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
Applicant has amended claims 66-72, 75, 78, and 79, canceled claims 73-74 and 77-78, and added new claims 85-88. Claims 65-72, 75-76, and 79-88 are pending.
Claims 71-72, 75-76, and 79-84 were previously withdrawn from consideration following the restriction requirement mailed 9/24/2024.
Claims 87 and 88 are withdrawn from consideration as being drawn to an invention that lacks unity with the invention originally examined (see “Election/Restrictions” below for details).
The amendments to the claims have overcome the claim objections of record.
The amendments to the claims have overcome some of the 112(b) rejections of record.
The amendments to the claims have necessitated new prior art rejections. See 102/103 rejections below for details.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 5/23/2025, with respect to the claim objections have been fully considered and are persuasive.
Specifically, Applicant has argued that the amendments to the claims have overcome the claim objections of record. Therefore, the claim objections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 5/23/2025, with respect to the 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive in part.
Applicant has argued that the amendments to the claims have overcome some of the 112(b) rejections of record. Therefore, the 112(b) rejections overcome by amendment have been withdrawn.
With respect to 112(b) rejection of the term “flow rate control means” recited in claim 68, Applicant has alleged that there is sufficient corresponding structure for the flow rate control means in the specification. Specifically, Applicant has alleged that the valve depicted in Figure 2 (see annotated Figure 2 below) represents sufficient corresponding structure for the “flow rate control means”.
PNG
media_image1.png
816
744
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Examiner finds this argument unpersuasive.
First, as is explained in detail in the “Election/Restrictions” section below, Applciant’s disclosure contains two distinct species; Species I, the apparatus of Figure 1, and Species II, the apparatus of Figure 2. Claim 65-70 are drawn to Species I which Applicant has elected by original presentation. Because claim 68 is drawn to Species I, questionable whether any disclosure pertaining to the apparatus of Species II (Figure 2) can amount to corresponding structure for the “flow rate control means” of claim 68.
Furthermore, considering that Applicant’s specification does not explicitly describe the function of the valve shown in Figure 2, the evidence for said valve being corresponding structure for the “flow rate control means” is slim.
The above matters aside, claim 68 requires that the “flow rate control means” have the following function: “a flow rate of the purge is controlled in relation to an amount of biomass that is introduced into the pyrolysis zone to determine a flow of gas between the gasification zone and the pyrolysis zone at a location where particles move from the gasification zone to the pyrolysis zone.” Although the identity of the “the purge” and thus the claimed “flow rate of the purge” is unclear on account of there being insufficient antecedent basis for “the purge”, “the purge” presumably refers to non-condensable gas in the pyrolysis gas loop that is “purged and fed to a bottom of the gasifier” as is required by claim 67 (Note: Claim 68 is a dependent of claim 67).
The purge in Figure 2 is not fed to the gasifier 21, but instead to a combustor 28. Accordingly, the valve in Figure 2 does not amount to a corresponding structure for a flow rate control means functioning to control a flow rate of a purge as recited in claim 68.
Applicant has argued that a valve like that of Figure 2 will also be present in Figure 2 as “without [the flow control valve] the flow rate would be uncontrolled.” Examiner finds this argument unpersuasive, as there is not sufficient support in the disclosure for a valve in Figure 1.
Applicant has cited page 8, lines 28-33, page 9, lines 9-13, and the paragraph bridging pages 2-3 of the specification as disclosing regulation of pure gas flow rate. However, none of said disclosures disclose any corresponding structure for the “flow rate control means”.
In view of the above, Examiner maintains that the “flow rate control means” recited in claim 68 is indefinite. The 112(b) rejection of claim 68 concerning said “flow rate control means” is maintained below.
Examiner notes that not all of the 112(b) rejections of record have been addressed by Applicant’s Remarks, whether by amendment or by argument.
Specifically, the following 112(b) rejections have not been addressed:
i) the 112(b) rejection of claim 68 concerning the limitation “the purge”, for which there is insufficient antecedent basis in the claim;
ii) the 112(b) rejection of claim 69; and
iii) the 112(b) rejections of claim 70.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 5/23/2025, with respect to the prior art rejections over Heydenrych (US 9,580,657) have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
With respect to claim 65, Applicant has argued that “the L- valve [of Heydenrych] cannot practically serve as a char extraction device as the geometry and configuration in the reference are quite different from the present application with a specific char extraction objective rather than hypothetical unintentional removal of char due to unexpected process conditions.”
