DETAILED ACTION
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 Invention A (Claims 1-10) in the reply filed on 1/5/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 11-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention and there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claim Objections
The claims listed below are objected to because of the following informalities:
In Claim 5, line 3, change “to the first limiting” to -- towards the first limiting --
In Claim 7, line 4, change “the second limiting fitting part” to -- a second limiting fitting part --
Appropriate correction is required.
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 6-8 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “wherein an oil supply pipeline is further provided at a position of the movable heat-insulation sealing ring close to the second limiting fitting part” which is considered indefinite because “close” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term "close" is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear what magnitude of spacing (in e.g., inches, feet, etc.) would be needed for a prior art oil supply pipeline to be “provided at a position of the movable heat-insulation sealing ring” such that it is “close to the second limiting fitting part” as claimed which makes the metes and bounds of the claim unclear.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “the kiln tail cover water tank is fixedly mounted at an end portion of the kiln tail cover close to the second limiting fitting part” which is considered indefinite because “close” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term "close" is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear what magnitude of spacing (in e.g., inches, feet, etc.) would be needed for a prior art water tank to be “fixedly mounted at an end portion of the kiln tail cover close to the second limiting fitting part” as claimed which makes the metes and bounds of the claim unclear.
Claim 8 is rejected due to its dependency on Claim 7. Furthermore, Claim 8, which depends on Claim 7, establishes “a second limiting fitting part movably connected with the shifting forks”. It is unclear if “a second limiting fitting part” is referring to the same “second limiting fitting part” already established in Claim 7 or if it is referring to an additional, distinct second limiting fitting part. Furthermore, Claim 8 recites the limitation “a right ring groove is connected to an end portion of the first limiting fitting part close to the kiln tail cover” which is considered indefinite because “close” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term "close" is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear what magnitude of spacing (in e.g., inches, feet, etc.) would be needed for a prior art right wing groove to be “connected to an end portion of the first limiting fitting part close to the kiln tail cover” as claimed which makes the metes and bounds of the claim unclear.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1, 2 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by JP 4299954 B2 (hereinafter "JP954") (see attached original document and translation for reference).
Regarding Claim 1, JP954 teaches of a sealing structure (10) of a horizontal rotary pyrolysis kiln (1) (see at least [0018] and Fig. 2), wherein the sealing structure of a horizontal rotary pyrolysis kiln is provided between a kiln tail cover (21) and a kiln tail (the right-hand end portion of kiln (1) as shown in Fig. 2), and comprises: a support frame (support frame comprising element (2)) fixedly connected to a periphery of the kiln tail (as is shown in Fig. 2), wherein the support frame is provided with a rotary sealing mechanism (mechanism comprising elements (51), (52), (53)) in rotary sealing contact with the support frame (see at least [0023]-[0024] and Fig. 2);
the rotary sealing mechanism comprises:
a plurality of evenly distributed shifting forks ((51), (52), (53)) (see at least [0023]-[0024] and Fig. 2);
a support seat (support seat comprising element (3)) rotatably connected with the support frame (see at least [0023] and Figs. 1-2);
a first limiting fitting part (the vertical portion of element (21) that element (22a) is attached to as is shown in Fig. 2) with one end fixed to a periphery of the kiln tail cover (as is shown in Fig. 2); and a movable heat-insulation sealing ring (22b) and a flexible sealing mechanism (23) connected between the support seat and the first limiting fitting part (as is shown in Fig. 2) (see at least [0020], [0022] and Fig. 2);
each of the shifting forks ((51), (52), (53)) is spatially located on an outer side of the flexible sealing mechanism (as is shown in Figs. 1-2), one end of each of the shifting forks (the right-hand end of each shifting fork as shown in Fig. 2) is fixedly connected with the first limiting fitting part on the periphery of the kiln tail cover (as is shown in Fig. 2), and the other end of each of the shifting forks (the left-hand end of each shifting fork as shown in Fig. 2) is movably connected to the support seat (as is shown in Fig. 2) (see at least [0023]-[0024] and Fig. 2); and the movable heat-insulation sealing ring (22b) is spatially located on an inner side of the flexible sealing mechanism (23) (as is shown in Fig. 2); and
one end of the movable heat-insulation sealing ring (the left-hand end of element (22b) as shown in Fig. 2) is fixedly connected with the support seat (as is shown in Fig. 2), and the other end of the movable heat-insulation sealing ring (the right-hand end of element (22b) as shown in Fig. 2) is movably connected with the first limiting fitting part (see at least [0031]-[0032] and Fig. 2), such that a heat-insulation cavity (cavity that houses element (27) as shown in Fig. 2) is formed between the movable heat-insulation sealing ring and the flexible sealing mechanism (see at least [0022] and Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 2, JP954 also teaches that the support seat comprises a second limiting fitting part (second limiting fitting part comprising element (8)) configured to be connected with the shifting forks, the flexible sealing mechanism and the movable heat-insulation sealing ring, respectively (as is shown in Fig. 2), wherein the second limiting fitting part is annular (as is shown in Figs. 1-2) (see at least [0023]-[0024] and Figs. 1-2).
