DETAILED ACTION
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.
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) 1-24, 27-31, 40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seppala (US 9234140 B2) in view of Hu (CN 105509061 A).
Regarding claim 1, Seppala discloses a method comprising generation of a heated fluidic medium by at least one rotary apparatus, the at least one rotary apparatus comprising:
a casing (Fig. 1, 4) with at least one inlet (6) and at least one exit (7),
a rotor comprising at least one row of rotor blades (Fig. 2A, 2) arranged over a circumference of a rotor hub (Fig. 1, 1a) mounted onto a rotor shaft (Fig. 1, 1), and
a plurality of stationary vanes (Fig. 2A, 8) arranged into an assembly at least upstream of the at least one row of rotor blades,
wherein the fluidic medium entering the rotary apparatus is an essentially gaseous medium (col. 3, lines 17-18)
wherein an amount of thermal energy is imparted to a stream of fluidic medium directed along a flow path formed inside the casing between the inlet and the exit by virtue of a series of energy transformations occurring when said stream of fluidic medium passes through the stationary vanes and the at least one row of rotor blades, respectively, whereby a stream of heated fluidic medium is generated (see abstract), the method further comprising:
- conducting an amount of input energy into the at least one rotary apparatus, the input energy comprising electrical energy (drive engine 101, as shown in Fig. 4A, can be electrically operated) (col. 11, lines 4-5),
wherein:
(i) the heated fluid medium generated in the rotary apparatus is a harmful and/or toxic gas (e.g., hydrocarbon containing compounds; col. 4, lines 54-57)
Seppala fails to disclose:
wherein the rotary apparatus is integrated into an incineration facility, and
the method comprising the steps of:
- supplying the stream of heated fluidic medium generated by the at least one rotary apparatus into the incineration production facility, and
- operating said at least one rotary apparatus and said incineration facility to carry out incineration process or processes at temperatures essentially equal to or exceeding about 500 degrees Celsius (°C), and
wherein:
the heated fluidic medium generated in the rotary apparatus undergoes incineration in the incineration facility; or
(ii) the heated fluidic medium generated in the rotary apparatus is used as a combustion medium for liquid and/or solid materials supplied into the incineration facility.
Hu teaches (see English translation for written citations) an incineration facility (Figure 1) that integrates thermal cracking/pyrolysis (pg. 3, S2) with incineration of the cracked gases (pg. 3, S3), and the method comprising the step of:
operating said incineration facility to carry out incineration process or processes at temperatures essentially equal to or exceeding about 500 degrees Celsius (°C) (pg. 3, S3), and
wherein:
the heated fluidic medium generated in the cracking furnace (21) undergoes incineration (combustion furnace 22) in the incineration facility, or
(ii) the heated fluidic medium (i.e., pyrolysis gas) generated in the cracking furnace (Fig. 1, 21) (the cracking furnace is similar to the claimed rotary apparatus except that it gasifies solid waste) is used as a combustion medium for liquid and/or solid materials (Fig. 1, 1) supplied into the incineration facility (the waste 1 is supplied to the cracking furnace 21 of the incineration facility, and the combusted gases, i.e., combustion medium, from the combustion chamber 22 recirculate back into the cracking furnace for heating the waste; see pg. 2, second paragraph)
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art at the time of effective filing of the application to modify Seppala wherein the rotary apparatus is integrated into an incineration facility, and the method comprising the steps of:- supplying the stream of heated fluidic medium generated by the at least one rotary apparatus into the incineration production facility, and - operating said at least one rotary apparatus and said incineration facility to carry out incineration process or processes at temperatures essentially equal to or exceeding about 500 degrees Celsius (°C), wherein: (i) the heated fluidic medium generated in the rotary apparatus undergoes incineration in the incineration facility, or (ii) the heated fluidic medium generated in the rotary apparatus is used as a combustion medium for liquid and/or solid materials supplied into the incineration facility.
