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 on 23 December 2025 is acknowledged. Applicant amended claims 1-4, 6-7, 13, and 16-18. It is acknowledged that Applicant replaced the word “means” with “apparatus” in claims 1 and 16, however 35 U.S.C. 112(f) still applies. Per the amendments, the previously presented 112(b) rejections of claims 1-15 have been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-4, 6-7, 11, 13-14, and 16-18, 20-23, and 26-28 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.
In response to applicant's argument that Rehmat, Moraski, Xu, and Clark are nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, Rehmat and Ullom are in the same field of rotatable reactors for the pyrolysis of hydrocarbons, Moraski is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem of a heated screw and barrel assembly with which the inventor was concerned, Xu is in the same art of rotatble reactors and is reasonably pertinent to the problem of microwave heating for a rotary kiln with which the inventor was concerned, and Clark and Ullom are in the same field of rotatable reactors for pyrolysis.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, Rehmat offers the motivation of distribution of gases. Regarding the combinations of Ullom and Wissman, as well as Ullom and Moraski, Ullom explicitly discloses a heated assembly, which necessarily requires a heat source. Ullom therefore presents a device requiring implementation of a heating mechanism. Wissman discloses electrical resistance heating elements as conventionally used to heat an assembly of this type. The modification merely substitutes one known heating mechanism for use in a device already requiring heating. Selecting electrical resistance heating represents the use of a known and commonly employed heating technique to perform the same function already required by Ullom. Such substitution of one known element for another to achieve predictable results is obvious. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007). Furthermore, Wissman explicitly teaches that electrical resistance heaters are typically used in such applications, providing express evidence that this heating technique was recognized in the art as suitable for heating such an assembly. This same argument applies for the combination of Moraski with Ullom.
In response to applicant's argument that the teachings of Moraski, Xu, and Clark are not combinable with the teachings of Ullom, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test 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).
In response to Applicant’s argument regarding the treatment of “functional kinetic constraints as operating conditions”, Examiner understands that Applicant is attempting to use the kinetics as drivers of the structural constraints in the claims. Examiner’s treatment of functional limitations does not mitigate consideration of the claimed structural limitations, but merely points out that the Courts have held that apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art in terms of structure, not function, and that 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. The functional limitations of claim 1, for example, do not further define the structure of the apparatus, but instead sets forth a manner of operating the apparatus.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are: “an apparatus for delivering” in claims 1 and 16, and “a supply regulation unit for regulating” in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitations are: “electrical means for performing”, “inductive heating means”, “resistive heating means”, and “microwave heating means” in claim 9, “combustion heating means” in claim 10, “radiative heating means” in claim 11, “microwave heating means” in claim 12, and “heating means”, “inductive heating means”, “resistive heating means”, “microwave heating means”, and “combustion heating means” in claim 21.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 13-15, 17-18, 22-23 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.
Regarding Claim 13, the term “substantial progression” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantial progression” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. If the limitation were allowed to issue, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the metes and bounds of the limitation so as to be capable of avoiding infringement.
Claims 14-15 are indefinite by virtue of their dependence on claim 13.
The phrase “substantial portion” in Claim 17 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantial” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. If the limitation were allowed to issue, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the metes and bounds of the limitation so as to be capable of avoiding infringement.
The phrase “largely accumulates” in Claim 18 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “largely” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. If the limitation were allowed to issue, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the metes and bounds of the limitation so as to be capable of avoiding infringement.
The phrase “substantially below” in Claim 22 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. If the limitation were allowed to issue, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the metes and bounds of the limitation so as to be capable of avoiding infringement.
The phrase “substantially above” in Claim 23 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. If the limitation were allowed to issue, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the metes and bounds of the limitation so as to be capable of avoiding infringement.
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 1-4, 6-8, 11, 13-14, and 16-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ullom (US-20160024390-A1) in view of Caro et al. (US-20090095594-A1), hereinafter “Caro”.