This argument is unpersuasive at least because there is no difference in geometry and/or configuration between the L-valve of Heydenrych and the char extraction device as claimed. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Examiner maintains that claim 65 is anticipated by Heydenrych.
Applicant has argued that the amendments to claim 67 has overcome the rejection thereof over Heydenrych (US 9,580,657). Examiner agrees, the amendments to claim 67 and its dependent, claim 68, have been overcome by the amendments to claim 67.
However, following further search and consideration, the amendments to claim 67 have been found to necessitate new 102 rejections of claims 67 and 68 over newly relied upon Heydenrych (US 10,041,003).
Applciant’s arguments concerning the prior art rejection of claim 68 over Heydenrych (US 9,580,657) have been fully considered, but they are moot, as they do not apply to the new rejections set forth below over newly relied upon Heydenrych (US 10,041,003).
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted claim 88 is directed to an invention that lacks unity with the invention originally examined for the following reasons:
Applicant’s disclosure contains multiple distinct species, which are as follows:
Species I: The apparatus of Figure 1.
Species II: The apparatus of Figure 2.
Species I and II listed above do not relate to a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1 because, under PCT Rule 13.2, they lack the same or corresponding special technical features for the following reasons:
Species I and II lack unity of invention because even though the inventions of these groups require the technical feature of a carbonaceous feed pyrolysis apparatus comprising: two or more hot particle fluidised beds, wherein one or more of the fluidised beds is a gasifier which contains a gasification zone and one or more of the fluidised beds is a pyrolysis reactor which contains a pyrolysis zone; material transfer means for the transfer of hot catalyst particles between two or more of the beds, so that the particles are recirculated and serve as an energy carrier to drive pyrolysis in the pyrolysis zone; and a char extraction device in flow communication with a bottom of the gasification zone to remove char and any clinker material that may form, this technical feature is not a special technical feature as it does not make a contribution over the prior art in view of Heydenrych et al. (US 9,580,657). See 102 rejection of claim 87 over Heydenrych below for details.
The apparatus of Species I (Figure 1) is distinguishable from that of Species II (Figure 2) in that it includes, among other differences, a char extraction device that removes char by overflow from the gasification zone in the form of aperture 11 (see page 8 lines 9-10 of Applicant’s specification as filed 3/13/2023). While the apparatus of Figure 2 contains a screw conveyor 24 which could be fairly considered to be a “char extraction device”, said screw conveyor 24 cannot be fairly considered to be a char extraction device “that removes char by overflow from the gasification zone”. There is no other element in the apparatus of Figure 2 which can be fairly considered to be “a char extraction device that removes char by overflow”.
The invention of originally examined claims 65-70 includes “a char extraction device that removes char by overflow from the gasification zone,” (see independent claim 65). Thus, the originally examined claims (claims 65-70) are clearly drawn exclusively to Species I (the apparatus of Figure 1). Since Applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention (Species I), this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits.
Claims 65-70, 85, and 86 are drawn to the elected invention of Species I (Applicant’s Figure 1), which features such a char extraction device in the form of aperture 11 (see page 8 lines 9-10 of Applicant’s specification as filed 3/13/2023). Accordingly, said claims are examined herein on their merits.
New claim 87 is generic, as it can be fairly interpreted as being drawn to either one of Species I and II. Accordingly, said claim is are examined herein on its merits.
New claim 88 is drawn to an apparatus comprising “a first vessel comprising a combustion chamber; a second vessel comprising a gasifier including a gasification zone; a third vessel comprising a pyrolysis reactor including a pyrolysis zone”. Inclusion of three such vessels is a feature exclusive to Species II (Figure 2). Thus, new claim 88 is drawn to the invention of Species II. Accordingly, claim 88 is withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a nonelected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
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 discussed below.
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 limitation “material transfer means” has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder “means” coupled with functional language “material transfer” and “the transfer of hot catalyst particles between two or more of the beds” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claim(s) 65-70 has/have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation: “Biomass is fed into the pyrolysis reactor(8) and when required, to the gasifier(9) to supply the energy requirements of the gasifier(9). Screw conveyor (7) is driven by a variable speed drive to move solid material from the pyrolysis fluidised bed(8) to the gasifier fluidised bed(9). Solids flow over an aperture(11) from the gasifier fluidised bed to the pyrolysis fluidised bed(8). The rate of stream(12) is controlled in order to control the flow of gas from the gasifier freeboard(5) through the aperture(11) to a recirculation pyrolysis gas loop(16) above the bed of the pyrolysis reactor(8),” (page 8 lines 5-13; emphasis added).
