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 .
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, 5–7, 9, 11, 13 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Spencer et al., WO 2018/197843 A1.
Regarding claim 1, Spencer teaches a materials recycling apparatus 10, which reads on the “device for preparing carbon from straws and recycling and treating flue gas and smoke dust.” See Spencer Fig. 1, p. 6, ll. 9–16. Note that the preamble limitation indicating that the device is “for preparing carbon from straws and recycling and treating flue gas and smoke dust” fails to further limit the scope of the claim because it describes the intended use rather than the structure of the device. See MPEP 2111.02, subsection II (the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction where it merely states the purpose or intended use of the invention).
The apparatus 10 comprises a heat treatment chamber 14 which can be used to pyrolyze a material, such as paper, cardboard, green waste and food waste, which reads on the “pyrolysis and carbonization chamber.” See Spencer Fig. 1, p. 6, ll. 9–27, p. 1, ll. 13–21. The apparatus 10 also comprises a scrubber 78 (36), which reads on the “collection and separation chamber.” Id. at Figs. 1, 10, p. 6, ll. 9–27, p. 9, ll. 23–27.
The heat treatment chamber 14 and the scrubber 78 are communicated with each other through an inlet aperture 40’, which reads on the “flue gas inlet.” See Spencer Figs. 1, 10, p. 7, ll. 1–10, p. 9, ll. 23–27.
The scrubber 78 (36) comprises a space between baffle plates 50 and 52, which reads on the “separation area.” See Spencer Figs. 4, 10, p. 7, ll. 11–22. The baffle plate 52 reads on the “first partition plate” and a baffle plate 50 reads on the “second partition plate.” Id. The top of baffle plate 52 is located adjacent to a roof of the scrubber 36 and the bottom of baffle plate 50 is located adjacent to a floor of the scrubber 36. Id. This reads on “the first partition plate and the second partition plate are disposed at upper and lower positions, respectively.” A spray nozzle 58 (the “first sprayer”) is disposed in the space between the baffle plates 50, 52, as claimed. Id. at Figs. 4, 10, p. 8, ll. 1–11.
The apparatus 10 is configured such that the gas (“flue gas”) from the chamber 14 enters the space between baffle plates 50, 52 through the inlet aperture 40’ from above the baffle plate 50 (the “second partition plate”) and is then discharged through an outlet 36 (the “exhaust funnel”) from below the baffle plate 52 (the “first partition plate”), as claimed. See Spencer Fig. 4, p. 7, ll. 23–30, p. 9, ll. 23–27.
PNG
media_image1.png
864
1440
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 2 and 9, Spencer teaches that the scrubber 78 (36) (the “collection and separation chamber”) further comprises a space between baffle plate 48 and a side wall of the scrubber (adjacent to inlet 40). See Spencer Figs. 4, 10, p. 7, ll. 11–30, p. 9, ll. 23–27. The space reads on the “dust falling area.” The “dust falling area” is communicated with the “separation area” (space between baffle plates 50, 52). Id. The apparatus 10 is configured such that after entering the “dust falling area” through the inlet 40, the flue gas enters the “separation area” and is then discharged through outlet aperture 46 (claim 2). Id. The baffle plate 48 reads on the “at least one third partition plate arranged in the dust falling area for allowing the flue gas to pass” (claim 9).
Regarding claim 5, Spencer teaches that a “collection box” is arranged below the “separation area,” which is the floor of the scrubber 78 (36), including scrubber drain 64. See Spencer Figs. 4, 10, p. 7, ll. 11–22, p. 8, ll. 14–24, p. 9, ll. 23–27.
Regarding claim 6, Spencer teaches that the floor of the scrubber 78 (36) (the “collection box”) is communicated with the spray nozzle 58 (the “first sprayer”), as claimed, because the spray nozzle 58 sprays liquid downwardly, as seen in Fig. 4. Spencer also teaches that a pump (the “water pump”) is connected between the floor of the scrubber 78 and the spray nozzle 58 via scrubber drain 64, as claimed. See Spencer Fig. 4, p. 12, ll. 18–24.
Regarding claim 7, Spencer teaches that an upper part of the floor of the scrubber 78 (36) (the “collection box”) is provided with an outlet that leads into scrubber drain 64, which reads on “an upper part of the collection box is provided with a collected liquid outlet.” See Spencer Figs. 4, 10, p. 8, ll. 14–24. Also, the piping of drain 64 is a bottom of the “collection box” and provides an exit for drained liquid, and this reads on “a bottom of the collection box is provided with a sewage draining exit.”
Regarding claim 11, Spencer teaches a drain 20 configured for conveying a material is mounted in the chamber 14 (the “pyrolysis and carbonization chamber”). See Spencer Fig. 1, p. 6, ll. 9–16. The drain 20 reads on the “conveying device.”
