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 amendments filed by Applicant on 25 November 2025 have been acknowledged. It is acknowledged that claims 1 and 3-7 have been amended, and claim 2 has been cancelled by Applicant. Per the amendments, the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections have been withdrawn. Claims 1, and 3-7 are currently pending in this application.
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1 and 3-5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (US-10329490-B2), hereinafter “Li”, in view of Kezhen (CN-109482118-A) and Losch et al. (US-20080188821-A1), hereinafter “Losch”.
Regarding Claim 1, Li discloses a device for online co-production of carbon-containing precursors (producing a solid carbon material; see Abstract) and high-quality oxygen-containing fuels (may react to form and release CO or CO2… the released organics may be… used as fuels; see Col. 11 Lines 11-15) from biomass pyrolysis gas (derived from the pyrolysis of carbonaceous feedstock, such as biomass; see Col. 2 Lines 2 29-30), comprising a polymerization reactor (polymerization reactor 404; see Col. 15 Line 53), wherein a biomass pyrolysis gas inlet (biomass is fed into the pyrolysis reactor 402… the resultant product from the pyrolysis reactor… is fed via line 408 to the polymerization reactor… may be a bio-oil vapor; see Col. 15 Line 63 – Col. 16 Line 5) and a polymerization agent inlet are provided on the polymerization reactor (at least one inlet for introducing a polymerization agent into the polymerization reactor; see Col. 7 Lines 26-27), an outlet of the polymerization reactor is connected to an inlet of a catalytic reactor (the polymerization reactor may comprise a plurality of side feed lines… may introduce a separate material at different locations along the polymerization reactor… the separate material may be a… catalyst; see Col. 16 Lines 36-41 – it is understood by those in the art that this feature would effectively render the section of the reactor that follows the introduction of catalyst, through the side feed line, a catalytic reactor), and an outlet of the catalytic reactor is connected to an inlet of a condenser (for released volatiles… the polymerization reactor comprises a condenser; see Col. 14 Lines 57-59); the polymerization reactor is a temperature-controllable reactor (polymerization reactor 404 may be equipped with heat exchanging facilities to maintain the required reaction temperature profile; see Col. 17 Lines 8-10), and provides a reaction space for reaction of the biomass pyrolysis gas and a polymerization agent (the polymerization reactor 404 provides a reaction region in which the carbon-containing material can be polymerized… introduce the polymerization agent into the polymerization reactor 404… for the polymerization to occur; see Col. 16 Lines 49-63); and a catalyst is arranged in the catalytic reactor (side feed line may introduce a… catalyst; see Col. 16 Lines 39-42), such that micromolecular pyrolysis gas is catalytically converted into the high-quality oxygen-containing fuels (some oxygen-containing functional groups (e.g. in the forms of… -COOH) attached to the large molecules of the carbon material may react to form and release CO or CO2 via reactions such as decarbonylation… the released organics may be… used as fuels; see Col. 11 Lines 8-16). Regarding this last limitation, Li discloses that the bio-oil vapor is the carbon material (see Col. 16 Lines 4-5), which is obtained through pyrolysis (see Col. 9 Lines 63-67), therefore making the bio-oil vapor a pyrolysis gas, and further the attached -COOH is a micromolecular component of the bio-oil vapor pyrolysis gas. Lastly, a catalyst is required for the decarbonylation of -COOH, and is therefore a catalytic conversion reaction.
Li does not explicitly teach the polymerization reactor being a spray polymerization reactor. However, Kezhen discloses a spray polymerization reactor (spray-type polymerization reaction device; see [0002]) with a spray pipe (spray pipe 3; see [0028]) arranged at a top of the reactor (see Fig. 1, part 3). Kezhen further discloses a collector mounted at a bottom of the spray polymerization reactor (collecting tank is provided below the reaction frame in the main reactor (see [0013]).
Li and Kezhen are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of polymerization 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 Li by incorporating the teachings of Kezhen and using a spray polymerization reactor with a spray pipe at the top of the reactor and a collector at the bottom. Doing so, respectively, would enable temperature control of the reaction (see [0011]) and allow the material in the reactor to be collected (see [0013]).
Regarding the limitation of the collector being used to collect the carbon containing precursors, 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 the collector collecting carbon precursors does not further define the actual structure of the collector, but merely sets forth a manner of operating the collector. Functional limitations that do not limit the structure need not be given further due consideration in determining patentability of an apparatus. Further, Li discloses that “solid carbon material is produced that can be obtained through outlet” (see Col. 13 Lines 39-40). Therefore, when modifying Li with Kezhen, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the collector of Kezhen to collect the carbon products of Li.