With the modification, the cracked gases produced by the rotary apparatus (Seppala) can be sent to the combustion furnace (Hu, 22) or to the cracking furnace (Hu, 21) before being combusted in the combustion furnace. The combusted gas, i.e., combustion medium, can then recirculate back to the cracking furnace 21 for heating the liquid and/or solid material supplied to the incineration facility.
The motivation to combine is so that the cracked gases from the rotary apparatus can be sent to an incineration unit to produce useful heat (e.g., heat to generate electricity or heat to produce hot water for residential and/or commercial use). For example, waste gas streams can be cracked in the rotary apparatus to produce lower molecular weight gases. These gases can then be sent to an incinerator to be combusted to produce energy. Moreover, incineration of the gases would render harmless the gases from the rotary apparatus [see Background Technology of Hu]
Regarding claim 2, modified Seppala discloses the method of claim 1, wherein, in the incineration facility, the at least one rotary apparatus (Seppala) is connected to at least one incineration unit (Hu, 22) configured to carry out incineration process or processes at temperatures essentially equal to or exceeding about 500 degrees Celsius (°C) (Hu, pg. 3).
Regarding claim 3, modified Seppala discloses the method of claim 1, comprising supplying the stream of heated fluidic medium generated by at least one rotary apparatus into the at least one incineration unit within the incineration facility (see rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 4, modified Seppala discloses the method of claim 3, wherein the at least one incineration unit comprises or consists of: an incinerator, a furnace (Hu, 22), an oven, a kiln, a burner, a heater, a dryer, a conveyor device, a reactor, or a combination thereof.
Regarding claim 5, Seppala discloses the method of claim 1, comprising generation, by at least one rotary apparatus, of the fluidic medium heated to the temperature essentially equal to or exceeding about 500 degrees Celsius (0C) (Fig. 3A), preferably, to the temperature essentially equal to or exceeding about 1200 0C, still preferably, to the temperature essentially equal to or exceeding about 1500 C. Note: the limitations with the term “preferably” are examined to be optional of the claim.
Regarding claim 6, Seppala discloses the method of claim 1, comprising adjusting velocity and/or pressure of the stream of fluidic medium propagating through the rotary apparatus, to produce conditions at which the stream of the heated fluidic medium is generated (see claim 12 of Seppala).
Regarding claim 7, Seppala discloses the method of claim 1, in which the heated fluidic medium is generated by at least one rotary apparatus comprising two or more rows of rotor blades sequentially arranged along the rotor shaft (col. 9, lines 5-12).
Regarding claim 8, modified Seppala discloses the method of claim 1, in which the heated fluidic medium is generated by at least one rotary apparatus further comprising
a diffuser area arranged downstream of the at least one row of rotor blades (Fig. 2A of Seppala: region downstream the rotor blades 2), the method comprises
operating the at least one rotary apparatus integrated into the incineration facility such, that an amount of thermal energy is imparted to a stream of fluidic medium directed along a flow path formed inside the casing between the inlet and the exit by virtue of a series of energy transformations occurring when said stream of fluidic medium successively passes through the stationary vanes, the rotor blades and the diffuser area, respectively, whereby a stream of heated fluidic medium is generated (Seppala, abstract).
Regarding claim 9, Seppala discloses the method of claim 8, wherein, in said rotary apparatus, the diffuser area is configured with or without stationary diffuser vanes.
Regarding claim 10, Seppala discloses the method of claim 1, in which the amount of thermal energy added to the stream of fluidic medium propagating through the rotary apparatus is controlled by adjusting the amount of input energy conducted into the at least one rotary apparatus integrated into the incineration facility (the drive engine 11 controls the amount of heating of the fluidic medium).