Regarding Claim 1, Ullom discloses a multi-stage (dual stage, zone-delineated; see Title) decomposition reactor for a thermochemical (thermal kiln reactor; see [0032]) decomposition of a hydrocarbon feedstock (operated such that as the hydrocarbonaceous material and the products of decomposition; see [0033]), said multi-stage decomposition reactor comprising:
an apparatus for delivering a supply flow of said hydrocarbon feedstock into said multi-stage decomposition reactor (“raw materials are introduced to the apparatus at the entrance 100”; see [0067] and “hydrocarbonaceous materials can be fed at entrance 100”; see [0068]);
a heating stage (in Zone 3, the hydrocarbonaceous material experiences increase in pressure resulting from temperature increase; see [0073]) having a cavity (see Fig. 1 zone 3 which occurs in the heated screw and barrel assembly 210; see [0041]) for heating said supply flow to a decomposition temperature (the Zone 3 operating temperature approaches 572oF; see [0073]; it is well understood by those of ordinary skill in the art that 572oF is a relevant temperature for the degradation of some hydrocarbons) to yield an activated flow of said hydrocarbon feedstock (Based on the instant specification and claims, Applicant implicitly defines “activated flow” as the natural resultant stream once the hydrocarbon stream reaches its degradation temperature. Therefore, the hydrocarbon stream in the prior art that has reached its degradation temperature is therefore analogous to said “activated flow”); and
a decomposition stage (Zone 4 404 generation of hydrocarbon vapors as a result of decomposition; see [0077]) for supporting a decomposition residence time of said activated flow longer than said average decomposition onset time to achieve substantial progression of said thermochemical decomposition (The efficacy of heteroatom scavenging and rate of production of product oil resulting from operation of Zone 4 404 are controlled by factors including but not limited to ramp rate to achieve Zone 4 operating temperature, residence time in Zone 4, and interplay of the geometry of Zone 4 vs. raw material throughput rate and composition; see [0077]; this clearly indicates control of Zone 4, or decomposition stage, residence time to achieve desired results) to a carbon product (The solid hydrocarbon product is a finely divided carbon char; see [0030]).
Regarding the limitations claiming, “wherein a length of said heating stage and a velocity of said activated flow in said heating stage are tuned by said supply regulation unit such that a heating residence time of said activated flow in said heating stage is at least 10 times shorter than an average decomposition onset time of said hydrocarbon feedstock at said decomposition temperature” and “for supporting a decomposition residence time of said activated flow longer than said average decomposition onset time to achieve substantial progression of said thermochemical decomposition” these are functional limitations as the decomposition onset time of a hydrocarbon feedstock at said decomposition temperature, and the decomposition temperature of the hydrocarbon feedstock, and the average decomposition onset time are dependent on the components present in the hydrocarbon feedstock. Therefore, based on these limitations, the residence time, length, and velocity in each stage would be tuned as a function of the contents inside the reactor. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See In re Casey 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967) and In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458,459 (CCPA 1963). In this case, Ullom and Caro together disclose the control of feed rate of hydrocarbons and the management of the feed rate (see [0052]), which inevitably influences the length of time spent in each zone and the residence time in each zone. This exemplifies that the prior art structure is capable of tuning to achieve a desired length of time and residence time spent in each zone, and therefore meets the claim. Hence, the limitation of tuning the heating stage does not further define the actual structure of the reactor, but merely sets forth a manner of operating the reactor. Functional limitations that do not limit the structure need not be given further due consideration in determining patentability of an apparatus. Further, if Applicant intends “length” to correspond to a physical length of the heating stage, then this limitation communicates that a length for the heating stage is designed based on the contents within the reactor. This is still a functional limitation that does not further define the actual structure, as the only structure suggested by this limitation is that the heating stage has a length that was chosen, which is true for every 3-dimensional object. The reason for choosing said length does not impart patentable weight.
Ullom does not explicitly teach velocity profile regulation. However, Caro discloses a supply regulation unit (by using a pyrolysis tube portion having a helical centreline… the product molecules are kept well mixed; see [0014]) for regulating a velocity profile of said supply flow (as a result of this mixing, the velocity profile of the flow across the pipe is more uniform; see [0015]).
Ullom and Caro are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of pyrolysis of hydrocarbons. 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 Ullom by incorporating the teachings of Caro and incorporating a regulation unit. Doing so would enable reduced boundary layer thickness, which improves heat transfer from the tube walls to the fluid within the pipe (see Caro, [0015]).
