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
Claims 7-15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 12 February 2026. Accordingly, Claims 1-6 are under full consideration.
Summary
This is a non-final office action for application 18/260,362 filed on 05 July 2023. In response to Applicant’s election of Group I, claims 1-6, filed on 12 February 2026, which was a reply to the election/restriction requirement sent on 22 December 2025, Claims 1-6 are under full consideration.
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.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Particularly, the claim language, “particle size distribution greater than D10” and “particle size distribution lower than D10” is unclear because D10 itself is a particle size distribution parameter representing a percentile particle diameter, such that it is unclear what specifically is “greater than D10” or “lower than D10”. Accordingly, the metes and bounds of the claim are uncertain.
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.
Claims 1-3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gu (CN-104787762-B) in view of Hwang et al. (US-20080087135-A1), hereinafter “Hwang”, and Boffa (CN-88103424-A).
Regarding Claim 1, Gu discloses an annular furnace (annular furnace cavity; see [0022]) reactor (pyrolysis furnace; see [0010]), comprising: a housing, which forms an annular space (the shell forms an annular furnace cavity; see [0022]) divided into an inlet/outlet zone (see Fig. 3, inlet 231 and outlet 232), a high-temperature zone (the materials in the drying zone can be heated by the high-temperature…; see [0050]) and a cooling zone (The other part is cooled; see [0081]), wherein the high-temperature zone comprises a heating section (The heat source for drying is radiant heat transfer; see [0048]); a rotary table ( rotary bed ; see [0018]), which is located inside the housing and arranged along the annular space thereof (A feeding tray, which is rotatably located at the lower part of the annular furnace cavity; see [0023]), wherein the rotary table rotates relative to the housing (the shell 21 forms an annular furnace cavity, the feeding plate is rotatably located at the lower part of the annular furnace cavity; see [0058] and Fig. 3. If the feeding plate is rotatably connected to the shell/housing, then it must be rotatable relative to the shell/housing); and baffles (partition walls; see [0058]), which are located inside the housing and fixed thereon (partition walls extend downward from the top wall of the shell; see [0058]), and are spaced arranged above the rotary table (maintain a certain distance from the feeding plate; see [0058]), wherein the baffles comprise a plurality of guiding holes.
Regarding the limitations claiming, “a constant temperature section” and “so that the rotary table receives a feed material which is a mixture of petroleum coke and an activator in the inlet/outlet zone, carries the mixed feed material of petroleum coke and the activator into the high-temperature zone and the cooling zone in sequence, and then discharges in the inlet/outlet zone”, these are functional limitations that do not further limit the structure of the apparatus, but merely set forth a manner of operating the apparatus. The Courts have held that apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art in terms of structure, not function. See In re Danley, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959); and Hewlett-Packard Co. V. Bausch and Lomb, Inc., 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (see MPEP §§ 2114 and 2173.05(g)). The manner of operating an apparatus does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art, if the prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim. See Ex Parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (BPAI 1987). Functional limitations that do not limit the structure need not be given further due consideration in determining patentability of an apparatus.
Gu does not explicitly teach sealing. However, Hwang discloses a sealed annular furnace (furnace chamber which is sealed; see Abstract).
Gu and Hwang are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the field of heat treating furnaces. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Gu by incorporating the teachings of Hwang and sealing the furnace. Doing so can prevent air from entering the chamber (see Hwang [0043]).
Gu also does not explicitly teach guide holes in the baffles. However, Boffa discloses baffles with guide holes (ventilation holes in the partition wall; see [0030]).
Gu and Boffa are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of heat treating furnaces. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Gu by incorporating the teachings of Boffa and including guide holes in the baffles/partitions. Doing so allows fluid connection between chambers in the furnace (see Boffa [0004]).
Regarding Claim 2, Gu, Hwang, and Boffa together disclose the annular furnace reactor of claim 1. Gu further discloses wherein the heating section is operated by fuel gas or electric thermal radiation heating (The heat source for drying is radiant heat transfer from the radiant tube, radiant heat inside the furnace, and high-temperature oil and gas inside the furnace; see [0048]). Hwang further discloses microwave heating (microwave radiation heats; see [0015]). This modification would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because microwave radiation heating allows the process to be carried out at a lower temperature (see Hwang [0021]) and at a greater speed (see Hwang [0050]).