Regarding claim 11, modified Seppala discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising arranging an additional heating apparatus downstream (Hu teaches combustion furnace 22 comprising two combustion chambers; the upstream chamber can be the additional heating apparatus and the downstream chamber can be the incinerator) of the at least one rotary apparatus and introducing a reactive compound (oxygen) or a mixture of reactive compounds to the stream of fluidic medium propagating through said additional heating apparatus (Hu, pg. 5), whereupon the amount of thermal energy is added to said stream of fluidic medium through exothermic reaction(s) (i.e., combustion).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art at the time of effective filing of the application to modify Seppala to include an additional heating apparatus downstream the at least one rotary apparatus and introducing a reactive compound or a mixture of reactive compounds to the stream of fluidic medium propagating through said additional heating apparatus, whereupon the amount of thermal energy is added to said stream of fluidic medium through exothermic reaction(s). The motivation to combine is so that the heated fluidic medium from the rotary apparatus can be completely combusted, thereby providing optimal energy generation.
Regarding claims 12, 14, modified Seppala discloses wherein the reactive compound or a mixture of reactive compounds is introduced to the stream of fluidic medium preheated to a predetermined temperature, as recited in claim 12, and wherein preheating of the stream of fluidic medium to the predetermined temperature is implemented in the rotary apparatus, as recited in claim 14 (Fig. 3A of Seppala shows the stream preheated in the rotary apparatus to a predetermined temperature).
Regarding claim 13, Seppala fails to disclose the method of claim 12, wherein the reactive compound or a mixture of reactive compounds is introduced to the stream of fluidic medium preheated to a temperature essentially equal to or exceeding about 1500 °C.
However, it has been held that “[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.” See MPEP §2144.05(II)(A) (quoting In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). It has been further held that "[a] particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result, before determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation. Refer to MPEP §2144.05(II)(B)(quoting In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977).
In this case, the rotary apparatus in Seppala preheats the stream of fluidic medium to almost 1000 °C. Preheating the stream to even higher temperatures would provide the conditions needed to crack the larger molecule hydrogens into smaller molecule hydrocarbons (e.g., H2, CO). Therefore, the claimed temperature can be found through routine optimization and is a matter of optimizing the relative amounts of product species formed from the cracking process.
Regarding claim 15, Seppala discloses the method of claim 1, comprising generation of the heated fluidic medium by at least two rotary apparatuses integrated into the incineration facility, wherein the at least two rotary apparatuses are connected in parallel or in series (Fig. 4B).
Regarding claim 16, Seppala discloses the method of claim 15, comprising generation of the heated fluidic medium by at least two sequentially connected rotary apparatuses, wherein the stream of fluidic medium is preheated to a predetermined temperature in at least a first rotary apparatus in a sequence, and wherein said stream of fluidic medium is further heated in at least a second rotary apparatus in the sequence by inputting an additional amount of thermal energy into the stream of preheated fluidic medium propagating through said second rotary apparatus (Fig. 4B).
Regarding claim 17, Seppala fails to disclose wherein, in at least the first rotary apparatus in the sequence, the stream of fluidic medium is preheated to a temperature essentially equal to or exceeding about 1500 °C. However, see the comments made for the rejection of claim 13.
Regarding claim 18, Seppala discloses the method of claim 16, wherein the additional amount of thermal energy is added to the stream of fluidic medium propagating through said at least second rotary apparatus in the sequence by virtue of introducing the reactive compound (Fig. 4B, 6a) or a mixture of reactive compounds into said stream.
Regarding claim 19, modified Seppala discloses the method of claim 1, comprising introducing the reactive compound or a mixture of reactive compounds into the incineration process (see rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 20, Seppala discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the fluidic medium that enters the rotary apparatus is an essentially gaseous medium (abstract).
Regarding claim 21, Seppala discloses the method of claim 1, comprising generation of the heated fluidic medium in the rotary apparatus (abstract).
Regarding claim 22, Seppala discloses the method of claim 21, wherein the heated fluidic medium generated in the rotary apparatus is a harmful and/or toxic gas (see Summary of the Invention).
Regarding claim 23, Seppala discloses the method of claim 21, wherein the heated fluidic medium generated in the rotary apparatus is a gas containing any one of: Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs), hazardous air pollutants (HAPs), odorous gases, or any combination thereof (see Field of Invention and Background).