Regarding the limitation of the collector being detachable, the courts have held that if it is desirable for any reason to obtain access to the material within a vessel, then making separable would be obvious. See In reDulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349 (CCPA 1961).
Kezhen further discloses a liquid being stored in a liquid storage tank (hot water tank; see [0010]), which is conveyed by a booster pump into the spray pipe in the spray polymerization reactor (pumped to the spray pipe by a water pump; see [0040]), the spray pipe has a structure comprising a shaft (see Fig. 1 part 3) having an adjustable length (horizontally extending spray pipe; see [0010]) having angle adjustable liquid spray nozzles (the spray expansion angle of the sprinkler head can be adjusted; see [0040]) mounted on the shaft (spray heads are provided on the spray pipe; see [0009]). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include these modifications because, respectively, it would allow the spray liquid to be replenished (see Kezhen [0020]), enable liquid to be pumped up to the spray pipe (see Kezhen [0040]), and enable the sprayer to meet different spraying requirements (see [0040]).
Regarding the limitation claiming the shaft is a rotating shaft, Kezhen discloses that the spray heads can evenly cover all of the reactor without any dead corners (see [0032]). The instant invention does not disclose any new or unexpected results being observed from the shaft being a rotating shaft, and the only reasonable explanation to use a rotating shaft would be to ensure full coverage by the sprayers. Therefore, the ability of Kezhens spray heads to provide full coverage is an equivalent of a rotating shaft. This would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include because it would provide full coverage (see [0032]).
Regarding the limitation claiming that the height of the shaft is adjustable, Kezhen discloses multiple spray pipes disposed at different heights (see [0032]) and Fig. 1). Kezhen further discloses that each spray pipe is provided with a spray pipe valve (see [0032]), indicating that each spray pipe can be individually controlled to receive liquid or not. Therefore, any of the spray pipes can be active or not active, thereby allowing the height of the active spray pipe to be adjusted. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include this modification because it would allow for spray heads at different heights, which would help eliminate dead corners in the reactor (see [0032]).
Regarding the limitation claiming that the polymerization agent is the liquid that is stored in the liquid storage tank and conveyed by a booster pump into the spray pipe, this is a functional limitation. As described, Li modified by Kezhen discloses the structure of the apparatus, and the liquid sprayed in Kezhen is water, not the polymerization agent. 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 spraying and storing liquid polymerization agent does not further define the actual structure of the spray polymerization reactor, but merely sets forth a manner of operating the spray polymerization reactor. Functional limitations that do not limit the structure need not be given further due consideration in determining patentability of an apparatus. Further, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the polymerization agent in place of water because spraying a polymerization agent in a spray polymerization process is a well-known method in the art, as taught by Losch (dihydrochloride (azoinitiator…) was dropletized or jetted in a heated spray tower; see [0116]). Doing so would allow for control of the polymerization rate (see Losch [0082]).
Regarding the limitation claiming “wherein the liquid spray nozzles (12) are toward the detachable collector (7)”, based on the support in specification and drawing, this is interpreted as the liquid nozzles being angled toward the collector or spray toward the collector. With this in mind, it was previously claimed that the angles of the spray nozzles are adjustable, making this limitation a functional limitation that does not further limit the structure of the apparatus, but merely sets forth a manner of operating the apparatus.
Modified Li further discloses wherein the biomass pyrolysis gas inlet is located between the liquid spray nozzles and the detachable collector (The polymerization reactor 300 comprises at least one inlet 302 for providing… a mixture comprising a carbon-containing material that is formed through the heat treatment of carbonaceous feedstock, such as biomass (see Col. 13 Lines 14-18 and Fig. 3 Part 302). Figure 3 clearly shows the inlet 302 in the middle side of the reactor. As previously explained, Kezhen discloses the spray nozzles being disposed at the top of the reactor while the collector is disposed at the bottom of the reactor. Therefore, when modifying Li by incorporating the teachings of Kezhen, it would naturally follow that the biomass pyrolysis gas inlet would be disposed between the spray nozzles and the collector. Further, the courts have held that a mere rearrangement of parts is not patentable so long as it does not modify the operation of the device. 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 specification does not present any new or unexpected results that occur due to the specific placement of the biomass pyrolysis gas inlet.
