 8, Hongwei, Baogui, and Iya together disclose the apparatus for removing the pollutants from the organic solid waste by the pyrolysis coupled with the chemical looping combustion according to of claim 1.
Hongwei does not explicitly teach a slag remover. However, including a slag discharge device on a lower part of a pyrolysis gasifier is a very common method to employ, as taught by Li (see Col. 2 Lines 19-24 and Fig. 1 Parts 2 and 3).
Hongwei and Li are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of solid fuel gasification. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the are before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hongwei by incorporating the teachings of Li and including a slag discharge device. Doing so would enable slag discharge (see Col. 2 Lines 47-52).
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hongwei (CN-108730964-A) in view of Baogui (CN-101975395-A), Iya (US-4424199-A), Transvac (How An Ejector Works), Hossain (US-20200095898-A1), Yang (CN-106122977-B), Li (US-10640174-B2), and Finnerty et al. (US-10414650-B2), hereinafter “Finnerty”.
Regarding Claim 9, Hongwei, Baogui, Iya, Transvac, and Hossain together disclose the apparatus for removing the pollutants from the organic solid waste by the pyrolysis coupled with the chemical looping combustion of claim 5. Hongwei further discloses:
S1: placing an oxygen carrier respectively in the air reactor (see [0022]), the U-type refeeder (oxidized oxygen carrier enters the first fuel reactor 3-1 through the first return feeder 5-1; see [0038] and Fig. 1), the oxygen carrier refeeder (oxygen carrier enters the second return material {feeder} 5-2; see [0036]), and the fuel reactor (oxidized oxygen carrier enters the first fuel reactor; see [0038]);
S2: transporting the flue gas and the oxygen carrier to the air reactor via a U-type refeeder (The reduced oxygen carrier and a small amount of fly ash particles enter the air reactor 1 through the fourth return feeder 5-4; see [0037] and N2 is introduced to the fourth return feeder; see [0038] and Fig. 1);
S3: continuously feeding the organic solid waste of a storage bin into the pyrolysis gasifier via the feeder (The solid fuel enters the pyrolysis gasification reactor 4 from the solid fuel feed port 9 on the pyrolysis gasification reactor 4; see [0035]), and further undergoes the chemical looping combustion under an action of the oxygen carrier (Fly ash particles and gas fuel enter the first fuel reactor 3-1 through the third air distribution plate 10-3, and the gas fuel undergoes a reduction reaction with the oxidized oxygen carrier in the bubbling fluidized state to generate CO2 gas; see [0036]); acquiring a reduced oxygen carrier after a first reaction of an oxidized oxygen carrier (“and the gas fuel undergoes a reduction reaction with the oxidized oxygen carrier” and “most of the reduced oxygen carrier…”; see [0036]); and
S4: making the reduced oxygen carrier after the first reaction enter the U-type refeeder and then enter the air reactor under a refeeder gas (The reduced oxygen carrier and a small amount of fly ash particles enter the air reactor 1 through the fourth return feeder 5-4; see [0037] and N2 is introduced to the fourth return feeder; see [0038] and Fig. 1); fully oxidizing the reduced oxygen carrier in an air atmosphere to acquire the oxidized oxygen carrier (In the air reactor 1, the reduced oxygen carrier undergoes an oxidation reaction with the fluidized air; see [0038]), and releasing a first heat which is absorbed by the oxidized oxygen carrier and an oxygen-poor air after a reaction (Part of the oxygen carrier is used as a heat source to heat the solid fuel; see [0010] and In the air reactor, the reduced oxygen carrier undergoes an oxidation reaction with the fluidized air entering through the first air distribution plate to obtain oxygen, which enters the first cyclone separator through the lifting pipe. A small amount of fly ash particles, fluidized air and oxygen carrier are separated, and the fly ash particles and fluidized air are discharged from the upper discharge port of the first cyclone separator; see [0023]); transporting the oxidized oxygen carrier and the oxygen-poor air to the first cyclone separator via the top delivery pipe (In the air reactor, the reduced oxygen carrier undergoes an oxidation reaction with the fluidized air entering through the first air distribution plate to obtain oxygen, which enters the first cyclone separator through the lifting pipe; see [0023]), and separating the oxygen-poor air from the oxidized oxygen carrier (fluidized air and oxygen carrier are separated; see [0023]), such that the oxidized oxygen carrier finally falls into the fuel reactor via the oxygen carrier refeeder (The oxidized oxygen carrier enters the first fuel reactor through the first return feeder; see [0023]); and providing an oxygen source for a combustion of the pyrolysis gas via the oxidized oxygen carrier (gas fuel enter the first fuel reactor 3-1 through the third air distribution plate 10-3, and the gas fuel undergoes a reduction reaction with the oxidized oxygen carrier in the bubbling fluidized state to generate CO2 gas; see [0036]), and providing a second heat to maintain a third reaction of the chemical looping combustion (Part of the oxygen carrier is used as a heat source to heat the solid fuel, thereby achieving the same heating purpose as the mixed material and reducing the additional heat required for the pyrolysis and gasification reactions; see [0010]).