Regarding claim 13, Spencer teaches that a “material inlet” of the chamber 14 (the “pyrolysis and carbonization chamber”) is communicated with a “feeding device” because the chamber 14 is fed with material that undergoes pyrolysis within the chamber. See Spencer Fig. 1, p. 6, ll. 9–16. Also, a drain 20 (the “material outlet”) of the chamber 14 is communicated with a drain hose 22 (the “discharging device”). Id.
Regarding claim 17, Spencer teaches that the chamber 14 (the “pyrolysis and carbonization chamber”) is “integrally formed,” as claimed, at least because the body of the chamber 14 is substantially one-piece, as seen in Fig. 1.
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 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spencer et al., WO 2018/197843 A1 in view of Powell et al., US 2007/0125230 A1.
Regarding claim 3, Spencer teaches a pump (the “water pump”) supplies water to spray nozzle 58 (the “first sprayer”) with an outlet being connected to the spray nozzle 58 through a supply pipe 62 (the “pipeline”), as claimed. See Spencer Figs. 4, 10, p. 8, ll. 1–11, p. 12, ll. 18–23.
Spencer differs from claim 3 because it is silent as to the location of the pump. Therefore, the reference fails to provide enough information to teach the pump being “arranged on” the scrubber 78 (36) (the “collection and separation chamber”), as claimed. But Powell teaches an air purification apparatus comprising a chamber 12 (analogous to the scrubber 78 of Spencer) with a water pump 32 located on the chamber 12. See Powell Fig. 1, [0019]–[0020]. It would have been obvious for the pump of Spencer to be arranged the scrubber 78 because this would be a convenient location for the pump, with locating the pump on the scrubber merely representing obvious rearrangement of parts. See MPEP 2144.04, subsection VI, C.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spencer et al., WO 2018/197843 A1 in view of Sorensen et al., US 6,068,686.
Regarding claim 8, Spencer teaches the limitations of claim 2, as explained above.
Spencer differs from claim 2 because it is silent as to a bottom of the “dust falling area” (the space between baffle plate 48 and a side wall of the scrubber, adjacent to inlet 40) being provided with a cleaning door, as claimed. But Sorensen teaches a scrubber comprising access panels to allow access to the interior of the scrubber. See Sorrensen col. 15, ll. 60–67. It would have been obvious for the scrubber 78 (36) of Spencer to comprise an access panel on a bottom of the “dust falling area” to allow access to the interior of the scrubber.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spencer et al., WO 2018/197843 A1 in view of Lannes et al., US 5,596,952.
Regarding claim 10, Spencer teaches the limitations of claim 1, as explained above.
Spencer differs from claim 10 because it is silent as to a thermal insulation material being arranged between the chamber 14 (the “pyrolysis and carbonization chamber”) and the scrubber 78 (36) (the “collection and separation chamber”).
But Spencer teaches that a heat exchanger 26 which transfers heat from exhaust gas to water in a hot water storage tank is located between the chamber 14 and the scrubber 78 (36). See Spencer Fig. 1, p. 6, ll. 17–27. Also, Lannes teaches an indirect water heater comprising an outer jacket which encapsulates a layer of thermal insulation. See Lannes col. 3, ll. 60–64. The layer of thermal insulation is beneficial because it helps to prevent heat loss from the water heater. Id. It would have been obvious to provide a layer of thermal insulation around the heat exchanger 26 of Spencer to prevent heat loss. With this modification, the layer of thermal insulation around the heat exchanger 26 reads on the “thermal insulation material” arranged between the chamber 14 (the “pyrolysis and carbonization chamber”) and the scrubber 78 (36) (the “collection and separation chamber”), as claimed.
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spencer et al., WO 2018/197843 A1 in view of Magaldi et al., US 2008/0229985 A1.
Regarding claims 11 and 12, Spencer teaches the limitations of claim 1, as explained above.
Spencer differs from claims 11 and 12 because it is silent as to the chamber 14 comprising a conveying device configured for conveying a material being mounted in the chamber 14 where the conveying device comprises a parallel conveying device that adopts a parallel chain scraper conveyor, as claimed.
But the chamber 14 of Spencer is used to pyrolyze combustible waste. See Spencer p. 6, ll. 9–16. Also, Magaldi teaches a coal dust boiler comprising a scraper chain conveyor 25 that is used to transport ash to storage silos 26. See Magaldi Fig. 4, [0025]. The scraper chain conveyor 25 is interpreted as comprising parallel sections of chains from the image of Fig. 4. It would have been obvious to use the chain conveyor 25 of Magaldi with the chamber 14 of Spencer to transport ash to a storage silo for storage.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spencer et al., WO 2018/197843 A1 in view of Dogru et al., US 2006/0265954 A1.