Accordingly, the claimed “material transfer means” has been interpreted as a screw conveyor, as well as equivalents thereof.
Claim limitation “char extraction device” has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder “device” coupled with functional language “char extraction” and “removes char by overflow from the gasification zone” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claim(s) 65-70 has/have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation: “Biomass is fed into the pyrolysis reactor(8) and when required, to the gasifier(9) to supply the energy requirements of the gasifier(9). Screw conveyor (7) is driven by a variable speed drive to move solid material from the pyrolysis fluidised bed(8) to the gasifier fluidised bed(9). Solids flow over an aperture(11) from the gasifier fluidised bed to the pyrolysis fluidised bed(8). The rate of stream(12) is controlled in order to control the flow of gas from the gasifier freeboard(5) through the aperture(11) to a recirculation pyrolysis gas loop(16) above the bed of the pyrolysis reactor(8),” (page 8 lines 5-13; emphasis added).
Accordingly, the claimed “char extraction device” has been interpreted as an aperture as well as equivalents thereof.
Claim limitation “purge means” has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder “means” coupled with functional language “purge” and “whereby some non-condensable gas which is produced in this loop is purged and fed to the gasifier or burnt in a combustor” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claim(s) 67-68 has/have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation: “Biomass is fed into the pyrolysis reactor(8) and when required, to the gasifier(9) to supply the energy requirements of the gasifier(9). Screw conveyor (7) is driven by a variable speed drive to move solid material from the pyrolysis fluidised bed(8) to the gasifier fluidised bed(9). Solids flow over an aperture(11) from the gasifier fluidised bed to the pyrolysis fluidised bed(8). The rate of stream(12) is controlled in order to control the flow of gas from the gasifier freeboard(5) through the aperture(11) to a recirculation pyrolysis gas loop(16) above the bed of the pyrolysis reactor(8),” (page 8 lines 5-13; emphasis added).
Accordingly, the claimed “purge means” has been interpreted as a flow conduit, as well as equivalents thereof.
Claim limitation “flow rate control means” has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder “means” coupled with functional language “flow rate control” and “whereby the flow rate of the purge is controlled in relation to the amount of biomass that is introduced into the pyrolysis zone which in turn determines the flow of gas between the gasification zone and the pyrolysis zone at the location where particles move from the gasification zone to the pyrolysis zone,” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claim(s) 68 has/have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification has failed to uncover any corresponding structure for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation.
Accordingly, the claimed “flow rate control means” has been rejected under 112(b). See 112(b) rejections below for details.
The following rejections are maintained from the previous Office Action.
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 68-70 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.
Claim 68 recites the limitation "the purge" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 68 recites “a flow rate control means” in line 2.
Claim limitation “flow rate control means” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. See claim interpretations above for details.
Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
For the purposes of examination, the claimed “flow rate control means” has been given a braod interpretation.
Claim 69 recites “a char extraction device that removes char directly from one of the fluidized beds”.
It is unclear if this “char extraction device” is the same as the char extraction device recited in claim 65.
The fact that claim 69 recites “a char extraction device” as opposed to --the char extraction device-- indicates that the two char extraction devices are different.
On the other hand, the fact that claim 69 uses the same name (i.e. “char extraction device”) to refer to the char extraction device recited therein suggests that the two char extraction devices are the same. Furthermore, it is use of the same name to refer to two different elements in a claimed invention leads to clarity issues, as one cannot reasonable determine which of the two elements is being referenced.
For the purposes of examination, the “char extraction device” of 69 has been treated as being the same char extraction device recited in claim 65.
Applicant should amend claim 69 to clarify as appropriate.
Claim 70 recites the limitation "the pyrolysis gas loop" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 70 recites “wherein the char separator is in flow communication with the pyrolysis gas loop thereby to convert some char to CO in the gasifier” in lines 2-3.
As presently presented, this limitation appears to be requiring that the char separator convert some char to CO within the gasifier. It is unclear how this can be the case and/or what structure the char separator must have to convert some char to CO within the gasifier.
After reviewing the specification (page 4 thereof), it seems that Applicant is attempting to capture that the char separator is configured to supply separated char to the gasifier where said char is gasified, i.e. converted to CO (among other components of syngas). Claim 70 has been treated as requiring such for the purposes of examination.
