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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment, filed 12 August 2026, has been fully considered. It is acknowledged that claims 1-6, 8-11, and 13-14 are amended, and claims 12 and 15 are cancelled by Applicant. Accordingly, claims 1-6 are under full consideration while claims 7-11 and 13-14 remain withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 12 August 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The respective arguments are addressed below:
Applicant argued that “Gu teaches separate feed material inlet 231 and activator inlet 251; while the claimed invention recites a feeder for a feed material which is a mixture of petroleum coke and an activator”. In response, Examiner notes that the inlets 231 and 251 of Gu are not cited as the structures to reject the claimed feeder. Rather, the pretreatment device of Gu is relied upon to reject the claimed feeder. Further, the claim language does not necessitate that one singular feeder feeds both the petroleum coke and the activator. Lastly, the courts have held that [i]nclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims.” In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); see also In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935).
Applicant argued that Gu teaches inlet 231 being separated from inlet 251 and outlet 252 by a partition wall, while the claimed invention has both the feed inlet and product outlet in a single zone. In response, Examiner acknowledges that the claim does not recite any particular structure defining or delimiting the boundaries of the inlet/outlet zone, nor does the claim require the inlet/outlet zone to constitute a discrete chamber separated from adjacent portions of the annular space by a physical boundary. Accordingly, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the inlet/outlet zone may reasonably encompass the portion of the annular space in which the claimed inlet and outlet functions are performed. Gu’s drying chamber 23 and activation chamber 25 form portions of the same annular material path, and the presence of partition wall 22 between those portions does not preclude the region encompassing the feed inlet 231, activator inlet 251, and solid product outlet 252 from corresponding to the claimed inlet/outlet zone.
Applicant argues that Gu does not disclose “a heating section heated using fuel gas or electrical thermal radiation”. Examiner disagrees and points to paragraph 48 of Gu which states, “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”. Applicant also argues that Gu does not teach a constant temperature section heated using microwave heating. Examiner agrees and reminds Applicant that Gu was not relied upon to reject these features of the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventors, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Specifically, the newly added limitations claiming “a portion of the solid product having a diameter greater than particle size distribution D10” and “a portion of the solid product having a diameter smaller than particle size distribution D10” are not supported by the original specification or drawings.
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]) heated using fuel gas or electric thermal radiation (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]); 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 a plurality of baffles (partition walls; see [0058]), which are located inside the housing and affixed thereto (partition walls extend downward from the top wall of the shell; see [0058]), and are spaced apart and disposed above the rotary table (maintain a certain distance from the feeding plate; see [0058]), wherein the inlet/outlet section comprises a feeder of the feed material (the feed inlet 231 is connected to the pretreatment device; see [0058] and “The pretreated raw material is fed into the front end of the drying zone”; see [0047]) and a discharge system for transferring a solid product from inside the housing outside of the housing (The generated activated carbon is discharged through a sealed discharge machine located at the end of the activation chamber; see [0082] and Fig. 3, activated carbon outlet 252).
Regarding the limitations claiming, “a constant temperature section” and “so that the rotary table receives a feed material comprising petroleum coke and an activator in the inlet/outlet zone, carries the feed material 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 or utilization of microwave heating. However, Hwang discloses a sealed annular furnace (furnace chamber which is sealed; see Abstract) and using microwave heating (microwave radiation heats; see [0015]).
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 by sealing the furnace and utilizing microwave heating. Doing so can, respectively, prevent air from entering the chamber (see Hwang [0043]) and allow the process to be carried out at a lower temperature (see Hwang [0021]) and at a greater speed (see Hwang [0050]).
Gu also does not explicitly teach guide holes in each baffle. 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. The limitation claiming that the constant temperature section is operated by using microwave heating was addressed in the rejection of claim 1. Please refer to the claim 1 rejection for the associated rationale. 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 a plurality gas inlets located along a length of 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 “connected to a gas collection device 60 and an activator inlet 251 respectively, so as to use high-temperature oil gas containing water vapor as an activator”; see [0064] and Fig. 3) 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 discharge system (discharged through a sealed discharge machine; see [0082]) is affixed 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 the solid product from the housing (causes the DRI to be discharged; see [0051]); (see Fig. 5, Parts 50 and 52) and 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 in a direction toward the surface of the rotary table, 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 1, 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 each of the plurality of baffles are arranged perpendicular to a 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 one-third to half of each baffle (see Fig. 1, Parts 7A-7C).
The prior art does not explicitly disclose or suggest wherein in each guiding hole, an inlet has a hole diameter greater than a hole diameter of an outlet.
Conclusion
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 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