Yang further discloses the limitations claiming, “opening the air switching valve to supply air to the air reactor” and “closing the air switching valve” (The air supply is regulated by the first regulating valve on the corresponding pipeline; see [0036]). This would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because it would enable gasification (see Yang [0036]).
Regarding the limitation claiming, “controlling a gas flow rate of the air reactor, the fuel reactor, the U-type refeeder, and the oxygen carrier refeeder by controlling the air control valve, the refeeder gas control valve, the first jet gas control valve, the fluidized gas control valve, and the second jet gas control valve to realize a cyclic fluidization of the oxygen carrier”, this is describing the function of control valves. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to control various flows by controlling various control valves, as that is the sole purpose of a control valve. Additionally, Baogui discloses control of flow via control valves (see [0007]).
Regarding the limitation claiming, “starting an air booster fan providing air”, Hongwei discloses the use of wind (see [0020]), indicating that air is somehow being moved. KSR Rationale E (see MPEP 2141) states that it is obvious to choose “from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success”. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to select an air booster fan from the list of possible air moving devices known in the art. Additionally, Finnerty discloses an air blower (see Col. 7 Line 48), the inclusion of which would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because it introduces air (see Finnerty Col. 7 Line 48)
Hongwei does not explicitly teach turning on the second natural gas control valve and the third natural gas control valve to increase an input of a natural gas, igniting the natural gas by an electric spark igniter in the fuel reactor and sequentially turning off the second natural gas control valve, and the third natural gas control valve after both the air reactor and the fuel reactor are raised to 8000C-10000C. However, Finnerty discloses the use of control valves to control the flow of natural gas (see Col. 6 Lines 32-37) to a reformer, or fuel reactor (see Col. 9 Lines 14-20) and igniting the natural gas until the reactor reaches 8000C-10000C (see Col. 10 Lines 17-20).
Hongwei and Finnerty are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of reactors for exothermic reactions. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hongwei by incorporating the teachings of Finnerty and igniting the natural gas in the fuel reactor. Doing so would bring the reactor up to a self-sustaining temperature (see Col. 10 Lines 17-20).
Hongwei does not explicitly teach the air reactor having a fast fluidized bed. However, Baogui discloses the oxidation reactor, which is analogous to the air reactor, as being a fast fluidized bed. KSR Rationale E (see MPEP 2141) states that it is obvious to choose “from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success”. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to select a fast fluidized bed from the list of possible fluidized beds.
Regarding the limitation claiming, “turning on a flue gas booster fan on the outlet pipe of the second cyclone separator, and turning on a flue gas bypass control valve on the outlet pipe of the second cyclone separator to switch the fluidized gas and the jet gas of the fuel reactor as recirculate the flue gas in the outlet pipe of the second cyclone separator of the fuel reactor” it was already established in the rejection of claim 3 why it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the flue gas in the jets and as the fluidized gas. Further, these are the intended and designed functions of a booster fan and bypass control valve, and would undeniably occur when the booster fan and bypass control valve are in use.
Regarding the limitation claiming, “and meanwhile turning on the first jet gas control valve and the second jet gas control valve, such that the pyrolysis gas in the pyrolysis gasifier is sucked into the fuel reactor by the first local negative pressure generated in the first L-shaped jet chamber and the second local negative pressure generated in the second L-shaped jet chamber”, this is exactly how an ejector works and is what will undeniably occur when an ejector is in use, and disposed in the system accordingly. Please refer to the rationale of the claim 2 rejection as the rejection of this limitation follows the same logic.
Regarding the limitation claiming, “and discharging residual solids as remained after a second reaction of the organic solid waste from a lower part of the pyrolysis gasifier via a slag discharge device”, this is intended function of a slag discharge device and would therefore have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the slag discharge device as it is intended to be sued.
Regarding Claim 10, Hongwei, Baogui, Iya, Transvac, Hossain, Li, and Finnerty together disclose the method for removing the pollutants from the organic solid waste by the pyrolysis coupled with the chemical looping combustion of claim 9. Baogui further discloses the oxygen carrier being a natural metallic ore selected from at least one of an iron ore and a nickel ore (and the metal oxygen carrier includes NiO and Fe2O3 and their ores; see [0007]). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used one of these ores as the oxygen carrier because these are the most commonly used oxygen carriers in chemical looping combustion technology.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALYSSA LEE KUYKENDALL whose telephone number is (571)270-3806. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday 9:00am-5:00pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Claire Wang can be reached at 571-270-1051. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/A.L.K./Examiner, Art Unit 1774 /CLAIRE X WANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1774