To overcome this rejection, Applicant should amend claim 70 to clarify as appropriate.
The following contain rejections maintained from the previous Office Action as well as new rejections necessitated by amendment. In particular, the rejections of claims 65, 66, 69, and 70 are maintained from previous Office Action, and the rejections of claims 67, 68, and 85-87 are new rejections necessitated by amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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.
Claim(s) 65, 69, 86, and 87 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Heydenrych et al. (US 9,580,657), hereafter referred to as Heydenrych.
With regard to claim 65: Heydenrych teaches a carbonaceous feed pyrolysis apparatus including two particle fluidized beds (pyrolysis fluidized bed and combustion fluidized bed) 14 and 18, and material transfer means (screw conveyor) for the transfer of hot catalyst 16 between two or more of the beds (Figure 1, Column 4).
Note: In Heydenrych, the numeral 16 is used to refer to sand. However, Heydenrych explicitly states, “In another embodiment represented by the same flowsheet of FIG. 1, the sand 16 that is used for the bed of the fluidised beds 14, 18 of the first embodiment is replaced with catalyst that provides a more stable bio-oil than using sand alone,” (Column 4 Lines 50-53). Accordingly, it is understood that the subject matter labeled with numeral 16 is comprised of catalyst particles in at least one embodiment of Heydenrych.
Wherein one of the fluidized beds, i.e. combustion fluidized bed 18, is a combustor which contains a combustion zone 15 (Figure 1, Column 4).
Wherein one or more of the fluidized beds, i.e. pyrolysis fluidized bed, 14 is a pyrolysis reactor which contains a pyrolysis zone (Figure 1, Column 4).
Wherein the catalyst particles are recirculated and serve as an energy carrier to drive pyrolysis in the pyrolysis zone (Figure 1, Column 4).
And wherein the pyrolysis zone includes a particle extraction device (L valve) 20 that removes particles by overflow from the combustion zone 15 (Figure 1, Column 4).
Heydenrych does not explicitly teach the presence of a gasification reactor having a gasification zone. However, although it is not explicitly taught, it is understood that the combustion reactor 18 and the combustion zone 15 therein can be operated as a gasifier and a gasification zone respectively, i.e. by controlling the amount of air/oxygen fed into the combustion reactor 18 and the combustion zone 15 such that oxygen is fed in an amount insufficient to completely combust material (i.e. char) in the combustion reactor 18 and the combustion zone 15, or by feeding some gasifying agent other than air or oxygen (e.g. steam) into the combustion reactor 18 and the combustion zone 15. Therefore, the combustion reactor 18 and the combustion zone 15 respectively satisfy the claimed gasifier and gasification zone (see MPEP 2114 for guidance).
Heydenrych does not explicitly teach the presence of a char extraction device that removes char by overflow from the gasification zone. However, as discussed above, it is understood that the combustion reactor 18 and the combustion zone 15 therein can be operated as a gasifier and a gasification zone respectively, i.e. by controlling the amount of air/oxygen fed into the combustion reactor 18 and the combustion zone 15 such that oxygen is fed in an amount insufficient to completely combust material (i.e. char) in the combustion reactor 18 and the combustion zone 15, or by feeding some gasifying agent other than air or oxygen (e.g. steam) into the combustion reactor 18 and the combustion zone 15. It is further understood that the combustion zone 15, when operated as a gasification zone, can be operated in a manner such that some char is not consumed, but instead overflows the gasification zone via particle extraction device (L valve) 20 so at to return to the pyrolysis reactor 14. Thus, it is understood that the particle extraction device (L valve) 20 is capable of functioning as a char extraction device that removes char by overflow from the gasification zone. Therefore, the particle extraction device (L valve) 20 satisfies the claimed char extraction device (see MPEP 2114 for guidance).
Note: The L-valve 20 of Heydenrych represents an aperture. Accordingly, the L-valve 20 of Heydenrych satisfies the claimed char extraction device as interpreted under 112(f). See 112(f) interpretations above for details.
With regard to claim 69: The char extraction device (L valve) 20 removes char directly from the gasifier fluidized bed (combustion fluidized bed) 18 (Figure 1, Column 4).
