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 .
Election/Restrictions
The election is noted, as is the amendment and cancellation of nonelected clams.
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 11-15, 23-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sass et al. 4358344 in view of Dacombe article.
Sass teaches, especially in col. 2, 6 and the figure, reactor 14 with coal and char inlets and product outlet, inert gas (‘oxygen-depleted gas’) inlet 8, superheater 28, and heating at an overlapping (and thus obvious) time period and temperature, although the process steps do not limit an apparatus. A temperature of 2800 F (1537 C) is contemplated, so a heater capable of that temperature is obvious. Item 10 is a cyclone separator of the feed, also suggesting a small particle size for proper functioning thereof.
Volatiles are removed and the article establishes (evidentiary reference) that fragmentation/fracturing the coal occurs, noting that these limitations relate to the process and are not apparatus features per se. See pg. 1365 of Dacombe.
Claims 13-14 do not actually limit the apparatus; they relate to the intended feed or product. It is noted that 14 mesh (1.5 mm) feed is taught, as is entrainment of the fed into a gas stream. Thus, the claimed sizes are obvious. More to the point, example IV teaches ‘less than 100 microns’.
For claim 12, it is structured as a process limitation which does not limit a product. However, Sass teaches a cyclone 22, downstream of the reactor as claim 12 implies. A more direct structural relationship of the apparatus should be claimed.
For claim 23, see element 8 and col. 2 lines 50-65.
Claims 15 and 24 relate to a process, however the features of claim 24 are depicted. Example IV teaches ‘about 1.5 seconds’.
For claims 25-26, col. 6 teaches a ‘high velocity reactor’, suggesting the claimed features. For claims 26-27, col. 4 teaches an atmosphere ‘substantially free of oxygen’.
Claims 27-30 relate to a process and thus do not limit the apparatus, noting the temperature of 1537.
For claim 31, item 41 is a condenser for the effluent.
Additional citation:
Rugg 20120017498 is noted to teach pyrolysis of coal and biomass.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STUART L HENDRICKSON whose telephone number is (571)272-1351. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 9 to 5. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Anthony Zimmer, can be reached on 571-270-3591. The fax phone 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://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/STUART L HENDRICKSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1736
Prosecution Insights