Regarding claim 14, Spencer teaches the limitations of claim 13, as explained above.
Spencer differs from claim 14 because it is silent as to the drain hose 22 (the “discharging device”) adopting a first screw conveyor with an outlet of the screw conveyor being connected to a discharging barrel.
But the apparatus 10 of Spencer is used to pyrolyze waste material within chamber 14. See Spencer p. 1, ll. 9–11, p. 6, ll. 9–16. The waste is ejected through a drain 20. Id. Also, Dogru teaches a gasifier 1 for pyrolysis comprising a screw-conveyor auger 19 located to remove ash-slag mixture remaining at the end of a gasification process. See Dogru Fig. 1, [0011], [0077]. It would have been obvious to use the screw conveyor 19 of Dogru in place of the drain 20 and drain hose 22 of Spencer because this would merely represent the simple substitution of one known element for another to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143, subsection I, B.
Claims 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spencer et al., WO 2018/197843 A1 in view of Culver, US 2017/0016288 A1.
Regarding claim 15, Spencer in view of Dogru teaches that the screw conveyor 19 discharges the ash-slag mixture into some container, which reads on the “discharging barrel…arranged at an outlet of the discharging device.” See Dogru Fig. 1, [0011], [0077].
Spencer as modified differs from claim 15 because it is silent as to a second screw conveyor mounted in the discharging barrel as claimed.
But Culver teaches a system comprising a solids hopper 4078 for receiving solid material with a screw conveyor 4090 mounted to the bottom of the hopper 4078. See Culver Fig. 1, [0045]. The screw conveyor 4090 is beneficial because it is able to move the solids out of the hopper 4078 to a desired location. Id.
It would have been obvious for the container of Spencer in view of Dogru to comprise a screw conveyor mounted to the bottom of it to allow tramp material to be moved out of the container to a desired location.
Regarding claim 16, Spencer teaches a spray nozzle 54 (the “second sprayer”) fluidly connected to a floor and drain 64 (collectively the “collection box”) of the scrubber 78 (36). See Spencer Figs. 4, 10, p. 8, ll. 1–19.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spencer et al., WO 2018/197843 A1 in view of Wang et al., US 2012/0305380 A1.
Regarding claim 17, Spencer teaches the limitations of claim 1, as explained above.
Spencer differs from claim 17 because it is silent as to the chamber 14 (the “pyrolysis and carbonization chamber”) being further provided with an oxygen supply opening and an oxygen control valve. But the chamber 14 is used to pyrolyze material. See Spencer p. 6, ll. 9–14. Also, Wang teaches a chamber comprising a pyrolysis pool 1 with an oxygen feeding port 4 and a butterfly valve 5 for controlling the opening/closing of the port 4. See Wang Fig. 1, [0021]. The feeding port 4 and valve 5 are beneficial because it allows the control of oxygen in the pyrolysis pool 1 so that the temperature can be rapidly raised so that that the material in the pool 1 can be quickly dried and preheated and then pyrolyzed. Id. at [0026]. It would have been obvious for the chamber 14 of Spencer to comprise the oxygen feeding port 4 and butterfly valve 5 of Wang to allow the temperature of the chamber 14 to be rapidly raised so that the material in the chamber 14 can be quickly dried and preheated and then pyrolyzed. With this modification, the port 4 reads on the “oxygen supply opening” and the valve 5 reads on the “oxygen control valve.”
Response to Arguments
35 U.S.C. 112(b) Rejections
The Examiner withdraws the previous 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections because of the amendments.
35 U.S.C. 102 & 103 Rejections
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1–3 and 5–17 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Change in Scope Resulting from Amendments
It is noted that claim 1 is amended to include limitations from claim 4. But the amendment changes the scope of original claim 4 because original claim 4 requires that the first partition plate and the second partition plate “are disposed at upper and lower positions” (indicating that they are both at upper and lower positions), whereas amended claim 1 requires that the first partition plate and the second partition plate are “disposed at upper and lower positions, respectively” (indicating that the first plate is at an upper position while the second plate is at a lower position). Also, original claim 4 requires that flue gas “enters” an exhaust funnel from below the first partition plate whereas amended claim 1 requires that gas is “discharged” through an exhaust funnel from below the first partition plate. The change in scope necessitates the new grounds of rejection.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. CN 105214426 A; CN 202382327 U.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 T. BENNETT MCKENZIE whose telephone number is (571)270-5327. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 7:30AM-6:00PM.
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, Jennifer Dieterle can be reached at 571-270-7872. 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.
T. BENNETT MCKENZIE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1776
/T. BENNETT MCKENZIE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1776