With regard to claim 86: As discussed in the rejection of claim 65 above, the pyrolysis zone includes a particle extraction device (L valve) 20 that removes particles by overflow from the combustion zone 15 (Figure 1, Column 4). Said particles can be fairly considered to be a product of the combustion zone 15. For example, even in the case of particles that are not chemically altered in the combustion zone 15, such as catalyst or sand, said particles are products of the combustion zone in that they have been heated by the conditions in said combustion zone.
As further discussed in the rejection of claim 65 above, it is understood that the combustion reactor 18 and the combustion zone 15 therein can be operated as a gasifier and a gasification zone respectively, i.e. by controlling the amount of air/oxygen fed into the combustion reactor 18 and the combustion zone 15 such that oxygen is fed in an amount insufficient to completely combust material (i.e. char) in the combustion reactor 18 and the combustion zone 15, or by feeding some gasifying agent other than air or oxygen (e.g. steam) into the combustion reactor 18 and the combustion zone 15. It is further understood that the combustion zone 15, when operated as a gasification zone, can be operated in a manner such that some char is not consumed, but instead overflows the gasification zone via particle extraction device (L valve) 20 so at to return to the pyrolysis reactor 14. Thus, it is understood that the particle extraction device (L valve) 20 is capable of functioning as a char extraction device that removes char by overflow from the gasification zone.
In view of the forgoing, it is understood that the L valve 20 is capable of functioning to remove char in the form of gasified char (i.e. partially combusted char) as a product of the gasifier before feeding said char product to the pyrolysis reactor 14. Accordingly, the particle extraction device (L valve) 20 satisfies the claim language requiring the char extraction device be configured to remove char as a product from the gasifier 18 (see MPEP 2114 for guidance).
With regard to claim 87: Heydenrych teaches a carbonaceous feed pyrolysis apparatus including two particle fluidized beds (pyrolysis fluidized bed and combustion fluidized bed) 14 and 18, and material transfer means (screw conveyor) for the transfer of hot catalyst 16 between two or more of the beds (Figure 1, Column 4).
Note: In Heydenrych, the numeral 16 is used to refer to sand. However, Heydenrych explicitly states, “In another embodiment represented by the same flowsheet of FIG. 1, the sand 16 that is used for the bed of the fluidised beds 14, 18 of the first embodiment is replaced with catalyst that provides a more stable bio-oil than using sand alone,” (Column 4 Lines 50-53). Accordingly, it is understood that the subject matter labeled with numeral 16 is comprised of catalyst particles in at least one embodiment of Heydenrych.
Wherein one of the fluidized beds, i.e. combustion fluidized bed 18, is a combustor which contains a combustion zone 15 (Figure 1, Column 4).
Wherein one or more of the fluidized beds, i.e. pyrolysis fluidized bed, 14 is a pyrolysis reactor which contains a pyrolysis zone (Figure 1, Column 4).
Wherein the catalyst particles are recirculated and serve as an energy carrier to drive pyrolysis in the pyrolysis zone (Figure 1, Column 4).
And wherein the pyrolysis zone includes a particle extraction device (L valve) 20 in flow communication with a bottom of the combustor to remove particles from the combustion zone 15 (Figure 1, Column 4).
Heydenrych does not explicitly teach the presence of a gasification reactor having a gasification zone. However, although it is not explicitly taught, it is understood that the combustion reactor 18 and the combustion zone 15 therein can be operated as a gasifier and a gasification zone respectively, i.e. by controlling the amount of air/oxygen fed into the combustion reactor 18 and the combustion zone 15 such that oxygen is fed in an amount insufficient to completely combust material (i.e. char) in the combustion reactor 18 and the combustion zone 15, or by feeding some gasifying agent other than air or oxygen (e.g. steam) into the combustion reactor 18 and the combustion zone 15. Therefore, the combustion reactor 18 and the combustion zone 15 respectively satisfy the claimed gasifier and gasification zone (see MPEP 2114 for guidance).