Regarding the limitations claiming, “the heating section is heated for a time of 30-300 minutes, preferably 60-180 minutes; and the constant temperature section is operated at a constant temperature of 700-1000°C, preferably 800-950°C for a time of 10-120 minutes, preferably20-60 minutes”, these are functional limitations that do not further limit the structure of the apparatus, but merely set forth a manner of operating the apparatus. The Courts have held that apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art in terms of structure, not function. See In re Danley, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959); and Hewlett-Packard Co. V. Bausch and Lomb, Inc., 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (see MPEP §§ 2114 and 2173.05(g)). The manner of operating an apparatus does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art, if the prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim. See Ex Parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (BPAI 1987). Functional limitations that do not limit the structure need not be given further due consideration in determining patentability of an apparatus.
Regarding Claim 3, Gu, Hwang, and Boffa together disclose the annular furnace reactor of claim 1. Gu further discloses one or more carrier gas inlets located in the inlet/outlet zone (“The drying chamber has a feed inlet”; see [0026]; and/or “A circulating gas inlet is set in the lower furnace wall”; see [0080]) and a gas outlet located in the high-temperature zone (The drying chamber has a feed inlet and a high-temperature oil and gas outlet; see [0026]).
Regarding Claim 5, Gu, Hwang, and Boffa together disclose the annular furnace reactor of claim 1. Gu further discloses wherein the inlet/outlet zone comprises a discharge system (discharged through a sealed discharge machine; see [0082]), which is fixed inside the housing (sealed discharge machine located at the end of the activation zone; see [0082]). Hwang further discloses wherein the discharge system comprises a spiral discharge device (a steel plow (or screw) causes the DRI to be discharged; see [0051]), which outputs a discharge material horizontally (see Fig. 5, Parts 50 and 52) from its top (discharged at the top; see [0069]), a conveyor belt (The conveyor 132 discharges all of these materials; see [0074]), with one end located at the top of the spiral discharge device (a screw conveyor 105 may be employed to assist in advance of the feed material; see [0066]; because the screw conveyor is helping to advance the material, and the endless conveyor is also advancing material, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art that these two devices are connected in series), and a lifting surface, to pick up the discharge material on the rotary table to the other end of the conveyor belt (particles are also deposited in a layer onto a conveyor 148 by a second dispenser; see [0074]).
Regarding the limitations claiming that the lifting surface and conveyor belt are inclined, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select an appropriate inclination angle based on desired flow characteristics, spatial arrangement, gravity assistance, or similar operational considerations, since the angle of inclination constitutes a result-effective variable and optimization thereof would have amounted to routine experimentation (see MPEP § 2144.05).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The closest prior art is Gu (CN-104787762-B) in view of Hwang et al. (US-20080087135-A1), hereinafter “Hwang”, and Boffa (CN-88103424-A), as applied to claim 1, further in view of Nuno (WO-2016009177-A1). Regarding Claim 4, Gu, Hwang, and Boffa together disclose the annular furnace reactor of claim 1. Gu further discloses wherein the baffles are arranged perpendicular to the surface of the rotary table (multiple partition walls 22 extend downward from the top wall of the shell 21 and maintain a certain distance from the feeding plate; see [0058] and Fig. 3). Boffa further discloses wherein the plurality of guiding holes are arranged at the upper on-third to half of the baffles (see Fig. 1, Parts 7A-7C).
Gu does not explicitly teach the arrangement of the guide holes. However, Nuno discloses the guiding holes are formed at an opening rate of 20% to 30% (a baffle within the reactor tube, defining a plurality of orifices and having a free open area of up to 30%; see Pg. 4 Lines 3-4).
Gu and Nuno are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of controlling fluid flow through baffle/partition structures within a process chamber. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Gu by incorporating the teachings of Nuno and providing an opening rate of up to 30%. Doing so would change the flow behavior through the baffle (see Pg. 4 Lines 10-15).
The prior art does not explicitly disclose or suggest wherein the inlet side of guiding holes in a baffle has a hole diameter greater than that of the outlet side.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALYSSA LEE KUYKENDALL whose telephone number is (571)270-3806. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday 9:00am-5:00pm.
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, Claire Wang can be reached at 571-270-1051. 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.
/A.L.K./Examiner, Art Unit 1774
/CLAIRE X WANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1774
Prosecution Insights