DETAILED ACTION
Application Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . This action is in response to Applicant’s submission dated 06/19/2023. Claim(s) 1–14 are pending.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a conveying mechanism configured to transport char from the first end section to the second outlet during use” in claim 1, which has been interpreted to mean “a helical screw housed within a tube element”.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claim(s) 1–2, 4–9, & 11–12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by EP 2,537,912 to Della Toffola et al.
With regard to claims 1 & 12, Della Toffola discloses a char collector for a pyrolysis system and its associated method of operation (abstract), the pyrolysis system featuring a pyrolysis reactor (37) comprising a hot char outlet (46) (Fig. 1; ¶ 0034), the char collector comprises a container (67) and a longitudinal char conveyor unit (69) (Fig. 1; ¶ 0041), and the container (67) comprises a chamber (Fig. 1; ¶ 0041), a first inlet connectable to the hot char outlet (46) and a first outlet (Fig. 1), wherein the first inlet is arranged in an upper portion of the chamber and the first outlet is arranged in a lower portion of the chamber (Fig. 1); and the char conveyor unit (69) comprises a first end section connected to the first outlet (Fig. 1), a second end section featuring a second outlet for cooled char (Fig. 1), and a conveying mechanism (71) configured to transport char from the first end section to the second outlet during use (Fig. 1; ¶ 0041); wherein the second outlet is at a level above the first outlet (Fig. 1), such that a gas trap is formed between the first inlet and the second outlet when the chamber is filled with water up to a level above the first outlet during use (Fig. 1; ¶ 0042).
With regard to claim 2, Della Toffola further discloses the second outlet is at a level above a mid-level of the chamber (Fig. 1).
With regard to claim 4, Della Toffola further discloses the char conveyor unit (69) comprises a longitudinal hollow element in which at least a lower section of the conveying mechanism (71) is arranged (Fig. 1; ¶ 0041).
With regard to claim 5, Della Toffola further discloses the conveying mechanism (71) is a helical screw and the longitudinal hollow element is a tube element (Fig. 1; ¶ 0041).
With regard to claim 6, Della Toffola further discloses the char conveyor unit (69) comprises a third outlet (64) positioned between the first outlet and the second outlet (Fig. 1; ¶¶ 0040–0041), and a lowest level of the third outlet is above a highest level of the first outlet (Fig. 1).
With regard to claim 7, Della Toffola further discloses at least one blade arranged to rotate inside the chamber (67) (Fig. 1; bottom of auger (71) has vanes/flights that can be considered a blade and which extend into the chamber).
With regard to claim 8, Della Toffola further discloses the blade is connected to a rotary shaft arranged to allow rotation of the blade between a first position and a second position (Fig. 1; auger rotates), wherein the blade is at a higher level in the first position than in the second position (Fig. 1; flight move position upward as the shaft rotates).
With regard to claim 9, Della Toffola further discloses the longitudinal char conveyor unit comprises an air inlet (51) arranged at a level above the third outlet (64) (Fig. 1; ¶ 0046).
With regard to claim 11, Della Toffola further discloses the pyrolysis reactor (37) comprises a hot char outlet connected to the first inlet of the char collector (15) (Fig. 1; ¶ 0040).
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 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.
Claims 3 & 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Della Toffola.
With regard to claim 3, Della Toffola further discloses water is added to the chamber when the water level falls below a predetermined level.
Della Toffola fails to disclose the container comprises a controllable water inlet for providing water into the chamber and a water level sensor for measuring a water level inside the chamber, the water level sensor connected to the controllable water inlet. The use of a controllable water inlet and an accompanying water sensor to maintain a pool of water at a predetermined height is old and well-known in the art (a toilet tank is one common example). As such, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the char collector of Della Toffola with the controllable water inlet and sensor well-known to the prior art because such a combination would have had the added benefit of providing a means for automatically maintaining the water level at a desired height.
With regard to claim 10, Della Toffola fails to disclose sensors for measuring temperature, moisture and/or air flow, arranged at the second outlet, the third outlet and/or the air inlet. Sensors for measuring temperature, moisture, and/or air flow are old and well-known in the art. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the char collector of Della Toffola with the sensors known to the prior art because such a combination would have had the added benefit of monitoring the char collection process. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to mount a sensor at the second outlet, third outlet, and/or the air inlet, since to shift the location of parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (Claims to a hydraulic power press which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the starting switch were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device.); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) (the particular placement of a contact in a conductivity measuring device was held to be an obvious matter of design choice).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Della Toffola in view of US 4,557,248 to Richards.
Della Toffola fails to disclose the step of collecting the char from the second outlet comprises loading the char into a fluid tight bag which is subsequently sealed. Richards teaches loading the char into any suitable fluid tight container. Sealable, fluid tight bags are old and well-known in the art (Ziploc ® is one example; poly tubing is another example). As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the char collector of Della Toffola with the char collection container of Richards because such a combination would have had the added benefit of safely securing and storing char, which could otherwise be hazardous to the environment. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to use fluid tight bags as the storage container since they are one of a limited number of options for safely and securely storing potentially hazardous material.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 14 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: see attached PTO-892. Applicant is encouraged to review the cited references prior to submitting a response to this office action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID J LAUX whose telephone number is (571)270-7619. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-5:30 M-F.
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, Edelmira Bosques can be reached at (571) 270-5614. 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.
/DAVID J LAUX/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762
January 30, 2026