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
Applicant’s amendment filed on 10 March 2026 has been considered. It is acknowledged that Claims 1 and 31-33 have been amended by Applicant. Accordingly, claims 1, 4-7, 9, 13, 15-17, 20-26, and 31-33 are under full consideration.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 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. Further, Applicant claims that Olofsson and Thomas together disclose a fan, ejector, or ejector burner to withdraw torrefaction gases from the reactor and therefore this system cannot be analogous to the claimed air inlets in the exhaust, as claimed in claim 1. Even though Olofsson is not relied upon in entirety to reject this newly added claim limitation, Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s assertion. Olofsson explicitly discloses that oxygen containing gas can be injected at the location of the torrefaction gas outlet (see [0081]), which directly reads on the limitation claiming, “an exhaust comprising air inlets configured to inject air”.
Applicant’s argument regarding claim 9 has been fully considered but is not persuasive. Specifically, Applicant argues that Examiner has not provided documentary evidence establishing that the specific flue length ratio recited in claim 9 is obvious, well-known, or routine in the art. Examiner respectfully disagrees, as Examiner’s position is not based on unsupported generalization, but rather on the recognition that the flue length is a result-effective variable, as evidenced by Applicant’s own specification, which teaches that flue length may be varied across a wide range to affect reactor operation (see [0090] – [0092]). Optimization of such a parameter would have been within the ordinary skill in the art.
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, 7, 9, 16, 20-22, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Olofsson (CN-103608438-B) in view of Thomas et al. (US-9022311-B2), hereinafter “Thomas”.
Regarding Claim 1, Olofsson discloses a system for a multi-chamber (see Fig. 1) biomass reactor (biomass introduced through the inlet of the torrefaction reactor; see [0067]) comprising:
a reaction chamber (a torrefaction reactor; see [0104] and Fig. 1 Part 2) configured to enable thermal decomposition of biomass within the reaction chamber (“torrefaction of optionally pre-dried biomass in a torrefaction reactor to obtain torrefied biomass and torrefaction gas”; see [0021]. It is understood by those skilled in the art that torrefaction is a type of thermal decomposition.);
an outlet chamber (see Fig. 1 Part 4 which shows the biomass outlet, part 4, as a chamber), adjacent and connected to the reaction chamber (reactor for biomass torrefaction having a biomass inlet and a biomass outlet; see [0026] and Fig. 1 which shows the biomass outlet chamber, part 4, adjacent and connected to the reaction chamber, part 2);
a biomass inlet, comprising a region for the input of biomass into the biomass reactor (reactor for biomass torrefaction having a biomass inlet and a biomass outlet; see [0026] and Fig. 1 Part 3);
a conveyor system, comprising components that actuate the biomass through the biomass reactor, from the biomass inlet through the reaction chamber and through the outlet chamber (The biomass is conveyed through the torrefaction reactor (2) by means of a conveying screw; see [0104] and Fig. 1 Parts 3, 4, and 7 which shows the conveying screw (7) extending from the inlet (3) to the outlet (4)); and
a gas exchange system, that controls gas flow within the biomass reactor (“a valve (17) for controlling the supply of oxygen-containing gas to the torrefaction reactor (2)” and “torrefaction gas is conveyed in counter-current…”; see [0104]), comprising:
at least one air vent (oxygen-containing gas inlets (13, 14, 15, 16); see [0104]), comprising a first air vent positioned on the outlet chamber (gas is sucked in and discharged from the screw cooler (22) by the exhaust fan (23), and then transported back to the biomass outlet (4); see [0104] and Fig. 1. Examiner notes that this exhaust fan configuration of Olofsson operates as a second exhaust, or flue, but it has the structure of a vent that is capable of venting air. While the function is not specified as being an air vent, the structure is naturally capable of such), and
an exhaust (The gases released from the biomass during the torrefaction process are discharged at a torrefaction gas outlet (18); see [0104]) comprising air inlets configured to inject air (the torrefaction gas outlet… some oxygen containing gas may also be injected at this location; see [0081]).
Regarding the limitation claiming that the injected air is “in a direction orthogonal to gas flow within the exhaust”, the courts have held that a mere rearrangement of parts, which includes arranging a part at specific angles, is an obvious matter of design choice absent a disclosure of criticality of the claimed angle (see In reJapikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) and In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975)). The instant application does not disclose how the orthogonality of the air injected into the exhaust gas flow would modify operation of the device. As seen in Fig. 1 of Olofsson, the air injected into the exhaust gas flow is at an angle to the exhaust gas flow, and optimizing/adjusting the angle to achieve desired results would have been a matter of routine experimentation for a person of ordinary skill in the art.
