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
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group II (claims 10-15 and 18-20) in the reply filed on 21 January 2026 is acknowledged.
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.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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 limitation(s) is/are:
a preheating device for preheating process air…, in claim 10.
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.
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.
Claims 10-15 and 18-20 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. The claims are rejected for the following reasons.
In claim 10, the term “preferably” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the term are required features of the claim.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the continuous, autothermal process phase II" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
In claim 14, the two occurrences of the term “and/or” render the claim indefinite because it is unclear from the claim language whether two or more of the claim elements listed in the claim are required, or only one of the claim elements listed. For examination purpose, the claim language in claim 14 is interpreted to require at least one of the claim elements listed following the phrase “configured for.”
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the material feed region" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the product" in line 13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 15, the phrase "for example" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
In claim 18, the limitation “The apparatus according to claim 10 having two gas burners” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear as to how the two gas burners relate to the fluidized-bed furnace recited in claim 10. It is unclear whether the two gas burners are part of the fluidized-bed furnace or addition structural elements, distinct from the fluidized-bed furnace recited in claim 10. For examination purpose, the gas burners recited in claim 18 are interpreted to be part of the fluidized-bed furnace.
In claim 19, the limitation “The apparatus according to claim 10 having two gas burners” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear as to how the three gas burners relate to the fluidized-bed furnace recited in claim 10. It is unclear whether the three gas burners are part of the fluidized-bed furnace or addition structural elements, distinct from the fluidized-bed furnace recited in claim 10. For examination purpose, the gas burners recited in claim 19 are interpreted to be part of the fluidized-bed furnace.
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 10-15 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 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) for waste materials containing valuable metals (see para. [0045]), at least one outlet (213) for discharge of material (see para. [0047]), and at least one inlet (203) for introduction of process air (see paras. [0045]- [0047]; Fig. 2),
a preheating device (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 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 monitor 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 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 14, the references Kelfkens et al. and Rice disclose that the apparatus may further comprise a control device configured to provide full process control to all aspects of the fluidized bed furnace (see Kelfkens et al.: para. [0042]), including the fluidized bed level (see para. [0090]), operating temperature (see paras. [0044]; [0049]); operating pressure (see para. [0049]); and process air temperature (see paras. [0036]; [0045]).
Regarding claim 15, the references Kelfkens et al. and Rice disclose that the apparatus may further comprise auxiliary devices including: a means for transporting the discharged treated material (see para. [0047]); an exhaust gas purification system comprising at least one fine filter, and a plurality of scrubbing stages for desulfurizing the exhaust gas stream (see paras. [0039]; [0040]).
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]).
Conclusion
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