Regarding Claim 2, Ullom and Caro together disclose the multi-stage decomposition reactor of claim 1. Ullom further discloses wherein said decomposition stage comprises: a) a wide cross-section tube (rotary kiln reactor 301 operated within Zone 4; see [0049] and Fig. 1) containing a molten material (The thermal kiln reactor 301 is heated… can include… heat transfer media known in the industry, including… molten lead; see [0053] and “Addition of… melt-phase catalysts at entrance 100 is optional; see [0069]); b) a drive and coupling mechanism for rotating said wide cross-section tube (thermal kiln reactor 301 is rotated via robust gear drive; see [0050]) at a predetermined rotation speed (because the kiln is rotating, it is naturally rotating at a predetermined rotation speed) to minimize carbon build-up and to clean said decomposition stage (thermal kiln reactor to rotate, as well as allowing for continuous removal of vapor and char; see [0050]; further, this is a natural consequence of rotation and is not a structural limitation. The kiln of Ullom is capable of rotating at variable speeds, and is therefore capable of cleaning and minimizing buildup).
Regarding Claim 3, Ullom and Caro together disclose the multi-stage decomposition reactor of claim 2. The limitation claiming, “said predetermined rotation speed is in a first range where Froude number Fr>1 such that said molten material coats at least a substantial portion of an inner wall of said wide cross- section tube”, this 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 a high-speed regime does not further define the actual structure of reactor, but merely sets forth a manner of operating the reactor. Functional limitations that do not limit the structure need not be given further due consideration in determining patentability of an apparatus.
Regarding Claim 4, Ullom and Caro together disclose the multi-stage decomposition reactor of claim 2. The limitation claiming, “said predetermined rotation speed is in a second range where Froude number Fr<1 such that said molten material largely accumulates at the bottom of an inner wall of said wide cross-section tube”, this 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 a low-speed regime does not further define the actual structure of reactor, but merely sets forth a manner of operating the reactor. Functional limitations that do not limit the structure need not be given further due consideration in determining patentability of an apparatus.
Regarding Claim 6, Ullom and Caro together disclose the multi-stage decomposition reactor of claim 1, further comprising a pre-heating stage (In Zone 2, the hydrocarbonaceous material experiences increase in pressure resulting from temperature increase; see [0071]) before said heating stage (zone 2… and transporting the hydrocarbonaceous materials to subsequent zone 3; see [0045]), said pre-heating stage pre-heating said supply flow of hydrocarbon feedstock (heating the hydrocarbonaceous materials to a temperature sufficient to dehydrate the contents of zone 2; see [0045]). Regarding the limitation claiming “to yield a pre-heated flow of said hydrocarbon feedstock at a temperature below said decomposition temperature”, this is a functional limitation that does not further define the structure of the reactor. Because the structure of Ullom meets the structure of the claimed invention, it would be capable of the same functions. 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).
Regarding Claim 7, Ullom and Caro together disclose the multi-stage decomposition reactor of claim 1. Ullom further discloses wherein said hydrocarbon feedstock comprises methane or natural gas (a non-condensable carrier gas can be introduced into thermal kiln reactor… non-condensable carrier gas is comprised of… methane from natural gas; see [0085]) and a carbon product comprises solid carbon (The solid hydrocarbon product is a finely divided carbon char; see [0030]). Further, the limitations of this claim are functional limitations that do not affect the structure of the reactor. 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 the type of hydrocarbon feed does not further define the actual structure of the reactor, but merely sets forth a manner of operating the reactor. Functional limitations that do not limit the structure need not be given further due consideration in determining patentability of an apparatus.
Regarding Claim 8, Ullom and Caro together disclose the multi-stage decomposition reactor of claim 1. Ullom further discloses wherein said cavity of said heating stage comprises a narrow cross-section tube (screw and barrel assembly in Zone 3 403; see [0046] and see Fig. 1 which shows the screw and barrel assembly 210 as being narrower than the rotary kiln 301) Regarding the limitation claiming “for maintaining said velocity of said activated flow at above 10 meters/second”, this is a functional limitation that does not limit the structure of the apparatus. Because the structure of Ullom meets the structure of the claimed invention, it would be capable of the same functions. As described in the rejection of claim 1, the feed rate is manageable. 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).
Regarding Claim 11, Ullom and Caro together disclose the multi-stage decomposition reactor of claim 1. Ullom further discloses further comprising a radiative heating means for transferring energy to said hydrocarbon feedstock in said decomposition stage (The rotating thermal kiln reactor 301 is continuously fed hydrocarbonaceous melt… The thermal kiln reactor 301 is heated… The heating means… can include… radiant heating; see [0053]).
