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 I, claims 1-11, 19, and 20 in the reply filed on 10/3/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 12-18 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 10/3/2025.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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) 1, 2, and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wang (US 2019/0218361).
With regard to claim 1: Wang teaches a pyrolysis reactor (abstract), the pyrolysis reactor comprising:
A microwave cavity 12 configured to contain a waste mixture within an internal space (Figures 1-6, paragraphs [0045]-[0055]).
And a plurality of probes (first and second microwave supplying units) 11 and 13 that couple a corresponding plurality of drive signals (microwaves) into the microwave cavity 12 to excite a plurality of cavity modes and heat the waste mixture (Figures 1-6, paragraphs [0045]-[0055]).
With regard to claim 2: The microwave cavity 12 has walls shaped as a cylindrical shell surrounding the internal space (Figures 1-6, paragraphs [0045]-[0055]).
With regard to claim 7: The system of Wang further comprises at least one frequency selective surface (hollow tube made of microwave penetrable material) 122 disposed in front of the at least part of the microwave cavity and in the internal space to surround the waste mixture (Figure 2, paragraph [0053]).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Holland (US 5,084,141)
With regard to claim 5: Wang teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as described in the 102 rejections above.
Wang does not explicitly teach thermal insulation surrounding the microwave cavity.
However, a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would be advantageous to insulate the microwave cavity, i.e. by at least partially surrounding the microwave cavity with thermal insulation, as doing so will allow the cavity to retain more heat, thereby reducing the amount of heating required to successfully operate the reactor of Wang. Furthermore, it is known in the art to insulate microwave pyrolysis reactors. For example, Holland teaches a microwave pyrolysis reactor 5, wherein said reactor is insulated (abstract, Figure 1, Column 3 Lines 20-31, Column 4 Lines 5-12).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Wang in view of Holland by at least partially surrounding the microwave cavity in thermal insulation, in order to allow the cavity to retain more heat, thereby reducing the amount of heating required to successfully operate the reactor of Wang.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 5, and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Robinson et al. (“Scalable Microwave Waste-To-Fuel Conversion”), hereafter referred to as Robinson.
With regard to claim 1: Robinson teaches a pyrolysis reactor (Introduction, Figure 1) comprising:
A microwave cavity configured to contain a waste mixture within an internal space (Introduction, Figure 1, see annotated Figure 1 below).
And a plurality of probes that couple a corresponding plurality of drive signals into the microwave cavity to excite a plurality of cavity modes and heat the waste mixture (Introduction, Figure 1, see annotated Figure 1 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
272
540
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With regard to claim 2: The microwave cavity has walls shaped as cylindrical shells surround the internal space (Introduction, Figure 1, see annotated Figure 1 above).
With regard to claim 5: The reactor of Robinson may further comprise thermal insulation surrounding the microwave cavity (section titled “Thermal Heating Rate Simulations”, Figure 3).
With regard to claim 6: The reactor of Robinson may further comprise a heat shield (reflective boundary/surround) between the microwave cavity and the thermal insulation (section titled “Thermal Heating Rate Simulations”, Figure 3).
Claim(s) 3 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robinson in view of Bauer et al. (US 11,674,087), hereafter referred to as Bauer, and Wada (US 6,126,907).
With regard to claims 3 and 4: Robinson teaches all of the limitations of claim 2 as described in the 102 rejections above.
Robinson is silent to a linear electrical conductor surrounded by the cylindrical shell, wherein the linear electrical conductor is a spindle for an auger located at least partially within the internal space, to stir the waste mixture.
However, it is known in the art to provide microwave chambers with augers located at least partially within an internal space of a microwave chamber. For example, Bauer teaches a microwave pyrolysis reactor having a microwave chamber 145 with an auger (spiral screw type mixer) 148 disposed at least partially within the internal space of said chamber 145 (abstract, Figures 3A, 4, and 4A, Column 6 Line 60-Column 7 Line 25). The auger 148 has a spindle (Figures 3A, 4, and 4A, Column 7 Lines 15-25). Said auger is used for agitating the feedstock to attain “maximum and even heat distribution” (Column 7 Lines 15-25).
As for the spindle being a linear electrical conductor, said spindle is linear (see Figures 3A and 4A). Thus, so long as said spindle is formed from an electrically conductive material, it will amount to an linear electrical conductor. It is known in the art to form screw conveyors from electrically conductive materials, such as metals. For example, Wada teaches a microwave pyrolysis system comprising stainless steel augers (abstract, Figure 4, Column 6 Lines 18-30 and 46-55). In view of Wada, a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that electrical conductive materials, namely stainless steels, are suitable materials for crafting an auger such as that in the device of Bauer.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Robinson in view of Bauer and Wada by i) disposing an auger having a spindle at least partially within the internal space for the for the purposes of stirring the waste mixture in order to attain improved, even heat distribution, and ii) by forming the auger, including the spindle thereof, from stainless steel, in order to form said auger from a material which is recognized in the art as being suitable for auger construction.