Regarding Claim 9, JP954 also teaches that the support frame is provided with an adjusting screw (4) (see at least [0045] and Fig. 2).
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.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP954 in view of Moklebust (US 2,826,403).
Regarding Claim 7, to the extent that Claim 7 is understood in light of the 112(b) rejections set forth in this Office Action, JP954 teaches of the sealing structure according to Claim 1 (see the rejection for Claim 1) but fails to explicitly teach that one end of the first limiting fitting part apart from the shifting forks is connected with a kiln tail cover water tank, and that the kiln tail cover water tank is fixedly mounted at an end portion of the kiln tail cover close to the second limiting fitting part.
Moklebust discloses a relatable rotary kiln system (Fig. 2) that comprises a rotary kiln (10) with a kiln tail (the end portion of element (10) that is covered by element (12) as shown in Figs. 1-2) covered by a kiln tail cover (the portion of element (12) that covers the kiln tail as shown in Figs. 1-2) (see at least Col. 2 lines 18-47 and Figs. 1-2). Moklebust teaches that one end of a first limiting fitting part (the vertical first limiting fitting part that element (32) is mounted to as shown in Fig. 2) is connected with a kiln tail cover water tank (32) (see at least Col. 2 lines 18-47 and Figs. 1-2), and that the kiln tail cover water tank (32) is fixedly mounted at an end portion of the kiln tail cover close to a second limiting fitting part (the vertical second limiting part that engages with element (30) as is shown in Fig. 2) (see at least Col. 2 lines 18-47 and Figs. 1-2). Moklebust teaches that the kiln tail cover water tank provides means for facilitating “cooling” (see at least Col. 2 lines 18-47 and Figs. 1-2).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the apparatus taught by JP954 by configuring one end of the existing first limiting fitting part that is already apart from the shifting forks to be connected with a kiln tail cover water tank, such that the kiln tail cover water tank is fixedly mounted at an end portion of the kiln tail cover close to the existing second limiting fitting part, based on the teachings of Moklebust. Doing so would have provided means for facilitating cooling. Note that such modification would have necessarily resulted in the invention as claimed.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP954 in view of Rauch (US 2020/0240710 A1).
Regarding Claim 10, JP954 teaches of the sealing structure according to Claim 1 (see the rejection for Claim 1) but fails to explicitly teach that the peripheral annular sealing surface of the support frame is provided with a Si3N4 material and has a surface roughness less than 0.4 microns.
Rauch discloses a relatable rotary kiln assembly (Fig. 1) that comprises a rotary kiln (111) with a kiln tail (the end portion of element (111) that is covered by element (121) as shown in Figs. 1-3) covered by a kiln tail cover (121) (see at least [0021]-[0023] and Figs. 1-3). Rauch teaches that “The wall 122 may partially define an exterior kiln cylinder surface 112” wherein the exterior kiln surface forms a peripheral annual sealing surface (see at least [0021]-[0023] and Figs. 1-3). Furthermore, Rauch teaches that “the wall 122 may include suitable refractory material” and that the refractory material may be in the form of “Si3N4” - Rauch accordingly teaches that the peripheral annular sealing surface of the support frame is provided with a Si3N4 material and that such material is, inter alia, capable or retaining “strength at the high temperatures” (see at least [0021]-[0023] and Figs. 1-3).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the apparatus taught by JP954 by configuring the existing peripheral annular sealing surface of the support frame to be provided with a Si3N4 material based on the teachings of Rauch. Doing so would have ensured that the sealing surface would have been able to retain strength at high temperatures.
