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Claims 30-33 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected system, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on February 25, 2026.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because of undue length. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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.
Claims 25-26 are 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.
Claim 25 recites the limitation "the combustion chamber" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 26 depends on claim 25 and is rejected under the same reasoning.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4, 6, 15, 19-20, and 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ramirez Corredores et al. (US 2015/0247095 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Ramirez Corredores et al. discloses a pyrolytic reactor for recovering carbon from certain plastics comprising: at least one reactor vessel, the at least one reactor vessel having a first reaction chamber (315) and a second reaction chamber (329), a material delivery system for delivering the certain plastics in particulate form to the first reaction chamber (315), since biomass may be introduced directly into the first reactor (315) through line (317) (see paragraph 0065); a catalyst delivery system for delivering a metal catalyst to the second reaction chamber, since in the second reactor stage (329), a catalyst portion (311) is/are introduced (see paragraphs 0065-0068); and a separator (324), where the particulate plastic material is heated in the first reaction chamber to a first temperature range so as to decompose into a collection of gases that are heated in the second reaction chamber in conjunction with the metal catalyst to form a collection of post-reactor gases having carbon coated catalytic material entrained therein, the separator operable to separate at least some of the carbon coated catalytic material from the post-reactor gases (see figure 3A-C and paragraphs 0065-0068), since the reactors are typically fluid bed reactors wherein at least part of the thermocatalyst might be used as a heat carrier(see paragraph 0055); typically, the reactor(s) is operated at temperatures in excess of 250°C; in some conversion reactions, such as fast pyrolysis, where the biomass is exposed to short contact times and rapid heating, reaction temperatures may be as high as 1,000°C (see paragraph 0058); and since the use of the apparatus isn't limiting or the material the apparatus acts upon isn't limiting.
Regarding claims 2 and 4, Ramirez Corredores et al. discloses a pyrolytic reactor where the first temperature range is between 400°C and 650°C; and where the second temperature range is between 600°C and 900°C, since the reactors are typically fluid bed reactors wherein at least part of the thermocatalyst might be used as a heat carrier(see paragraph 0055); typically, the reactor(s) is operated at temperatures in excess of 250°C; in some conversion reactions, such as fast pyrolysis, where the biomass is exposed to short contact times and rapid heating, reaction temperatures may be as high as 1,000°C (see paragraph 0058); and since the use of the apparatus isn't limiting or the material the apparatus acts upon isn't limiting.
Regarding claim 6, Ramirez Corredores et al. discloses a pyrolytic reactor where the separator is a cyclonic separator (cyclone) (see paragraph 0061).
Regarding claim 15, Ramirez Corredores et al. discloses a pyrolytic reactor where the material delivery system and/or the catalyst delivery system has a feed rate of between 0.5 and 10 grams per minute (see figure 3A-C and paragraphs 0065-0068), since the use of the apparatus isn't limiting or the material the apparatus acts upon isn't limiting.
Regarding claims 19-20, Ramirez Corredores et al. discloses a pyrolytic reactor where the ratio of catalyst to particulate material is one of the following: 1:2; 1:4; 1:6; and where the post-reactor gases separated by the separator are oxidised in a combustion chamber (see figure 3A-C and paragraphs 0065-0068), since the use of the apparatus isn't limiting or the material the apparatus acts upon isn't limiting.
Regarding claim 27, Ramirez Corredores et al. discloses a pyrolytic reactor where the post- reactor gases separated by the separator are delivered to a solid-oxide fuel cell or a hydrogen recovery system (see figure 3A-C and paragraphs 0065-0068), since the use of the apparatus isn't limiting or the material the apparatus acts upon isn't limiting.
Claim Rejections - 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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramirez Corredores et al. (US 2015/0247095 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mazanec et al. (I) (US 2014/0031583 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Ramirez Corredores et al. fails to disclose a pyrolytic reactor where the metal catalyst is an iron-based catalyst.
Mazanec et al. (I) discloses a FCP catalyst that is iron-based (see paragraph 0065).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to the metal catalyst is an iron-based catalyst, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice.
Claim(s) 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramirez Corredores et al. (US 2015/0247095 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Schultz et al. (US 4,924,785).
Regarding claims 8-9, Ramirez Corredores et al. fails to disclose a pyrolytic reactor where each reaction chamber of the first reactor vessel is heated by an electric furnace; and where the electric furnace is a multi-zone electric furnace, at least one zone of the multi-zone electric furnace operable to heat the first reaction chamber and at least one zone of the multi-zone electric furnace operable to heat the second reaction chamber.
Ramirez Corredores et al. discloses that the reactors are a fluidized bed reactor, a cyclone reactor, an ablative reactor, an auger reactor, a riser reactor, a trickle bed configuration, another bed regimen or a combination thereof (see paragraph 0055).