Regarding claim 24, Seppala discloses the method of claim 21, wherein the heated fluidic medium generated in the rotary apparatus comprises any one of: air, steam (H2O) (col. 10, 1-3), nitrogen (N2), hydrogen (H2), carbon dioxide (CO2), carbon monoxide (CO), methane (CH4), or any combination thereof.
Regarding claim 27, Seppala discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising increasing pressure in the stream of fluidic medium propagating through the rotary apparatus (abstract).
Regarding claim 28, Seppala discloses the method of claim 1, in which the amount of electrical energy conducted as the input energy into the at least one rotary apparatus integrated in the incineration facility is within a range of about 5 percent to 100 percent (100% of the electricity allocated for the drive engine is delivered to the drive engine 101).
Regarding claim 29, Seppala discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the amount of electrical energy conducted as the input energy into the at least one rotary apparatus integrated in the incineration facility is obtainable (i.e., capable of being obtained) from a source of renewable energy or a combination of different sources of energy, optionally, renewable energy (the drive engine 101 can receive electrical power from any electrical source, including sources of renewable energy).
Regarding claim 30, modified Seppala discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the at least one rotary apparatus is utilized to balance variations, such as oversupply and shortage, in the amount of electrical energy, optionally renewable electrical energy, by virtue of being integrated, into the incineration facility, together with an at least one non-electrical energy operable heater device (Seppala; heat recovery unit 103).
Regarding claim 31, Seppala discloses the method of claim 1, wherein energy efficiency of the incineration facility is improved and/or wherein greenhouse gas and particle emissions in the incineration facility are reduced (this is an intended result from the positively recited steps of claim 1, and is therefore not given patentable weight)
Regarding claim 32, modified Seppala discloses (see rejection of claim 1 for citations) an incineration facility comprising at least one rotary apparatus configured to generate a heated fluidic medium, and at least one incineration unit configured to carry out a process or processes related to incineration, the at least one rotary apparatus comprising: a casing with at least one inlet and at least one exit, a rotor comprising at least one row of rotor blades arranged over a circumference of a rotor hub mounted onto a rotor shaft, and a plurality of stationary vanes arranged into an assembly at least upstream of the at least one row of rotor blades, wherein the fluidic medium entering the rotary apparatus is an essentially gaseous medium, wherein the at least one rotary apparatus is configured to operate such that an amount of thermal energy is imparted to a stream of fluidic medium directed along a flow path formed inside the casing between the inlet and the exit by virtue of a series of energy transformations occurring when said stream of fluidic medium passes through the stationary vanes and the at least one row of rotor blades, respectively, whereby a stream of heated fluidic medium is generated, and wherein said at least one rotary apparatus is configured to receive an amount of input energy, the input energy comprising electrical energy, and to generate a heated fluidic medium for inputting thermal energy into at least one incineration unit configured to carry out incineration process(es) at temperatures essentially equal to or exceeding about 500 degrees Celsius (°C), wherein:(i) the heated fluidic medium generated in the rotary apparatus is a harmful and/or toxic gas which undergoes incineration in the incineration facility;or (ii) the heated fluidic medium generated in the rotary apparatus is used as a combustion medium for liquid and/or solid materials supplied into the incineration facility
Regarding claim 33, modified Seppala discloses (see rejection of claim 4 for citations) the incineration facility of claim 32, wherein the at least one incineration unit comprises or consists of: an incinerator, a furnace, an oven, a kiln, a burner, a heater, a dryer, a conveyor device, a reactor, or a combination thereof.
Regarding claim 34, modified Seppala discloses (see rejection of claim 8 for citations) the incineration facility of claim 32, wherein the at least one rotary apparatus comprises two or more rows of rotor blades sequentially arranged along the rotor shaft.
Regarding claim 35, modified Seppala discloses (see rejection of claim 4 for citations) the incineration facility of claim 32, wherein the at least one rotary apparatus further comprises a diffuser area arranged downstream of the at least one row of rotor blades.
Regarding claim 36, modified Seppala discloses (see rejection of claim 9 for citations) the incineration facility of claim 32, wherein the rotary apparatus comprises the diffuser area configured with or without stationary diffuser vanes.