Regarding Claim 13, Ullom discloses a stage-wise method for a thermochemical decomposition of a hydrocarbon feedstock (method of operation for continuous conversion of hydrocarbonaceous materials to condensable, non-condensable and solid hydrocarbon products, comprising an improved zone-delineated pyrolysis apparatus; see [0016]), said method comprising:
delivering a supply flow of said hydrocarbon feedstock (raw materials are introduced to the apparatus at the entrance; see [0067]) to a heating stage (“enter zone 3” and “in zone 3… as heat builds”; see [0073]) having a cavity (see Fig. 1 zone 3 which occurs in the heated screw and barrel assembly 210; see [0041]);
heating said supply flow in said heating stage to a decomposition temperature (the Zone 3 operating temperature approaches 572oF; see [0073]; it is well understood by those of ordinary skill in the art that 572oF is a relevant temperature for the degradation of some hydrocarbons) to yield an activated flow of said hydrocarbon feedstock (Based on the instant specification and claims, Applicant implicitly defines “activated flow” as the natural resultant stream once the hydrocarbon stream reaches its degradation temperature. Therefore, the hydrocarbon stream in the prior art that has reached its degradation temperature is therefore analogous to said “activated flow”); and
supporting said activated flow in a decomposition stage (Zone 4 404 generation of hydrocarbon vapors as a result of decomposition; see [0077]) for a decomposition residence time longer than said average decomposition onset time of said hydrocarbon feedstock at said decomposition temperature (“The efficacy of heteroatom scavenging and rate of production of product oil resulting from operation of Zone 4 404 are controlled by factors including but not limited to ramp rate to achieve Zone 4 operating temperature, residence time in Zone 4, and interplay of the geometry of Zone 4 vs. raw material throughput rate and composition”; see [0077]; this clearly indicates control of Zone 4, or decomposition stage, residence time to achieve desired results; and “zone 4 is operated… for a residence time of not less than 30 minutes and not more than 120 minutes”; see [0075]; it is well understood that this disclosed residence time exceeds the average decomposition onset time of various hydrocarbons at various temperatures) to achieve progression of said thermochemical decomposition to a carbon product (mixing of the melt in this zone over a controlled residence time and temperature results in molecular destabilization, decomposition of cellulose to char; see [0035]).
Regarding the limitation claiming, “c. tuning a length of said heating stage and a velocity of said activated flow in said heating stage such that a heating residence time of said activated flow in said heating stage is significantly shorter than an average decomposition onset time of said hydrocarbon feedstock at said decomposition temperature”, Ullom discloses “Design of a continuous process, zone-delineated conversion apparatus is conducted to allow for construction of that apparatus having adequate but not unnecessary lengths at its respective diameters to promote adequate heat transfer to the hydrocarbonaceous material over the appropriate residence time in each zone, thereby accomplishing the desired chemical reactions over required residence times to desired magnitudes of completion for the desired overall rate of process throughput. Preferably, continuous process components are designed in context of an interactive thermal and kinetic model incorporating variables including, among other things, reactor orientation, reactor length, reactor diameter, materials of reactor construction, extruder screw design, kiln internal components design, hydrocarbonaceous material throughput rate, density and thermal conductivity…” (see [0037]). This clearly discloses that the length and velocity of the activated flow in each stage is being tuned in order to achieve optimal results. Further, as pointed out above, Ullom discloses a heating stage (zone 3) in which the hydrocarbon stream is brought up to a decomposition temperature, and a separate, subsequent stage (zone 4), in which the decomposition actually occurs. This indicates that even though decomposition temperature is reached in zone 3, the hydrocarbon stream is being sent to zone 4 before decomposition occurs, which means that its residence time in zone 3, after reaching the decomposition temperature, is shorter than its decomposition onset time.
Regarding the limitation that the residence time is at least 10 times shorter than an average decomposition onset time, the prior art teaches a shorter comparative residence time, as explained above. Residence time relative to decomposition onset time is a result-effective variable that affects the degree and timing of decomposition. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize this relationship, including selecting a residence time at least 10 times shorter than the decomposition onset time, as a matter of routine optimization to achieve desired process control and prevent premature decomposition. The discovery of an optimum value of a result-effective variable is ordinarily within the skill of the art. See MPEP 2144.05; In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454 (CCPA 1955). Applicant has not provided evidence demonstrating that selecting a residence time at least 10 times shorter than the decomposition onset time produces unexpected results or represents a critical threshold. Accordingly, the claimed limitation represents an obvious optimization of a known process parameter.