Heydenrych does not explicitly teach the presence of a char extraction device in flow communication with the bottom of the gasification zone to remove specifically char and any clinker material that may form. However, as discussed above, it is understood that the combustion reactor 18 and the combustion zone 15 therein can be operated as a gasifier and a gasification zone respectively, i.e. by controlling the amount of air/oxygen fed into the combustion reactor 18 and the combustion zone 15 such that oxygen is fed in an amount insufficient to completely combust material (i.e. char) in the combustion reactor 18 and the combustion zone 15, or by feeding some gasifying agent other than air or oxygen (e.g. steam) into the combustion reactor 18 and the combustion zone 15. It is further understood that the combustion zone 15, when operated as a gasification zone, can be operated in a manner such that some char is not consumed, but instead overflows the gasification zone via particle extraction device (L valve) 20 so at to return to the pyrolysis reactor 14. Thus, it is understood that the particle extraction device (L valve) 20 is capable of functioning as a char extraction device that removes char from the gasification zone. Furthermore, said particle extraction device (L valve) 20 is capable of removing clinker from the gasifier in the same way it is capable of removing other solid materials therefrom. Therefore, the particle extraction device (L valve) 20 satisfies the claimed char extraction device in flow communication with the bottom of the gasification zone to remove char and any clinker material that may form (see MPEP 2114 for guidance).
Note: The L-valve 20 of Heydenrych represents an aperture. Accordingly, the L-valve 20 of Heydenrych satisfies the claimed char extraction device as interpreted under 112(f). See 112(f) interpretations above for details.
Claim(s) 66 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Heydenrych in view of evidence from Freel (US 8,961,743) or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Heydenrych in view of Freel.
With regard to claim 66: Though it is not explicitly taught in Heydenrych’s specification, it is understood that Heydenrych comprises a partial condenser, said partial condenser being the element indicated in annotated Figure 1 below. Specifically, said condenser is understood to be a direct contact condenser which condenses pyrolysis vapors by contacting them with a recirculating liquid. As evidence of the presence of a direct contact partial condenser in Heydenrych, Examiner points to the depiction of a direct contact partial condensers (primary and secondary condensers) 50 and 60 in Figure 1 of Freel, and notes the similarities between said condensers and the condenser illustrated in Figure 1 of Heydenrych (See columns 5 and 6 of Freel for further information regarding the condensers 50 and 60).
In the alternative, the Heydenrych is clearly concerned with the production of bio-oil (abstract, Column 4 Lines 10-17, Column 5 Lines 13-16). Therefore, a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it is desirable, if not absolutely necessary, for the system of Heydenrych to comprise a partial condenser for condensing pyrolysis vapors obtained from the pyrolysis reactor in order to recover the desired bio-oil product. This recognition, in combination with the marked similarities between prior art direct contact partial condensers like those of Freel and the element in Figure 1 of Heydenrych, i.e. the element which Examiner has identified as a condenser in annotated Figure 1 below, would at least suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art that said element should be a direct contact partial condenser.
In the unlikely event that it were not already so in Heydenrych, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Heydenrych in view of Freel reconfiguring, or otherwise replacing, the element which Examiner has identified as a condenser in annotated Figure 1 below with a direct contact partial condenser, in order to provide the system of Heydenrych with a means of condensing pyrolysis vapors so as to obtain a desired bio-oil product.
Heydenrych (or modified Heydenrych) further comprises a recycle duct for recycling non-condensable gas produced in the pyrolysis zone back to the pyrolysis zone, thereby creating a recirculation pyrolysis gas loop 26 (Heydenrych: Figure 1, column 4; see annotated Figure 1 below).
PNG
media_image2.png
644
820
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 70 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heydenrych in view of evidence from Freel, as applied in the 102/103 rejection of claim 66 above, and in further view of Bailie (US 3,853,498); or
in the alternative over Heydenrych in view of Freel, as applied in the 102/103 rejection of claim 66 above, and in further view of Bailie.
With regard to claim 70: Claim 66 is either anticipated by Heydenrych, or, in the alternative, is obvious over Heydenrych in view of Freel. See 102/103 rejection of claim 66 above for details.
As discussed in the rejection of claim 66 above, Heydenrych (or modified Heydenrych) comprises a recycle duct for recycling non-condensable gas produced in the pyrolysis zone back to the pyrolysis zone, thereby creating a recirculation pyrolysis gas loop 26 (Heydenrych: Figure 1, column 4; see annotated Figure 1 above).
Heydenrych (or modified Heydenrych) further comprises a char separator (cyclone) 24 in fluid communication with the recirculation pyrolysis gas loop 26, wherein said char separator 24 is configured to separate char from pyrolysis gas flowing in the recirculation pyrolysis gas loop 26 (Heydenrych: Figure 1, column 4; see annotated Figure 1 above).
Heydenrych (or modified Heydenrych) is silent to the char separator 24 being configured to supply separated char to the gasifier (combustion fluidized bed) 18 where said char is gasified, i.e. converted to CO.