In modified Robinson, because the auger spindle is formed from stainless steel, it amounts to a linear electrical conductor surrounded by the cylindrical shell.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robinson in view of Wang.
With regard to claims 7: Robinson teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as described in the 102 rejections above.
Robinson is silent to at least one frequency selective surface disposed in front of at least a part of the microwave cavity and in the internal space, to surround the waste mixture.
Wang teaches a pyrolysis reactor (abstract), the pyrolysis reactor comprising: A microwave cavity 12 configured to contain a waste mixture within an internal space (Figures 1-6, paragraphs [0045]-[0055]); and a plurality of probes (first and second microwave supplying units) 11 and 13 that couple a corresponding plurality of drive signals (microwaves) into the microwave cavity 12 to excite a plurality of cavity modes and heat the waste mixture (Figures 1-6, paragraphs [0045]-[0055]). The reactor of Wang further comprises at least one frequency selective surface (hollow tube made of microwave penetrable material) 122 disposed in front of the at least part of the microwave cavity and in the internal space to surround the waste mixture (Figure 2, paragraph [0053]). Said frequency selective surface protects the sidewall of the microwave cavity from becoming dirty, and is advantageously easier to clean than said sidewall (paragraph [0053]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Wang in view of Robinson by adding a frequency selective surface, i.e. a hollow tube made of microwave penetrable material, disposed in front of at least a part of the microwave cavity and in the internal space, to surround the waste mixture, in order to provide the system with an easily cleaned barrier which protects the inner wall(s) of the microwave cavity from becoming dirty.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robinson in view of Wesson et al. (US 2015/0351164), hereafter referred to as Wesson.
With regard to claims 8: Robinson teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as described in the 102 rejections above.
The system of Robinson further comprises a plurality of solid-state power amplifiers for amplifying a microwave signal into the plurality of drive signals that are subsequently supplied by the plurality of probes (Introduction, Figure 1, section titled “DC to RF Conversion”, Conclusion, see annotated Figure 1 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
272
540
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Robinson does not explicitly teach an oscillator for generating the microwave signals.
However, it is understood that a power amplifier will first need to be supplied with a microwave signal in order to amplify it. It is well-known in the art to supply signals to such amplifiers using an oscillator. For example, Wesson teaches an RF frequency (microwave) heating apparatus (abstract), the apparatus comprising a microwave cavity 2, a plurality of probes (ports and antenna) 12/3, an oscillator 6 for generating a microwave signal, and a plurality of power amplifiers 16 for amplifying the microwave signal into a plurality of drive signals to be received by the probes 12/3 (Figure 1, paragraphs [0038]-[0050]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Robison in view of Wesson by adding an oscillator for generating the microwave signals
Modified Robinson is silent to one or more variable phase shifters electrically connected to the oscillator, each of the variable phase shifters being configured to phase-shift one of the microwave signals prior to amplification in a corresponding one of the plurality of solid-state power amplifiers.
Robinson teaches, or at least suggests, that the solid-state amplifiers are transistors, i.e. GaN transistors (Introduction, section titled “DC to RF conversion”. Wesson teaches an embodiment comprising a frequency synthesizer 8 and a pair of solid-state power amplifiers positioned downstream of said frequency synthesizer for receiving a microwave signal from said synthesizer (Figure 2, paragraphs [0051]-[0053]). The solid-state power amplifiers may be GaN transistors (Figure 2, paragraph [0052]). It is understood that said frequency synthesizer is, or at least may be, positioned downstream of an oscillator to receive a microwave signal therefrom (Figure 2, paragraphs [0051], [0052], and [0042], especially the second sentence of paragraph [0052] when read and understood in light of the disclosure of Figure 1 and paragraph [0042]). Said embodiment further comprises a variable phase shifter (IQ modulator) 7 electrically connected to an oscillator via the frequency synthesizer 8, the variable phase shifter 7 being configured to phase-shift the microwave signal prior to amplification in a corresponding one of the plurality of the solid-state power amplifiers (Figure 2, paragraphs [0051]-[0053]). Note: Regarding the IQ modulator being/functioning as a variable phase shifter, see paragraph [0053] which states “The use of an IQ modulator 7 arranged as in FIG. 2 may allow a controller 30 to select and adjust the amplitude, phase and frequency of the forward signal, for controlling the RF radiation in the cavity 2,” (emphasis added).