Ullom does not explicitly teach velocity profile regulation. However, Caro discloses regulating a velocity profile of said supply flow (“by using a pyrolysis tube portion having a helical centreline… the product molecules are kept well mixed”; see [0014] and “as a result of this mixing, the velocity profile of the flow across the pipe is more uniform”; see [0015]). 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 Ullom by incorporating the teachings of Caro and incorporating a regulation unit. Doing so would enable reduced boundary layer thickness, which improves heat transfer from the tube walls to the fluid within the pipe (see Caro, [0015]).
Regarding Claim 14, Ullom and Caro together disclose the stage-wise method of claim 13. Ullom further discloses the method further comprising:
providing said decomposition stage with a wide cross-section tube (rotary kiln reactor 301 operated within Zone 4; see [0049] and Fig. 1) containing a molten material (The thermal kiln reactor 301 is heated… can include… heat transfer media known in the industry, including… molten lead; see [0053]);
rotating said wide cross-section tube (thermal kiln reactor 301 is rotated via robust gear drive; see [0050]) at a predetermined rotation speed (because the kiln is rotating, it is naturally rotating at a predetermined rotation speed) to minimize carbon build-up and to clean said decomposition stage (thermal kiln reactor to rotate, as well as allowing for continuous removal of vapor and char; see [0050]; further, this is a natural consequence of thermal kiln rotation).
Regarding Claim 16, the limitations of this claim do not exceed those of claims 1-2. Please refer to claims 1-2 for the associated rationale.
Regarding Claim 17, the limitations of this claim do not exceed those of claim 3. Please refer to the claim 3 rejection for the associated rationale.
Regarding Claim 18, the limitations of this claim do not exceed those of claim 4. Please refer to the claim 4 rejection for the associated rationale.
Regarding Claim 19, Ullom and Caro together disclose the decomposition reactor of claim 16. Ullom further discloses wherein said molten material is selected from among molten metals (molten lead; see [0053]) and molten salts (molten salt; see [0053]).
Regarding Claim 20, Ullom and Caro together disclose the decomposition reactor of claim 19. Ullom further discloses wherein said molten material includes at least one material that catalyzes said thermochemical decomposition of said hydrocarbon feedstock (melt-phase catalysts… especially in Zones 1 through 4; see [0069]).
Regarding Claim 21, Ullom and Caro together disclose the decomposition reactor of claim 16. Ullom further discloses wherein energy for said thermal decomposition of said hydrocarbon feedstock is provided by a heating means (The rotating thermal kiln reactor 301 is continuously fed hydrocarbonaceous melt… The thermal kiln reactor 301 is heated; see [0053]) selected from among inductive heating means, resistive heating means, thermal plasma, non-thermal plasma, microwave heating means or combustion heating means (thermal kiln reactor 301 is heated… via direct combustion).
Regarding Claim 22, Ullom and Caro together disclose the decomposition reactor of claim 16. The limitation claiming, “said hydrocarbon feedstock is delivered to said wide cross-section tube in a temperature range from room temperature to substantially below a decomposition temperature of said hydrocarbon feedstock”, this is a functional limitation that does not further limit the structure of the reactor. 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 the temperature of the hydrocarbon feedstock when delivered to the wide cross-section tube does not further define the actual structure of the reactor, but merely sets forth a manner of operating the reactor. Functional limitations that do not limit the structure need not be given further due consideration in determining patentability of an apparatus. Further, Ullom and Caro together disclose “continuous process components are designed in context of an interactive thermal and kinetic model incorporating variables including… inner-zonal temperature ramp” (see [0037]), which clearly indicates that the reactor of Ullom is capable of a range of temperatures, and therefore has sufficient structure for the claimed function.
Regarding Claim 23, Ullom and Caro together disclose the decomposition reactor of claim 16. The limitation claiming, “said hydrocarbon feedstock is delivered to said wide cross-section tube in a temperature range from a decomposition temperature of said hydrocarbon feedstock to substantially above said decomposition temperature”, this is a functional limitation that does not further limit the structure of the reactor. 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 the temperature of the hydrocarbon feedstock when delivered to the wide cross-section tube does not further define the actual structure of the reactor, but merely sets forth a manner of operating the reactor. Functional limitations that do not limit the structure need not be given further due consideration in determining patentability of an apparatus. Further, Ullom and Caro together disclose “continuous process components are designed in context of an interactive thermal and kinetic model incorporating variables including… inner-zonal temperature ramp” (see [0037]), which clearly indicates that the reactor of Ullom is capable of a range of temperatures, and therefore has sufficient structure for the claimed function.
