DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office Action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant’s submission filed on 5 January 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Examiner acknowledges Applicant’s response filed 5 January 2026 containing amendments to the claims and remarks.
Claims 1-27 are pending. Claim 27 is newly added. Claims 17-23 are withdrawn as being directed to a nonelected invention. Consequently, only claims 1-16 and 24-27 are pending for examination.
The previous rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 are maintained. In addition, newly added claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a). The rejections follow.
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.
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) 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.
With respect to claim 27, Applicant has amended the claim to recite, in relevant part “the thermal cracking stage includes only one pyrolysis stage.” The specification as originally filed lacks antecedent basis for such limitation in the claim. Should Applicant traverse this finding, then Applicant is required to provide direct quotations from the specification as originally filed where clear and unambiguous support for such limitation can is believed to be found.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-11, 13-16, and 24-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bingham (US 11,180,699) in view of Bergstrom (US 5,595,349), Gale (US 5,551,870), Musha (US 4,014,643), and Alyaser (US 2017/0114279).
With respect to claims 1, 13-15, and 24 Bingham discloses a thermal cracking treatment train (see Bingham, Figs. 1 and 2) comprising: (a) a rotatable kiln reactor (104); (b) a combustor (178, 180); and (c) a devolatilization train (see Bingham, column 5, lines 34-38). The kiln reactor is suitable for processing polymeric feed (see Bingham, column 2, lines 61-65), and defines an interior wall that bounds an interior volume, the interior volume defining an entrance and an exit along a direction of feed material travel (see Bingham, Fig. 1 and column 4, lines 36-52). The combustor provides heat to the kiln reactor (see Bingham, column 4, lines 53-59).
Bingham does not explicitly disclose wherein the kiln reactor additionally comprises a sweeping feature configured to sweep a portion of the interior wall and one or more lifter features configured to move material from the lifter to the interior volume of the kiln reactor. In addition, Bingham does not explicitly disclose a devolatilization train comprising a first valve, holding chamber, and second valve in sequence to provide a first and second devolatilized char.
However, features such as sweepers and lifters are readily known in the art of rotary kiln reactors. For example, Gale discloses a rotary kiln reactor having lifter features (e.g., ridges) therein (see Gale, Fig. 2), such lifters being oriented parallel to the direction of feed material travel. Likewise, Bergstrom discloses a rotary kiln reactor having sweeping features (e.g., chains) therein (see Bergstrom, column 6, lines 6-13). In addition, Musha discloses a rotary kiln reactor having both lifter features and sweeping features therein (see Musha, Fig. 2 and accompanying disclosure). Finally, Alyaser discloses the use of airlocks (i.e. devolatilization train) comprising a first valve, holding chamber, and second valve in sequence, such mechanism providing an airtight seal between chambers of a pyrolysis system, and being desirable for use because it maintains a substantially oxygen-free environment necessary for efficient pyrolysis (see Alyaser, paragraphs [0080] and [0082]). Alyaser notes that heated fluid may be in fluid communication with the holding chamber (see Alyaser, paragraph [0055]). Alyaser discloses that “[p]referably, the airlock comprises as double valve (e.g. a double knife valve or double flapgate valve) in order to maintain a substantially airtight seal, thereby preventing the introduction of substantial quantities of oxygen into the plenum” (see Alyaser, paragraph [0085]) (emphasis added). In such scenario, there would be a first and second valve on either side of the plenum (201) of Alyaser, with the plenum (201) per se being the holding chamber.
Therefore, the person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the rotary kiln reactor of Bingham to include both lifter features and sweeping features, such features commonly known in the art and providing the expected benefits of even distribution of applied heat to the kiln feed (in the case of lifter features) as well as preventing the adhesion of solid decomposed material on the interior wall (in the case of sweeping features). In addition, the person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the system of Bingham to provide for use of airlocks (i.e. devolatilization train) as described in Alyaser in order to provide the expected benefit of efficient pyrolysis.
Finally, the person having ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying the rotary kiln reactor of Bingham as described above because Bingham, Bergstrom, Gale, Musha, and Alyaser are all directed to the use of pyrolysis reactors.
With respect to claims 2 and 3, Bingham discloses wherein the cracking train may comprise an auger to communicate material through the kiln (see Bingham, column 4, lines 38-41).
With respect to claims 4-7, Bingham discloses wherein the cracking train may comprise a gas delivery train to deliver inert gas such as nitrogen to the reactor (see Bingham, column 3, lines 65-67; and column 4, line 1).