Furthermore, JP954 and Rauch fail to explicitly teach that the surface roughness of the Si3N4 material is “less than 0.4 microns”. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have simply adjusted the existing surface roughness of the Si3N4 material to be “less than 0.4 microns” as claimed since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.
(“[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (Claimed process which was performed at a temperature between 40°C and 80°C and an acid concentration between 25% and 70% was held to be prima facie obvious over a reference process which differed from the claims only in that the reference process was performed at a temperature of 100°C and an acid concentration of 10%.); See also In re Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382 (“The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages.”).
In the instant case, the combination of JP954 and Rauch comprises a peripheral annular sealing surface with a Si3N4 material of undisclosed roughness (see the combination presented above and [0021]-[0023] of Rauch) - thus the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art. The degree of surface roughness is a result effective variable that would have been readily changeable in the combined apparatus. As is evident from, e.g., Raichle et al. (US 2004/0187750 A1), peripheral annular sealing surface roughness is a result effective variable that affects, inter alia, the relative “sealing” and “tightness” encountered by the rotary kiln during rotation wherein relatively less surface roughness creates a relatively higher degree of sealing/tightness and vice-versa (see at least [0013] and Fig. 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have further modified the combined apparatus by adjusting, depending on the degree of sealing/tightness desired, the existing surface roughness of the Si3N4 material to be “less than 0.4 microns” as claimed since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. Note that such modification would have necessarily resulted in the invention as claimed.
Allowable Subject Matter
7. Claims 3-5 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim (i.e., Claim 2), but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Dependent Claims 6 and 8 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding dependent Claims 3-5: The subject matter of Claim 3 is neither anticipated nor rendered obvious by any known prior art including that of JP954 which was relied upon in this Office Action. Claim 3 specifies that “the second limiting fitting part is provided with a gas loading pipeline that is communicated with the heat-insulation cavity to load a gas medium”. JP does not teach that the second limiting fitting part is provided with a gas loading pipeline that is communicated with the heat-insulation cavity to load a gas medium (as is shown in Fig. 2) and accordingly fails to anticipate Claim 3. Furthermore, JP954 seeks to fill the heat-insulation cavity with a solid insulation (27) wherein the cavity is unsealed such that free movement between elements (22a) and (22b) can occur (see at least [0023]-[0024] and Fig. 2). Thus, no motivation would have existed to have configured to the existing second limiting fitting part to be provided with a gas loading pipeline that is communicated with the heat-insulation cavity to load a gas medium as claimed since doing so would have interfered with and unnecessarily complicate the existing, simple solid insulation arrangement that JP954 seeks to achieve. Therefore, the combination of limitations claimed in Claim 3 is considered to be allowable over the known prior art. Note that Claims 4-6 depend on Claim 3 and are consequently also considered to have allowable subject matter for including Claim 3. However, Claims 3-6 are objected to and/or rejected (as is presented above) and are accordingly not in condition for allowance at this time.
Regarding dependent Claim 8: To the extent that Claim 8 is understood in light of the 112(b) rejections set forth in this Office Action, the subject matter of Claim 8 is neither anticipated nor rendered obvious by any known prior art including that of JP954 which was relied upon in this Office Action. JP954 fails to anticipate the combination and arrangement of elements claimed in Claim 8 which include, inter alia, “a left ring groove fixedly connected with the second limiting fitting part”, “a right ring groove” that “is connected to an end portion of the first limiting fitting part close to the kiln tail cover”, and “a movable end of the movable heat-insulation sealing ring” that is “movably connected with a friction ring provided on the right ring groove”. Furthermore, no known prior art provides motivation to further modify the existing structure taught by JP954 (or that of any other known prior art) in a way that would have resulted in the complete arrangement of elements claimed in Claim 8. Therefore, the subject matter of Claim 8 is considered to be allowable over the known prior art. However, Claim 8 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) (as is presented above in this Office Action) and is consequently not in condition for allowance at this time.
Conclusion
8. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The following prior art is considered relevant to this application in terms of structure and use:
Edwards (US 4,543,061)
Zhu (US 2019/0093949 A1)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN W JOHNSON whose telephone number is (571)272-8523. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 7:30-5:00 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, Steve McAllister can be reached at 571-272-6785. 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.
/BENJAMIN W JOHNSON/Examiner, Art Unit 3762 1/24/2026
/STEVEN B MCALLISTER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3762