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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 20 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.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "the at least temperature sensor" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The limitation also creates confusion as regards the function of the sensor. For clarity, the claim should be amended to recite --the at least one temperature sensor--.
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.
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 10-13, 15, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kelfkens et al. (US 2020/0140768) in view of Rice (US 4,300,914).
Regarding claim 10, the reference Kelfkens et al. discloses an apparatus, suitable for recycling refinery catalyst waste materials containing valuable metals in a continuous autothermal process, comprising a fluidized-bed furnace (200) which comprises
a reactor vessel (299) having a refractory lining (see paras. [0044]; [0052]), an inlet (201), suitable for refinery catalyst waste materials containing valuable metals (see para. [0045]), at least one outlet (213) for discharge of treated material (see para. [0047]), and at least one inlet (203) for introduction of process air (see paras. [0045]- [0047]; Fig. 2),
a heat exchanger (17), suitable for preheating process air to a temperature in the range of 45° C. to 130° C. (see paras. [0043]; [0045]; [0081]; [0082]),
at least one gas burner, operable for heating the fluidized-bed furnace to temperature in the range of 720° C. to 730° C. during start-up only (see paras. [0044]; [0045]; [0056]),
at least one pressure meter for measuring the pressure within the reactor vessel (see para. [0049]), and
at least one temperature sensor for measuring a process temperature in the fluidized-bed furnace (see para. [0049]).
The reference Kelfkens et al., however, does not specifically specify that the reactor vessel is a steel vessel. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to construct the reactor vessel (299) of Kelfkens et al. from steel because, as evidenced by the reference Rice (see col. 3, lines 37-42), steel is a typical material of choice for constructing reactor vessels.
The reference Kelfkens et al. is also silent with respect to the fluidized-bed furnace comprising a fill level measuring device which is based on a differential pressure measurement between two measurement points, of which one measurement point is arranged above the bed of material and one measurement point is arranged below the bed material. The reference Rice teaches a fluidized-bed furnace (10) comprising a fill level measuring device (33) which is based on a differential pressure measurement between two measurement points (35, 37), of which one measurement point (37) is arranged above the bed of material and one measurement point (35) is arranged below the bed material (see col. 4, lines 31-34; Figure).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a fill level measuring device as taught by Rice, and claimed by applicant, to the fluidized bed furnace of Kelfkens et al., as doing so would amount to nothing more than a use of a known device for its intended use in a known environment to accomplish an entirely expected result. Furthermore, the reference Kelfkens et al. suggest for monitoring the pressure differential across the bed to maintain the desired operating conditions within the fluidized bed furnace (see para. [0049]).
Regarding claim 11, the references Kelfkens et al. and Rice disclose the apparatus, wherein the at least one outlet for discharging material from the fluidized-bed furnace has a valve (213), which encompasses a flap valve, for controlling the rate of discharge of the treated material (see Kelfkens et al. para. [0047]).
Regarding claim 12, the references Kelfkens et al. and Rice disclose the apparatus, wherein the fluidized-bed furnace further includes an air distributor (302) with air nozzles (301) for distributing the process air which is fed via the at least one inlet (203) into the fluidized-bed furnace (see Kelfkens et al.: para. [0050]; Figs. 2 and 3).
Regarding claim 13, the references Kelfkens et al. and Rice disclose the apparatus, wherein the fluidized-bed furnace further includes an ignition burner, suitable for one-off ignition/starting of the continuous autothermal process (see Kelfkens et al.: para. [0045]).
Regarding claim 15, the references Kelfkens et al. and Rice disclose that the apparatus may further comprise auxiliary devices including: a material transporting device configured to transport treated material that is discharged from the steel vessel during operation (see para. [0047]).
Regarding claim 20, the references Kelfkens et al. and Rice disclose that the apparatus can have a plurality of temperature sensors and at least two of the temperature sensors can be vertically spaced from one another (see para. [0049]).
Claims 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kelfkens et al. in view of Rice as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Barker et al. (US 3,589,342).
Regarding claim 18, the references Kelfkens et al. and Rice are silent with respect to the fluidized bed furnace comprising two gas burners. However, as evidence by the reference Barker et al. (see col. 2, lines 29-42), it is convention in the art to employ a plurality of gas burners within a fluidized bed furnace for a startup operation of the fluidized bed furnace. Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, depending on the particular size of the fluidized bed furnace of Kelfkens et al. and Rice, to provide any suitable number of gas burners, including two gas burners as claimed by applicant, since the Kelfkens et al. teaches that the fluidized bed furnace should be sized to accommodate specific design operating conditions (see Kelfkens et al.: paras. [0093]; [0102]).
Regarding claim 19, the references Kelfkens et al. and Rice are silent with respect to the fluidized bed furnace comprising three gas burners. However, as evidence by the reference Barker et al. (see col. 2, lines 29-42), it is convention in the art to employ a plurality of gas burners within a fluidized bed furnace during a startup operation of the fluidized bed furnace. Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, depending on the particular size of the fluidized bed furnace of Kelfkens et al. and Rice, to provide any suitable number of gas burners, including three gas burners as claimed by applicant, since the Kelfkens et al. teaches that the fluidized bed furnace should be sized to accommodate specific design operating conditions (see Kelfkens et al.: paras. [0093]; [0102]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 14 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 10 July 2026 with respect to claim 10 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that the reference Kelfkens et al. is 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, the reference Kelfkens et al. is clearly within applicant’s field of endeavor which, as described in the Specification, page 1, first paragraph, involves an apparatus comprising a fluidized bed furnace to carry out a continuous autothermal process.
In response to applicant's argument that claim 10 requires an apparatus explicitly configured for recycling waste materials containing valuable metals (see Remarks, page 4), a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. The reference Kelfkens et al. expressly teaches that the fluidized bed furnace (299) may suitably be operated at a temperature in the range between 900° F (480° C) and 1700° F (930 ° C) (see para. [0044]). The reference further teaches that the fluidized bed furnace (299) can be operated to provide optimum control of feed rate, temperature, reaction rate, and conversion of feedstock into producer gas (see para. [0048]). Thus, the fluidized bed furnace taught by Kelfkens et al. can suitably be utilized for recycling refinery catalyst waste materials.
Applicant also argues that applying the operational parameters of Kelfkens to the valuable metal catalyst complex of the present invention would vaporize and destroy the target product (see Remarks, page 4). However, discovery of a new use for an old apparatus does not entitle applicant to a new patent for the apparatus. New use is relevant to method claims, not apparatus claims. "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). See MPEP § 2114 (II).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Lessanework T Seifu whose telephone number is (571)270-3153. The examiner can normally be reached M-T 9:00 am - 6:30 pm; F 9:00 am - 1:00 pm.
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.
/LESSANEWORK SEIFU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1774
Prosecution Insights