Schultz et al. discloses a semi-continuous pyrolysis arrangement is disclosed which is particularly useful in the reclamation of a base material in a substantially pure form from a composite material which has organic compounds; the furnace base barrier free zones wherein the waste material is continuously pyrolyzed as it is indexed through the furnace and each zone is controlled in a preset manner established from pyrolyzing a sample waste specimen under controlled conditions (see Abstract); a thermal gravimetric furnace (10); and the thermal gravimetric furnace (10) conceptually comprises a sealed furnace shell (12) which is indirectly heated by electric heating elements (13) (see figure 1; and column 9, lines 7-36).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Ramirez Corredores et al. with the teachings of Schultz et al. resulting in a pyrolytic reactor where each reaction chamber of the first reactor vessel is heated by an electric furnace for improved heat exchange within the reaction chambers.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Ramirez Corredores et al. with the teachings of Schultz et al. resulting in a pyrolytic reactor where the electric furnace is a multi-zone electric furnace, at least one zone of the multi-zone electric furnace operable to heat the first reaction chamber and at least one zone of the multi-zone electric furnace operable to heat the second reaction chamber for improved heat exchange within the reaction chamber.
Claim(s) 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramirez Corredores et al. (US 2015/0247095 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Ramirez Corredores et al. discloses a pyrolytic reactor where the second reaction chamber (329) is positioned above the first reaction chamber (315) (see figures 3A-C and paragraphs 0065-0068).
Ramirez Corredores et al. fails to disclose a connecting chamber connects the first reaction chamber to the second reaction chamber.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have a connecting chamber connects the first reaction chamber to the second reaction chamber, since applicant has not disclosed that having a connecting chamber connects the first reaction chamber to the second reaction chamber solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform well with a connecting chamber connects the first reaction chamber to the second reaction chamber.
Regarding claim 11, Ramirez Corredores et al. fails to explicitly disclose a pyrolytic reactor further including a perforated base plate located within the second reaction chamber, the perforations of the base plate being sized so as to allow gases to pass therethrough but prevent the metal catalyst from falling therethrough.
Ramirez Corredores et al. discloses that the reactors are a fluidized bed reactor, a cyclone reactor, an ablative reactor, an auger reactor, a riser reactor, a trickle bed configuration, another bed regimen or a combination thereof (see paragraph 0055) wherein a fluidized bed reactor would require a perforated base plate located within the reaction chamber, the perforations of the base plate being sized so as to allow gases to pass therethrough but prevent the metal catalyst from falling therethrough.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have a pyrolytic reactor further including a perforated base plate located within the second reaction chamber, the perforations of the base plate being sized so as to allow gases to pass therethrough but prevent the metal catalyst from falling therethrough, since applicant has not disclosed that having a pyrolytic reactor further including a perforated base plate located within the second reaction chamber, the perforations of the base plate being sized so as to allow gases to pass therethrough but prevent the metal catalyst from falling therethrough solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform well with a pyrolytic reactor further including a perforated base plate located within the second reaction chamber, the perforations of the base plate being sized so as to allow gases to pass therethrough but prevent the metal catalyst from falling therethrough.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramirez Corredores et al. (US 2015/0247095 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mazanec et al. (II) (US 10,173,207 B2).
Regarding claim 16, Ramirez Corredores et al. fails to disclose a pyrolytic reactor where the catalyst delivery system comprises a catalyst hopper that feeds the metal catalyst to a second feeder unit that delivers the metal catalyst to the second reaction chamber.
Mazanec et al. (II) discloses a catalyst feed hopper of a fluid bed catalytic fast pyrolysis reactor (see column 4, lines 14-26).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Ramirez Corredores et al. with the teachings of Mazanec et al. (II) resulting in a pyrolytic reactor where the catalyst delivery system comprises a catalyst hopper that feeds the metal catalyst to a second feeder unit that delivers the metal catalyst to the second reaction chamber for a more efficient means of delivering catalyst to the second reaction chamber.
Claim(s) 34-35, 37, 39, and 41 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Ramirez Corredores et al. (US 2015/0247095 A1) as evidence by Hammel et al. (AU 2013201704 B2).
Regarding claim 34, Ramirez Corredores et al. discloses a method for recovering carbon from certain plastics using the pyrolytic reactor claimed in claim 1, the method comprising the steps of: heating particulate material in a first reaction chamber of at least one reactor vessel (315) to a first temperature range so as to decompose the particulate material into a collection of gases; delivering a metal catalyst to a second reaction chamber (329) of at least one reactor vessel; heating the collection of gases and the metal catalyst in the second reaction chamber (329) to a second temperature range to form a collection of post-reactor gases having a carbon coated catalytic material entrained therein; separating the carbon coated catalytic material from the post-reactor gases, through solids separator (324) (see figure 3A-C and paragraphs 0065-0068).