Further, while Olofsson does not explicitly teach air injection orthogonal to exhaust gas flow, Thomas does disclose air inlets configured to inject air in a direction orthogonal to gas flow within the exhaust (An injection angle of the gas or fluid injected from the injectors may be angled perpendicular to the exhaust flow direction; see Col. 4 Lines 23-24).
Although Thomas arises in the context of an aircraft exhaust system, it addresses the same underlying problem as the instant application and Olofsson, namely, how to effectively introduce a secondary gas into a primary exhaust flow to improve mixing and flow interaction. 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 the air inlets in the exhaust of Olofsson by angling them orthogonally to the exhaust gas, as taught by Thomas. Doing so would alter a trajectory of a flow and impacts a mixing process of the flows (see Thomas, Col. 4 Lines 30-32).
Regarding Claim 7, Olofsson and Thomas together disclose the system of claim 1, wherein the exhaust comprises a flue (see Fig. 1 Part 18), enabling gas flow out of the biomass reactor (The gases released from the biomass during the torrefaction process are discharged at a torrefaction gas outlet (18); see [0104]).
Regarding Claim 9, Olofsson and Thomas together disclose the system of claim 7. Regarding the limitation claiming, “the length of the flue is approximately 2 - 6.5 times the height of the outlet chamber”, MPEP 2144.04.IV.A states that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of the claimed device’s relative dimensions and the claimed device would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed invention is not patentably distinct from that of the prior art”. Further, this claimed limitation is directed to a relative dimensional relationship between components of the system, and is recognized as affection operation of the system, including parameters such as gas flow, residence time, and thermal characteristics (see instant specification [0090] – [0092]), and therefore constitutes as a result-effective variable. The specification further indicates that the flue “may be of any desired height” and may be adjusted. This demonstrates that no particular criticality is associated with the claimed range. Here, one having ordinary skill in the art would have been able to optimize the value of that parameter through routine experimentation to achieve desired operating conditions. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize this result-effective variable, as the value does not produce any new or unexpected results, and would be a matter of routine experimentation.
Regarding Claim 16, Olofsson and Thomas together disclose the system of claim 7, wherein the flue is positioned on the outlet chamber in proximity to the side of the outlet chamber furthest away from the reaction chamber (see Fig. 1. Part 23, Part 22, and Part 4).
Regarding Claim 20, Olofsson and Thomas together disclose the system of claim 1, wherein the at least one air vent comprises a second air vent positioned on the reaction chamber (see Fig. 1 Parts 14 and 15).
Regarding Claim 21, Olofsson and Thomas together disclose the system of claim 20 wherein the second air vent is angled as compared to the incline of the reaction chamber (see Fig. 1 Parts 14 and 15, which are clearly at an angle to the reactor).
Regarding Claim 22, Olofsson and Thomas together disclose the system of claim 1, wherein the outlet chamber is positioned at an incline such that the first air vent is raised above a neutral pressure plane (see Fig. 1 Parts 22 and 23), thereby enabling gas flow out of the outlet chamber via the first air vent (gas is sucked in and discharged from the screw cooler (22) by the exhaust fan (23); see [0104]).
Regarding Claim 25, Olofsson and Thomas together disclose the system of claim 1, wherein the at least one air vent comprises a plurality of air vents situated at distinct heights along the outlet chamber (see Fig. 1 Parts 23 and 18). Specifically, the exhaust gas escapes from both part 18 and part 23. They are analogous to flues, and also analogous to vents, as flues are, by definition, a specific type of vent. Part 23 is connected to outlet chambers 4 and 22, while Part 18 is connected to a separate part of the reactor where flue gas is exhausted, therefore functioning as an outlet section. As can be seen in Fig. 1, Parts 23 and 18 are at distinct heights. Because the structure of the prior art meets the claim limitation, the structure is naturally capable of the same functions, including enabling detection of a neutral pressure plane.
Claims 4-6 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Olofsson (CN-103608438-B) in view of Thomas et al. (US-9022311-B2), hereinafter “Thomas”, and Kowalczyk (EP-3527647-A1).
Regarding Claim 4, Olofsson and Thomas together disclose the system of claim 1.
Olofsson does not explicitly teach non-uniform actuation. However, Kowalczyk discloses a conveyor system (twin-screw extruder; see [0043]) comprising a mechanism with non-uniform actuation of the biomass along a defined path of actuation (the first kneading region 32 is shorter than the second kneading region 34 in the axial direction, and the second kneading region 34 is shorter than the third kneading region 36 in the axial direction; see [0043]; and see [0048]-[0049] for discussion of pitch angle variation), enabling compression of the biomass (compressing and kneading an organic raw material; see [0041]) in proximity to the region where the reaction chamber and the outlet chamber are connected (third kneading region 36, in both of them, the raw material M is in the compressed state; see [0076] and Fig. 2 part 36 and part 38 (outlet region).