Regarding Claim 24, Ullom and Caro together disclose the decomposition reactor of claim 16. Regarding the limitation claiming “wherein said hydrocarbon feedstock is a gaseous hydrocarbon”, this is a functional limitation that does not further limit the structure of the apparatus. Because the structure of Ullom meets the structure of the claimed invention, it would be capable of the same functions. 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).
Regarding Claim 25, Ullom and Caro together disclose the decomposition reactor of claim 16. The remaining limitations of this claim do not exceed those of claim 7. Please refer to the claim 7 rejection for the associated rationale.
Regarding Claim 26, Ullom and Caro together disclose the decomposition reactor of claim 16. Ullom further discloses wherein said thermochemical reaction is pyrolysis (zone delineated pyrolysis apparatus; see [0016]). Further, this is a functional limitation that does not further limit the structure of the reactor. Because the structure of Ullom meets the structure of the claimed invention, it would be capable of the same functions. 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).
Regarding Claim 27, Ullom and Caro together disclose the decomposition reactor of claim 26. Ullom further discloses wherein said decomposition reaction is maintained in an oxygen-poor environment (the lack of oxygen; see [0082]). Further, this is a functional limitation that does not further limit the structure of the reactor. Because the structure of Ullom meets the structure of the claimed invention, it would be capable of the same functions. 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).
Regarding Claim 28, Ullom and Caro together disclose the decomposition reactor of claim 16. Regarding the limitation claiming, “wherein said molten material has a volume that is less than 50% of the internal volume of said decomposition reactor”, this is a matter of routine experimentation and optimization. Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In reAller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ullom (US-20160024390-A1) in view of Caro et al. (US-20090095594-A1), hereinafter “Caro”, and Rehmat (US-20170275542-A1).
Regarding Claim 5, Ullom and Caro together disclose the multi-stage decomposition reactor of claim 1, wherein said decomposition stage comprises a wide-cross section tube (rotary kiln reactor 301 operated within Zone 4; see [0049] and Fig. 1).
Ullom does not explicitly teach a perforated inner wall. However, Rehmat discloses a wide-cross section tube (rotary kiln reactor; see [0022]) having a porous or perforated inner wall permitting a hot and inert gas flow therethrough (introducing gas into the rotary kiln reactor 102 using a gas distributor 108; see [0022] and Fig. 1 Parts 102 and 108) and “gas distributor is perforated”; see Claim 8), Regarding the limitation claiming “thereby creating a barrier layer for preventing contact between said thermally decomposing hydrocarbon feedstock and said wide cross-section tube”, this is a functional limitation that occurs as a result of the structure defined by claims 1 and 5. Because the structure of Ullom modified by Rehmat meets the structure of the claimed invention, it would be capable of the same functions. 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).
Ullom and Rehmat are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of rotatable reactors for the pyrolysis of hydrocarbons. 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 Ullom by incorporating the teachings of Rehmat and providing a perforated inner wall. Doing so enables distribution of gases along the length of the rotary kiln reactor (see [0028]).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ullom (US-20160024390-A1) in view of Caro et al. (US-20090095594-A1), hereinafter “Caro”, and Wissman et al. (US-5750158-A), hereinafter “Wissman”.
Regarding Claim 9, Ullom and Caro together disclose the multi-stage decomposition reactor of claim 8. Ullom further discloses that the screw and barrel assembly, which is analogous to the narrow cross-section tube, is a heated screw and barrel assembly (see [0041]). Ullom does not explicitly teach the type of heating means used for the screw and barrel assembly. However, electrical heating, specifically resistance heating, is a very commonly employed heating method for a heated screw and barrel assembly, and would therefore have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. This is exemplified by Wissman when Wissman discloses, “a series of band heaters 102 encircling the outer surface of the barrel 34. The heaters are electrical resistance units… as are typically used in the art for this type of application” (see Col. 5 Lines 3-7) and “The second source of supplemental heating comes from within aluminum heater cores 104 that are inserted into the axial bores 58 of each feed screw 50… bores to receive cartridge heating elements 106… heating elements 106 are preferably electric resistance, rod type” (see Col. 5 Lines 8-18). KSR Rationale D (see MPEP 2141) states that it is obvious to apply a “known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield 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 claimed invention to apply the known technique of electric resistance heating from Wissman to the heated screw and barrel assembly of Ullom. This construction provides rotary contacts to supply power to the cartridge heaters 106 through electrical wiring (see Wissman Col. 5 Lines 24-26).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ullom (US-20160024390-A1) in view of Caro et al. (US-20090095594-A1), hereinafter “Caro”, and Moraski (WO-9632163-A1).