Regarding Claim 3, Li, Kezhen and Losch together disclose the device for online co-production of carbon-containing precursors and oxygen-containing fuels from biomass pyrolysis gas according to claim 1. Li further discloses an outlet of the condenser being connected to an inlet of a tail gas treatment device (volatiles that cannot be condensed can exit the polymerization reactor through an outlet 316, which then further go through possible chemical recovery in the vessel 318; see Col. 14 Line 65 – Col. 15 Line 1, and Fig. 3 which shows outlet 316 being an outlet on the condenser 300), such that non- condensed pyrolysis gas is purified through the tail gas treatment device (chemical recovery in the vessel 318; see Col. 15 Line 1).
Regarding Claim 4, Li, Kezhen, and Losch together disclose the device for online co-production of carbon-containing precursors and oxygen-containing fuels from biomass pyrolysis gas according to claim 1. Li further discloses the spray polymerization reactor being a continuous feed reactor (the polymerization reactor may be operable as… a continuous reactor; see Col. 6 Lines 24-25), and has a temperature ranging from 50°C to 400°C (the temperature at which the polymerization process is induced… may be selected from a range between 50 and 400°C; see Col. 10 Lines 30-33). Kezhen further discloses the polymerization reactor being connected to a temperature controller (main reactor temperature control device is installed on the left side wall of the main reactor; see [0034]). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a temperature controller in order to detect the temperature in the main reactor (see Kezhen [0034]).
Regarding Claim 5, Li, Kezhen and Losch together disclose the device for online co-production of carbon-containing precursors and oxygen-containing fuels from biomass pyrolysis gas according to claim 1. As explained in the claim 1 rejection, the section of the polymerization reactor of modified Li that follows the introduction of the catalyst is considered analogous to the catalytic reactor of the claimed invention. The catalytic reactor and polymerization reactor of modified Li are contained in the same vessel. Therefore, it logically follows that the polymerization reactor of modified Li having an adjustable temperature (the temperature may be increased in a step-wise manner; see Col. 10 Lines 39-40) and being connected to a temperature controller (see claim 4 rejection) implicitly indicates that the catalytic reactor portion has an adjustable temperature and is connected to the same temperature controller. The same logic applies to the temperature of the vessel that contains the polymerization reactor and catalytic reactor of modified Li. Li discloses polymerization being induced between 50 and 400°C (see Col. 10 Lines 30-33), and further discloses the vessel having a region with a temperature between 100°C and 500°C (see Col. 16 Line 65), ultimately disclosing a temperature range of at least 50°C to 500°C. MPEP 2144.05.I states that in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists.
Claims 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (US-10329490-B2), hereinafter “Li”, in view of Kezhen (CN-109482118-A), Losch et al. (US-20080188821-A1), hereinafter “Losch”, and Issberner et al. (US- 20070260357-A1), hereinafter “Issberner”.
Regarding Claim 6, Li, Kezhen, and Losch together disclose the device for online co-production of carbon-containing precursors and oxygen-containing fuels from biomass pyrolysis gas according to claim 1. Li further discloses the biomass pyrolysis gas being fed into the biomass pyrolysis gas inlet by a pipeline (bio-oil vapor… produced from the pyrolysis of the biomass are transferred via line 408 into the polymerization reactor; see Col. 16 Lines 44-47).
Modified Li does not explicitly teach a flow meter. However, Issberner discloses a flowmeter on the pipeline which introduces reactive material vapor to the polymerization reactor (educt mixture coming from the gas exchanger 21 is conducted into a polymerization space 24 by means of an educt entry 23, monitored by means of an educt flow meter; see [0179]).
Li and Issberner are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of polymerization 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 Li by incorporating the teachings of Issberner and including a flow meter. Doing so allows monitoring of the educt mixture (see Issberner [0179]).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (US-10329490-B2), hereinafter “Li”, in view of Kezhen (CN-109482118-A), Losch et al. (US-20080188821-A1), hereinafter “Losch”, and Nozawa et al. (US- 4661581-A), hereinafter “Nozawa”.
Regarding Claim 7, Li, Kezhen, and Losch together disclose the device for online co-production of carbon-containing precursors and oxygen-containing fuels from biomass pyrolysis gas according to claim 1. Li further discloses a condensing medium of the condenser being water (the condenser may use water as the coolant; see Col. 14 Line 60), but does not explicitly teach the use of ice water. However, using an ice-water mixture as a condensing medium is a well-known technique in the art, as taught by Nozawa (condenser cooled with ice water; see Col. 6 Line 61), and therefore would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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