With respect to claims 8-11, Bingham discloses wherein fluid distribution means are used to deliver heated gases to one or more heating chambers which may be at different temperatures (see Bingham, column 4, lines 54-67; and column 5, lines 1-26).
With respect to claim 16, the claim does not recite any structural difference over the prior art. Apparatus claims must be distinguished from the prior art on the basis of structural differences. See MPEP §§ 2114, 2115.
With respect to claim 25, Alyaser discloses wherein the valves may be flap valves (see Alyaser, paragraphs [0081] and [0085]).
With respect to claim 26, Alyaser discloses wherein fluid (process heating gas) is forced through the feedstock contained in the plenum and lower reaction chamber and eventually through the upper reaction chamber before exiting through a process gas outlet (see Alyaser, paragraph [0056]). Under the proposed modification of Bingham, such process gas would exit the valve assembly (such as described in Alyaser) and enter into the rotatable kiln of Bingham.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bingham (US 11,180,699) in view of Bergstrom (US 5,595,349), Gale (US 5,551,870), Musha (US 4,014,643), Alyaser (US 2017/0114279), and Bernt (US 5,090,610).
With respect to claim 12, see discussion supra at paragraph 12. Bingham does not explicitly disclose wherein the kiln reactor comprises a refractory material. However, such refractory material is readily known in the art of kiln reactors. For example, Bernt discloses that kiln assemblies require a refractory lining to retain heat in the kiln and protect the kiln walls from oxidation, corrosion, and warping (see Bernt, column 1, lines 20-23). Thus, the person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to provide the kiln reactor or Bingham with a refractory liner as disclosed in Bernt, such material protecting the kiln walls of Bingham from oxidation, corrosion, and warping.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 5 January 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Examiner understands Applicant’s arguments to be:
Alyaser teaches an arrangement in which feedstock is polymerized in a reactor and then devolatilized in that same reactor. Such arrangement is distinct from the claimed apparatus which includes “a devolatilization train located downstream of the rotatable kiln reactor and configured to receive char from the rotatable kiln reactor.”
Alyaser does not provide any teaching or suggestion that char formed during pyrolysis should be communicated to a separate char devolatilization train downstream from a pyrolysis reactor so that char can undergo devolatilization. A search in Alyaser for the word root “devolat” results in zero hits, further confirming that a person of ordinary skill in the art reading Alyaser would have no motivation to begin with a pyrolyis reactor and then add a separate devolatilization train.
Bingham explains that condensers 108, 110, and 112 receive only vapor and gas from the pyrolyzer 104 and do not receive char for devolatilization. To the extent that the Office may suggest such condensers can be said to teach a devolatilization train, then such a train does not operate to devolatilize char.
If one were to combine Alyaser with Bingham and the other cited references, the result would be Bingham’s rotating pyrolysis reactor modified to include a source of heated fluid delivered to the pyrolysis chamber as Alyaser teaches that it is useful to facilitate pyrolysis. Such an arrangement, however, does not teach or suggest any separate char devolatilization train downstream from a pyrolysis reactor.
If one were to combine Alyaser with Bingham and the other cited references, the resulting arrangement would not provide for devolatilization of char at a first location and then further devolatilization of char at a separate holding chamber as recited in claim 1.
With respect to Applicant’s first and second arguments, the rejection at issue is made on the basis of a combination of references and not Alyaser alone (see discussion supra at paragraph 12). One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Moreover, the fact that Alyaser does not use the word “devolatilize” or “devolatilization” is not determinative as it is well known that patent attorneys will craft claim language strategically to avoid the same keywords as the prior art even though the same exact functions may be performed therein (e.g., “vaporize,” “gasify,” “volatilize,” “evaporate,” etc.).
With respect to Applicant’s third argument, inasmuch as Applicant’s own specification provides that airlock valve assemblies per se are considered “devolatilization trains” (see Applicant’s PG-Pub, paragraph [0094]) and Alyaser discloses just such an airlock valve assembly, then it must be the case that such airlock valve assembly of Alyaser performs the recited devolatilization function.
With respect to Applicant’s fourth and fifth arguments, see discussion supra at paragraph 12 (“In addition, the person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the system of Bingham to provide for use of airlocks (i.e. devolatilization train) as described in Alyaser in order to provide the expected benefit of efficient pyrolysis.”).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Randy Boyer whose telephone number is (571) 272-7113. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday from 10:00 A.M. to 7:00 P.M. (EST).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Prem C. Singh, can be reached at (571) 272-6381. The fax number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Randy Boyer/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771