Hammel et al. discloses a drawback of carbon layers depositing on the surfaces of catalyst in catalyst-supported processes (see page 3, lines 6-28) resulting in a collection of post-reactor gases having a carbon coated catalytic material entrained therein; and separating the carbon coated catalytic material from the post-reactor gases.
Regarding claims 35, 37, 39, and 41, Ramirez Corredores et al. discloses a method where the first temperature range is between 400°C and 650°C; where the second temperature range is between 600°C and 900°C (see paragraph 0058); where the method of separating the carbon coated catalytic material from the post-reactor gases is achieved by centrifugal separation (cyclone) (see paragraph 0061); and further comprising the step of using the collection of gases to agitate the catalyst in the second reaction chamber (329), since the gases from the first reaction chamber (315) travels up to the second reaction chamber (329) (see figure 3A-C and paragraphs 0065-0068).
Claim(s) 40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramirez Corredores et al. (US 2015/0247095 A1) as evidence by Hammel et al. (AU 2013201704 B2) as applied to claim 34 above, and further in view of Mazanec et al. (I) (US 2014/0031583 A1).
Regarding claim 40, Ramirez Corredores et al. fails to disclose a method where the metal catalyst is an iron-based catalyst.
Mazanec et al. (I) discloses a FCP catalyst that is iron-based (see paragraph 0065).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to the metal catalyst is an iron-based catalyst, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12-14, 17, 21-24, 29, and 42-57 are 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.
Regarding claims 12-13, the prior art references fails to disclose or suggest a pyrolytic reactor further comprising a channel mixer, the channel mixer operable to deliver at least one of the following: post-reactor gases to the first reactor chamber; post-reactor gases to the second reactor chamber; nitrogen to the second reactor chamber; hydrogen to the second reactor chamber; nitrogen to the first reactor chamber; hydrogen to the first reactor chamber; and where the material delivery system operates to unseal an opening in a sealed removable cartridge to allow the particulate plastic material contained therein to pass to a first feeder unit that delivers the particulate plastic material to the first reaction chamber.
Claim 14 depend on claim 13.
Regarding claims 17, 21, 29, the prior art references fails to disclose or suggest a pyrolytic reactor where the second feeder unit is an Archimedes screw that delivers the metal catalyst to the top of the second reaction chamber; where the combustion chamber delivers at least some by-products of the oxidisation process back to the first reaction chamber; and where the hydrogen recovery system comprises a removable cartridge filled with metal compounds through which the post-reactor gases are directed, the metal compounds capable of absorbing hydrogen to form hydrides.
Claim 22-24 depend on claim 21.
Regarding claims 42-43, 45-47, 52-54, and 56, the prior art references fail to disclose or suggest a method further comprising the step of using a channel mixer to deliver at least one of the following: post-reactor gases to the first reactor chamber; post-reactor gases to the second reactor chamber; nitrogen to the second reactor chamber; hydrogen to the second reactor chamber; nitrogen to the first reactor chamber; hydrogen to the second reactor chamber; further comprising the steps of: unsealing an opening in a sealed removable cartridge to allow the particulate plastic material contained therein to pass to a first feeder unit; and using the first feeder unit to deliver the particulate plastic material to the first reaction chamber; further comprising the step of feeding the metal catalyst to the top of the second reaction chamber at a feed rate of between 0.5 and 10 grams per minute; where the ratio of the feed rate of the catalyst to the feed rate of the particulate material is one of the following: 1:2; 1:4; 1:6; further comprising the step of oxidizing the post-reactor gases in a combustion chamber; further comprising the steps of: recovering at least some chemical energy generated in the combustion chamber; and using the recovered energy to power an electric furnace used to heat either the first reaction chamber, the second reaction chamber, or both the first and second reaction chambers; further comprising the step of delivering the post-reactor gases to a solid-oxide fuel cell; further comprising the step of delivering the post-reactor gases to a solid-oxide fuel cell; further comprising the step of delivering the post-reactor gases to a hydrogen recovery system; and further comprising the steps of: grinding a deposited plastic article into particulate material; depositing the particulate material into a removable cartridge; and sealing the removable cartridge so as to prevent the particulate material from entering the environment during transfer.
Claim 44 depends on claim 43.
Claims 48-51 depend on claim 47.
Claim 55 depends on claim 54.
Claim 57 depends on claim 56.
Claims 25-26 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claims 25, the prior art references fails to disclose or suggest a pyrolytic reactor further including an energy recovery system to recover at least some of the chemical energy generated in the combustion chamber.
Claim 26 depend on claim 25.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATASHA E YOUNG whose telephone number is (571)270-3163. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00 am - 6:00 pm.
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, Wang Claire 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.
NATASHA E. YOUNG
Examiner
Art Unit 1774
/NATASHA E YOUNG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1774