There is motivation to provide Robinson with one or more variable phase shifters arranged in a similar manner. Namely, Robinson teaches that “the relative phase between the feeds… can be used to ensure high uniformity of the electric field within the waste mass,” (caption of Figure 1). It is noted that the term “feeds” here refers to a microwave signal feeds (see Figure 1). Thus, Robinson at least suggests that it would be advantageous to be able to control the phase of the signals supplied to each of the probes.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Robinson in view of Wesson by adding one or more variable phase shifters electrically connected to the oscillator, each of the variable phase shifters being configured to phase-shift one of the microwave signals prior to amplification in a corresponding one of the plurality of solid-state power amplifiers, in order to provide the system of Robinson with a means of controlling the phases of the signals supplied to each of the probes.
Claim(s) 9 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robinson in view of Wesson as applied to claim 8 above, and in further view of Libman et al. (US 2015/0070029), hereafter referred to as Libman, and Libman et al. (US 2013/0306627), hereafter referred to as Libman II.
With regard to claim 9: Modified Robinson is silent to a plurality of sensors for measuring temperatures of the waste mixture; and a processing unit configured to (i) determine, based on measured temperatures, one or more phase-control signals and (ii) output the phase-control signals to the one or more phase-shifters to maximize power transfer to the waste mixture.
Libman teaches a microwave system comprising: a microwave cavity (energy application zone) 102 (Figure 1B, paragraph [0023]), a plurality of power supplies 113, 123, and 133, wherein the power supplies may be oscillators (Figure 1B, paragraphs [0023] and [0042]), a plurality of modulators 115, 125, and 135, wherein the modulators may be phase shifters (phase modulator) (Figure 1B, paragraphs [0023], [0044] and [0080]-[0082]), a plurality of amplifiers 116, 126, and 136 (Figure 1B, paragraphs [0023] and [0044]), a plurality of microwave probes (radiating elements) 110, 120, 136 (Figure 1B, paragraphs [0023] and [0032]), at least one sensor 140 for measuring a property of an object 103 to be treated with microwaves within the microwave cavity, wherein the sensor may be a temperature sensor (Figure 1B, paragraphs [0023] and [0045]), and a processing unit (controller) 150 (Figure 1B, Paragraphs [0023], [045], [0046], [0080]-[0082], and [0088]), wherein the processing unit 150 may be configured to control energy application based on information received from the at least one sensor 140 (paragraph [0088]), and wherein the processing unit 150 may be configured to generator one or more phase control signals to alter a phase difference between two signals over time.
As discussed above Libman’s provides teachings to: i) the at least one sensor 140 being at least one temperature sensor, ii) the processing unit 150 being configured to control energy application based on information received from the at least one sensor 140, and iii) the processing unit 150 being configured to generate one or more phase control signals to alter a phase difference between two signals over time. When taken in combination with one another, these teachings would at least suggest an embodiment wherein the processing unit is configured to i) determine based on measured temperatures one or more phase control signals and ii) output the phase control signals to one or more phase-shifters, in order to achieve some energy application goal, for example, maximization of power transfer.
Should it be doubted that Libman provides a reasonable expectation that a processing unit can use phase control signals to achieve specifically some energy application goal, Libman II, which is drawn to a system very similar to that of Libman, explicitly suggests the use of a processing unit 2030 which generates one or more phase control signals to achieve “a desired energy application goal” (paragraph [0110]).
Furthermore, the fact that Libman teaches the presence of “at least one sensor 140” as opposed to merely --a sensor 140-- would further suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art an embodiment wherein a plurality of sensors are present.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Robinson in view of Libman and Libman II by adding a plurality of sensors for measuring temperatures of the waste mixture; and a processing unit configured to (i) determine, based on measured temperatures, one or more phase-control signals and (ii) output the phase-control signals to the one or more phase-shifters to maximize power transfer to the waste mixture, in order to provide the system of Robinson with a means of automatically regulating phase difference for the purposes of achieving a desired energy transfer goal.
With regard to claim 10: The plurality of temperature sensors in modified Robinson may be a plurality of thermocouples (Libman: Paragraph [0045]).
Modified Robinson is silent to the temperature sensors further including an infrared camera for recording a thermal image stream of the waste mixture.
However, Libman II suggests including a IR camera to generate an image of an object being microwave processed, wherein image data generated by said camera can be used by a processing unit to provide a graphical representation of an object being treated to a user via a GUI (Figure 12, paragraphs [0011], [0131], [0185], [0186]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Robinson in view of Libman II by adding an infrared camera for recording a thermal image stream of the waste mixture, in order to provide the system with a means of generating a graphical representation of an object being treated which can be provided to a user via a GUI.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robinson in view of Wesson, Libman, and Libman II as applied to claim 9 above, and in further view of Sterzer (US 5,149,198).
With regard to claim 11: Modified Robinson is silent to the temperature sensors comprising one or more microwave radiometers for measuring thermally-emitted EM radiation from the waste mixture.