However, it is known in the art to configure char separators to supply char separated from a pyrolysis gas into a combustion fluidized bed. For example, Baillie teaches a system comprising a first fluidized bed 10 and a second fluidized bed 12, wherein the first fluidized bed 10 is a pyrolysis reactor, and wherein the second fluidized bed 12 is a combustion fluidized bed reactor, wherein the system further comprises a recirculation pyrolysis gas loop 24 and a char separator (cyclone) 14 in fluid communication with recirculation pyrolysis gas loop 24, and wherein the char separator is configured to supply separated char to the combustion fluidized bed reactor 12 via char recycle line 40 such that said char can be burned in the combustion fluidized bed reactor 12 (Figure 1, Column 5 Line 28-Column 6 Line 20).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify (or further modify) Heydenrych in view of Bailie by configuring the char separator 24 to supply separated char to the gasifier, i.e. the combustion fluidized bed 18, in order to provide the system with a means of providing additional fuel, i.e. the char separated by char separator 24, for use in the combustion fluidized bed 18.
Modified Heydenrych remains silent to char separated by the char separator being gasified, i.e. converted to CO, in the gasifier, i.e. the combustion fluidized bed 18. However, as discussed above, the char separator 24 of modified Heydenrych is configured to supply separated char to the combustion fluidized bed 18. As discussed in the rejection of claim 65 above, the combustion reactor 18 and the combustion zone 15 therein can be operated as a gasifier and a gasification zone respectively, i.e. by controlling the amount of air/oxygen fed into the combustion reactor 18 and the combustion zone 15 such that oxygen is fed in an amount insufficient to completely combust material (i.e. char) in the combustion reactor 18 and the combustion zone 15, or by feeding some gasifying agent other than air or oxygen (e.g. steam) into the combustion reactor 18 and the combustion zone 15. Therefore, it is understood that the combustion fluidized bed 18 of modified Heydenrych is capable of being operated as a gasifier which gasifies (i.e. converts to CO) char that has been separated by the char separator 24 and subsequently supplied to the combustion fluidized bed 18. Therefore, modified Heydenrych satisfies the claim language regarding the char separated by the char separator being gasified, i.e. converted to CO, in the gasifier (see MPEP 2114 for guidance).
Claim(s) 67, 68, and 87 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Heydenrych (US 10,041,003), hereafter referred to as Heydenrych II.
With regard to claim 67: Heydenrych II teaches a carbonaceous feed pyrolysis apparatus (abstract, Figure 1, column 5 Lines 15-21), including:
At least two hot particle fluidized beds (combustion fluidized bed and pyrolysis fluidized bed) 1 and 2 and material transfer means (auger) for the transfer of hot particles (bed material) between two or more of the beds, wherein the hot particles may be hot catalyst particles (Figure 1, Columns 4-6, especially Column 4 Lines 14-17 and 29-30, and Column 5 line 66-Column 6 line 3).
Wherein one of the fluidized beds (combustion fluidized bed) 1 is a combustor which contains a combustion zone and one of the fluidized beds (pyrolysis fluidized bed) 2 is a pyrolysis reactor which contains a pyrolysis zone, so that the particles are recirculated and serve as an energy carrier to drive pyrolysis in the pyrolysis zone, which includes a solid material extraction device (aperture/gap in divider wall 5) that removes solid material by overflow from the combustor 1 into the pyrolysis reactor 2 (Figure 1, Columns 4-6).
Wherein Heydenrych II further comprises:
A partial condenser 8 and a recycle duct for recycling non-condensable gas produced in the pyrolysis zone back to the pyrolysis zone via nozzles 9 thereby creating a recirculation pyrolysis gas loop (Figure 1, Columns 4-6, especially Column 4 Lines 31-39 and Column 5 Lines 15-21). Note: Though element 8 is not explicitly described as a condenser, it clearly is a condenser, as it is disclosed to cool gas from the pyrolysis reactor 2 and remove liquid products (bio-oil) therefrom (Column 4 Lines 31-39, Column 5 Lines 15-21).
And a purge means (line) 11 whereby some non-condensable gas is purged and fed to a bottom of the combustor 1 (Figure 1, Columns 4-6, especially Column 5 Lines 15-27).
Heydenrych II does not explicitly teach the presence of a gasification reactor having a gasification zone. However, although it is not explicitly taught, it is understood that the comb