Olofsson and Kowalczyk are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of biomass reactors. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Olofsson by incorporating the teachings of Kowalczyk and providing non-uniform actuation resulting in raw material compression. Doing so can cause raw material to generate heat with its own calories (see Kowalczyk [0020]).
Regarding Claim 5, Olofsson and Kowalczyk together disclose the system of claim 4. Regarding the limitation claiming “the conveyor system sufficiently compresses the biomass such that the biomass restricts air flow between the reaction chamber and the outlet chamber”, claim 4 established that the biomass is being compressed in the region between the reaction chamber and the outlet chamber, and the rejection of claim 4 established the Olofsson modified by Kowalczyk discloses the structure of claim 4. Restriction of air flow in a region in which compressed material is present is a natural consequence of raw material compression. Therefore, because Olofsson modified by Kowalczyk discloses the compression via a conveying screw in a region between the reactor chamber and outlet chamber, it naturally follows that air flow is restricted in that area.
Regarding Claim 6, Olofsson and Kowalczyk together disclose the system of claim 5. Kowalczyk further discloses the conveyor system comprising a variable pitch auger (a blade member 218 of the screw 21 is divided into a wide pitch part 36d which has a wider pitch in two strips and a narrow pitch part 36e which has a narrower pitch in one strip in the order from the upstream side; see [0054]). This feature 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 allow a slower transfer speed of raw material in the narrow pitch region, resulting in the raw material being kneaded while being compressed (see [0064]).
Regarding Claim 15, Olofsson and Thomas together disclose the system of claim 7, but does not explicitly teach the claimed placement of the flue. However, Kowalczyk discloses the flue being positioned on the outlet chamber in proximity to the side of the outlet chamber adjacent to the reaction chamber (see Fig. 2 Part 26 (flue), part 27 (outlet), and part 38 (outlet chamber). 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 allow flammable gas to be ejected through the exhaust port, or flue, and afford fuel through the outlet port (see Kowalczyk Abstract).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Olofsson (CN-103608438-B) in view of Thomas et al. (US-9022311-B2), hereinafter “Thomas”, and Spinelli (WO-2020121019-A1).
Regarding Claim 13, Olofsson and Thomas together disclose the system of claim 7. Regarding the limitation claiming, “the flue comprises an extendable element such that the flue length may vary”, MPEP 2144.04.V.D states that “adjustability, where needed, is not a patentable advance”. Further, Spinelli discloses a flue that contains an extendable element such that the flue length may vary (telescoping chimney, whose height varies; see Pg. 5 Line 21). KSR Rationale B (see MPEP 2141) states that it is obvious to perform “simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results”. 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 substitute the telescopic chimney of Spinelli for the flue of Olofsson in order to achieve the predictable result of adjustability to the type of emission, with the added benefits of adjustability to the temperature of the emission compliance with regulations (see Spinelli Pg. 5 Lines 20-22).
Claims 23-24, 26, and 31-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Olofsson (CN-103608438-B) in view of Thomas et al. (US-9022311-B2), hereinafter “Thomas”, and Liu (CN-108225024-A).
Regarding Claim 23, Olofsson and Thomas together disclose the system of claim 21 wherein an air vent is positioned on the outlet chamber, as explained in the claim 1 rejection.
Olofsson does not explicitly teach the claimed angle of incline. However, Liu discloses an adjustable machine foot that changes the inclination angle of the apparatus (see [0046]). When modifying Olofsson with the adjustable machine foot of Liu, the modified structure would be capable of inclining the apparatus such that the air vent on the outlet chamber, disclosed by Olofsson, is in proximity of the neutral pressure plane, thereby negating gas flow in or out of the outlet chamber via the first air vent.
Olofsson and Liu are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of thermochemical treatment reactors. 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 Olofsson by incorporating the teachings of Liu and including a structure that enables the claimed inclination. Doing so allows for adjustment of the material transportation status (see Liu [0021]).
Regarding Claim 24, Olofsson and Thomas together disclose the system of claim 21 wherein an air vent is positioned on the outlet chamber, as explained in the claim 1 rejection.
Olofsson does not explicitly teach the claimed angle of incline. However, Liu discloses an adjustable machine foot that changes the inclination angle of the apparatus (see [0046]). When modifying Olofsson with the adjustable machine foot of Liu, the modified structure would be capable of inclining the apparatus such that the air vent on the outlet chamber, disclosed by Olofsson, is below the neutral pressure plane, thereby enabling gas flow into the outlet chamber via the first air vent. 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 Olofsson by incorporating the teachings of Liu and including a structure that enables the claimed inclination. Doing so allows for adjustment of the material transportation status (see Liu [0021]).