However, it is known in the art to use microwave radiometers to measure temperature. For example, Sterzer teaches the use of microwave radiometers to measure temperature (abstract). It is well established that it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute one known prior art element for another in order to obtain predictable results (MPEP 2143).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Robinson in view of Sterzer by using microwave radiometers configured to measure temperature as the temperature sensors in modified Robinson, in order to obtain a predictably functional system having predictably functional temperature sensors.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robinson.
With regard to claim 19: Robinson teaches a system for processing a waste mixture (Introduction, Figure 1), the system comprising:
A pyrolysis reactor having a plurality of microwave probes configured to drive electromagnetic energy that heats the waste mixture inside the pyrolysis reactor and produce oil (Introduction, Figure 1, see annotated Figure 1 below).
The oil is bio-oil, as evidenced by the fact that the char produced from pyrolysis in the reactor is biochar (Caption of Figure 1). To elaborate, because the char is biochar, it is clear that the material pyrolyzed in the reactor is biomass. Because the pyrolyzed material is biomass, oil produced therefrom will be bio-oil.
Regardless, whether or not the oil is bio-oil is merely a matter of intended use related to the material worked upon. As will be appreciated from the forgoing discussion, whether or not the oil is “bio-oil” is entirely dependent on what type of material is pyrolyzed within the reactor. The type of material pyrolyzed is merely a matter of intended use. Statements regarding intended use/manner of operating a claimed system do not distinguish the claimed system from a prior art system capable of use/operation in the claimed manner (MPEP 2114). Furthermore, system claims are not limited by inclusion of material worked upon (MPEP 2115). The system of Robinson is capable of pyrolyzing biomass to produce bio-oil. Therefore, even if the oil produced in Robinson’s disclosure were not bio-oil, the system of Robinson would still satisfy the claim language regarding the reduction of bio-oil.
The system of Robinson implicitly comprises a microwave power generator for generating the microwave energy supplied by the probes, wherein said probes are connected to the microwave power generator. Such a microwave generator is necessarily present, as it is required to supply microwave energy to the probes.
In the unlikely alternative, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Robinson by adding a microwave generator connected to the probes for generating microwave energy and supplying microwave energy to said probes, in order to render the system actually capable of supplying microwave energy to the interior of the reactor as intended.
PNG
media_image1.png
272
540
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Robinson does not explicitly teach a bio-oil upgrading element for producing a liquid fuel from the bio-oil.
However, Robinson does teach that the bio-oil “can be converted to liquid fuel” (Caption of Figure 1). This teaching by Robinson at least suggests that a bio-oil upgrading element, i.e. an element for converting the bio-oil into liquid fuel, can be included.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Robinson in view of Robinson’s own suggestions by adding a bio-oil upgrading element for producing a liquid fuel from the bio-oil.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robinson as applied to claim 19 above, and in further view of Padgett et al. (US 5,366,595), hereafter referred to as Padgett.
With regard to claim 20: Modified Robinson is silent to an electric generator for at least partially powering the microwave generator using the liquid fuel.
However, a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that some source of electricity would be necessary to power the microwave generator. Electric generators are notoriously well-known in the art as suitable means with which to generate electricity. Furthermore, it is known in the microwave pyrolysis art to use fuel produced by a microwave pyrolysis reactor to power an electrical generator, which in turn powers a microwave generator for driving a microwave pyrolysis process. For example, Padgett teaches a microwave pyrolysis system comprising a microwave pyrolysis reactor (housing) 24, a microwave generator (microwave energy source) 40 for supplying microwaves to the reactor 24, and an electrical generator 74 for powering the microwave generator 40 (Figure 1, Column 5, Column 6 Lines 42-65), wherein the electrical generator 74 uses fuel generated by the microwave pyrolysis reactor 24 (Figure 1, Column 6 Lines 42-65).
In the illustrated embodiment, the fuel is a gaseous fuel, i.e. methane in from methane storage tank 70A (Figure 1, Column 6 Lines 42-65). However, Padgett teaches that “Although not shown, it is contemplated that any of the other fuels recovered in the fractional distillation system 58 are suitable for use by a similar combustion engine,” (Column 6 Lines 62-65). The other fuels recovered from said fractional distillation system 58 include liquid fuels, i.e. gasoline, diesel, and fuel oil (Figure 1, Column 6 Lines 19-42). Therefore, Padgett at least suggests using liquid fuel obtained from microwave pyrolysis for powering the electrical generator 74.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Robinson in view of Padgett by adding an electric generator for at least partially powering the microwave generator using the liquid fuel in order to obtain a system which advantageously requires less external fuel or electricity for power.
Citation of Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Stapela et al. (US 2022/0098045) teaches an apparatus similar to that of the claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN "LUKE" PILCHER whose telephone number is (571)272-2691. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm.
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, In Suk Bullock can be reached at 5712725954. 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.
/JONATHAN LUKE PILCHER/ Examiner, Art Unit 1772