Regarding claim 37, modified Seppala discloses (see rejection of claim 4 for citations) the incineration facility of claim 32, wherein the at least one rotary apparatus is further configured to increase pressure in the fluidic stream propagating therethrough (Seppala, abstract).
Regarding claim 38, modified Seppala discloses (see rejection of claim 15 for citations) the incineration facility of claim 32, wherein at least two rotary apparatuses are arranged into an assembly and connected in parallel or in series.
Regarding claim 39, modified Seppala discloses the incineration facility of claim 32, configured to implement incineration of waste gas via a process of thermal oxidation (i.e., combustion).
Regarding claim 40, modified Seppala discloses an incineration facility, configured to implement a process or processes for disposal of harmful and/or toxic substances by incineration through a method as defined in claim 1.
Claim(s) 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seppala (US 9234140 B2) in view of Hu (CN 105509061 A), as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Tsangaris (US 20070284453 A1).
Regarding claim 26, Seidel discloses the method of claim 1, except further comprising generation of a heated fluidic medium, such as gas, vapor, liquid, and mixtures thereof, and/or heated solid materials outside the rotary apparatus through a process of heat transfer between the heated fluidic medium generated in the rotary apparatus and any one of the above-mentioned substances bypassing the rotary apparatus.
However, Tsangaris teaches a heat recovery system for a gasifier/pyrolyzer, wherein generation of a heated fluidic medium, such as gas (e.g., steam), vapor (e.g., steam), liquid (e.g., heated oil), and mixtures thereof, and/or heated solid materials outside the gasifier through a process of heat transfer between the heated fluidic medium generated in the gasifier and any one of the above-mentioned substances bypassing the gasifier (the heated fluidic/heat exchange medium is used in a preheater to preheat the feedstock to be gasified) (see abstract and para. 56).
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art at the time of effective filing of the application to modify Seppala wherein generation of a heated fluidic medium, such as gas, vapor, liquid, and mixtures thereof, and/or heated solid materials outside the rotary apparatus through a process of heat transfer between the heated fluidic medium generated in the rotary apparatus and any one of the above-mentioned substances bypassing the rotary apparatus.
The motivation to combine is to improve heat efficiency by using the heat from the heat exchange with the heated fluidic medium generated by the rotary apparatus to preheat the fluidic medium entering the rotary apparatus.
Response to Arguments
35 USC 102 Rejection
The arguments made against the rejection of claim 40 are moot since claim 40 is rejected under 35 USC 103 in light of the amendment to claim 1.
35 USC 103 Rejections
Applicant asserts the following on page(s) 10 of the Remarks:
PNG
media_image1.png
210
632
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s response:
The claimed invention does not distinguish between a heating process with chemical transformation, and a heating process without chemical transformation. Applicant is encouraged to further distinguish the claimed invention over the prior art.
Applicant asserts the following on page(s) 11 of the Remarks:
PNG
media_image2.png
208
612
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s response:
The modification does not replace Hu’s pyrolysis furnace 21. With the modification, the cracked gases produced by the rotary apparatus (Seppala) can be sent to the combustion furnace (Hu, 22) or to the cracking furnace (Hu, 21) before being combusted in the combustion furnace.
Applicant asserts the following on page(s) 11, 12 of the Remarks:
PNG
media_image3.png
350
634
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s response:
The Examiner respectfully disagrees that amended clam 1 requires that the combustion medium contacts the liquid or solid waste. Seppala in view of Hu discloses alternative (ii), where the heated fluidic medium generated in the rotary apparatus is combusted in the combustion furnace (Hu, 22), and the combusted gases, i.e., combustion medium, from the combustion chamber 22 recirculate back into the cracking furnace for heating the waste (pg. 2, second paragraph).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON LAU whose telephone number is (571)270-7644. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00-5:00.
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, Michael Hoang can be reached at 571-272-6460. 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.
/JASON LAU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762
Prosecution Insights