Regarding Claim 26, Olofsson and Thomas together disclose the system of claim 25. Olofsson does not explicitly teach a variable incline module. However, Liu discloses a variable incline module, wherein the variable incline module comprises actuating components that alter the height of the outlet chamber as compared to an initial placement of the bioreactor (The rotary incinerator changes the inclination angle of the furnace body through an adjustable universal machine foot 9; see [0046]). 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 Olofsson by incorporating the teachings of Liu and including a variable incline module. Doing so allows for adjustment of the material transportation status (see Liu [0021]).
Regarding Claim 31, Olofsson, Thomas, and Liu together disclose the system of claim 26. The limitations claiming, “wherein the variable incline module includes a first neutral pressure plane operation mode” is a functional limitation. The Courts have held that apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art in terms of structure, not function. See In re Danley, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959); and Hewlett-Packard Co. V. Bausch and Lomb, Inc., 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (see MPEP §§ 2114 and 2173.05(g)). The manner of operating an apparatus does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art, if the prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim. See Ex Parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (BPAI 1987). Hence, the limitation of an operation mode that positions the outlet chamber at a specific incline does not further define the actual structure of the reactor or variable incline module, but merely sets forth a manner of operating the reactor or variable incline module. Functional limitations that do not limit the structure need not be given further due consideration in determining patentability of an apparatus. Liu discloses the limitation claiming that the variable incline module actuating components are configured to dynamically alter the height of the outlet chamber such that an air vent on the outlet chamber is situated above the neutral pressure plane (The entire rotary incinerator can change the tilt angle of the furnace body (-10o to +10o) through adjustable universal feet; see [0021]). This modification would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because doing so can change the material transport status: movement time, agitation, mixing, movement speed, and transport volume; see Liu [0021]).
Regarding Claim 32, Olofsson, Thomas, and Liu together disclose the system of claim 31. The limitations claiming, “wherein the variable incline module includes a second neutral pressure plane operation mode” is a functional limitation. The Courts have held that apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art in terms of structure, not function. See In re Danley, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959); and Hewlett-Packard Co. V. Bausch and Lomb, Inc., 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (see MPEP §§ 2114 and 2173.05(g)). The manner of operating an apparatus does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art, if the prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim. See Ex Parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (BPAI 1987). Hence, the limitation of an operation mode that positions the outlet chamber at a specific incline does not further define the actual structure of the reactor or variable incline module, but merely sets forth a manner of operating the reactor or variable incline module. Functional limitations that do not limit the structure need not be given further due consideration in determining patentability of an apparatus. Liu discloses the limitation claiming that the variable incline module actuating components are configured to dynamically alter the height of the outlet chamber such that an air vent on the outlet chamber is situated at approximately the same height as the neutral pressure plane (The entire rotary incinerator can change the tilt angle of the furnace body (-10o to +10o) through adjustable universal feet; see [0021]). This modification would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because doing so can change the material transport status: movement time, agitation, mixing, movement speed, and transport volume; see Liu [0021]).
Regarding Claim 33, Olofsson, Thomas, and Liu together disclose the system of claim 32. The limitations claiming, “wherein the variable incline module includes a third neutral pressure plane operation mode” is a functional limitation. The Courts have held that apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art in terms of structure, not function. See In re Danley, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959); and Hewlett-Packard Co. V. Bausch and Lomb, Inc., 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (see MPEP §§ 2114 and 2173.05(g)). The manner of operating an apparatus does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art, if the prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim. See Ex Parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (BPAI 1987). Hence, the limitation of an operation mode that positions the outlet chamber at a specific incline does not further define the actual structure of the reactor or variable incline module, but merely sets forth a manner of operating the reactor or variable incline module. Functional limitations that do not limit the structure need not be given further due consideration in determining patentability of an apparatus. Liu discloses the limitation claiming that the variable incline module actuating components are configured to dynamically alter the height of the outlet chamber such that an air vent on the outlet chamber is below the neutral pressure plane (The entire rotary incinerator can change the tilt angle of the furnace body (-10o to +10o) through adjustable universal feet; see [0021]). This modification would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because doing so can change the material transport status: movement time, agitation, mixing, movement speed, and transport volume; see Liu [0021]).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Olofsson (CN-103608438-B) in view of Thomas et al. (US-9022311-B2), hereinafter “Thomas”, and Khirojuki (RU-2399410-C2).
Regarding Claim 17, Olofsson and Thomas together disclose the system of claim 7.
Olofsson does not explicitly teach variable flue position. However, Khirojuki discloses a flue comprising an actuatable component such that the flue position may be changed along the direction of biomass conveyance (the exhaust pipe is a movable pipe made with the possibility of movement along the direction of flow; see Claim 20).
Olofsson and Khirojuki are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of biomass treatment. 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 Olofsson by incorporating the teachings of Khirojuki and including a movable flue or exhaust. Doing so enables the exhaust pipe to be located in a large number of places on the side wall of the reactor (see Khirojuki Pg. 7, Para. 4).
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
Prosecution Insights