Regarding Claim 10, Ullom and Caro together disclose the multi-stage decomposition reactor of claim 8. Ullom further discloses that the screw and barrel assembly, which is analogous to the narrow cross-section tube, is a heated screw and barrel assembly (see [0041]). Ullom does not explicitly teach the type of heating means used for the screw and barrel assembly. However, combustion heating is a very commonly employed heating method for a heated screw and barrel assembly, and would therefore have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Moraski exemplifies this by disclosing “The casing 20 of the auger 18 provides an enhanced heat exchange surface. The exterior of the casing 20 is directly heated by hot combustion gases” (see Pg. 7 Lines 4-6). KSR Rationale D (see MPEP 2141) states that it is obvious to apply a “known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield 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 claimed invention to apply the known technique of combustion heating from Moraski to the heated screw and barrel assembly of Ullom. This allows heat to be conducted directly to the entrained agitated solids being conveyed by the auger flight (see Moraski Pg. 7 Lines 8-9).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ullom (US-20160024390-A1) in view of Caro et al. (US-20090095594-A1), hereinafter “Caro”, and Xu (CN-102519247-A).
Regarding Claim 12, Ullom and Caro together disclose the multi-stage decomposition reactor of claim 1, further comprising a heating means for transferring energy to said hydrocarbon feedstock in said decomposition stage (The rotating thermal kiln reactor 301 is continuously fed hydrocarbonaceous melt… The thermal kiln reactor 301 is heated; see [0053]). Ullom further discloses that “the heating means is not critical” (see [0053]), which would prompt a user to choose from any heating means known in the art. Microwave heating for a rotary kiln is a known method in the art, as exemplified by Xu: “a microwave heated high temperature rotary kiln; see [0002]). KSR Rationale D (see MPEP 2141) states that it is obvious to apply a “known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield 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 claimed invention to apply the known technique of microwave heating from Xu to the heated rotary kiln of Ullom. This has the added benefit of microwaves being a highly efficient energy source (see Xu [0014]).
49. Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ullom (US-20160024390-A1) in view of Caro et al. (US-20090095594-A1), hereinafter “Caro”, and Clark (US-20080210538-A1).
Regarding Claim 15, Ullom and Caro together disclose the stage-wise method of claim 13, further comprising a) providing said decomposition stage with a wide cross-section tube (rotary kiln reactor 301 operated within Zone 4; see [0049] and Fig. 1).
Ullom does not explicitly disclose a perforated or porous wall. However, Rehmat discloses a wide cross-section tube (rotary kiln reactor; see [0022]) having a porous or perforated wall (introducing gas into the rotary kiln reactor 102 using a gas distributor 108; see [0022] and Fig. 1 Parts 102 and 108; and “gas distributor is perforated”; see Claim 8), providing a buffer flow of a hot gas (hot gases are entered into the rotary kiln reactor via the gas outlet ports; see [0032]). 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 enables distribution of gases along the length of the rotary kiln reactor (see [0028]).
Modified Ullom does not explicitly teach the gases being inert. However, Clark discloses
introducing an inert gas to a rotary kiln, or wide-cross section tube (introduction of nitrogen or other inert gases; see [0026]), to create a barrier layer preventing contact between said hydrocarbon feedstock and said wide cross-section tube (This is a natural consequence that occurs due to the introduction of the hot inert gas. Further, Clark discloses “use of nitrogen (or other inert gases) to pressurize the seal to a higher pressure than the gas inside the kiln prevents the atmosphere inside the kiln coming into contact with the seal; see [0033]).
Ullom and Clark are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of rotatable reactors for thermal decomposition/pyrolysis. Therefore, 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 it would prevent the atmosphere inside the kiln coming into contact with the seal (see Clark [0033]).
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