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
Applicant's election with traverse of Group II (claims 37-44) in the reply filed on 09/01/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the two groups have corresponding special technical features in addition to heat-conducting walls: the gas discharge precedes the solids discharge in the direction of feedstock travel, and carbonization gas is at least partially burned with oxygen to indirectly heat the reaction chamber. Applicant further argues that Tenore (WO 2018/007964 A1) is not evidence of that ordering, because its char is discharged before the vapors are collected, and that Tenore fails to disclose operation at or above 900 C (Remarks of September 1, 2026, p. 6). This is not found persuasive because even though the cited Tenore is for heat-conducting walls and does not explicitly teach the particular outlet relationship now argued by Applicant, Weber (US 4,260,458) teaches a continuously fed, indirectly heated carbonization oven with upper feed, lower coke discharge, combustion of recovered carbonization-associated gases in heating flues supplied with air, and feedstock temperatures of approximately 1000 C (Weber, col. 2, ll. 51-64; col. 3, ll. 14-24 and 35-63; col. 5, ll. 1-30 and 38-64; Figs. 2a-6). The at-least-900-C amendment does not establish a different common technical feature because Weber teaches feedstock briquettes reaching approximately 1000 C (col. 2, ll. 52-64).
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 24-36 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 09/01/2026.
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.
(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) 37 and 39-41 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Weber (US 4,260,458).
With respect to Claim 37, the claim requires "A reactor system for the carbonization and/or pyrolyzation of a hydrocarbon comprising material, comprising:" Weber teaches a continuously operated vertical coke oven for coking coal and peat briquettes, which are hydrocarbon-comprising carbonaceous feedstocks (Weber, col. 1, ll. 5-14; col. 3, ll. 65-68; Figs. 2a-4).
Claim 37 further requires "a housing comprising:" Weber teaches a coke-oven housing defining chamber(s) 1 with enclosing heating walls 9 and binder walls 10 (Weber, col. 4, ll. 58-68; col. 5, ll. 1-27; Figs. 2a-4).
Claim 37 further requires "heat conducting walls delimiting a reaction zone, wherein the reaction zone is configured to allow displacement of feedstock, and wherein the reaction zone is configured to allow carbonization and/or pyrolyzation of the feedstock to obtain a gas and a residue;" Weber discloses vertical coking chambers 1 delimited by indirect-heating walls 9, which permit briquettes to descend as they are coked, producing gas and coke (Weber, col. 1, ll. 5-14; col. 2, ll. 51-64; col. 4, ll. 58-68; Figs. 2a-4). The heated coke is the claimed residue and gases from the coking stage are the obtained gas.
Claim 37 further requires "an inlet for supplying the feedstock to the reaction zone at an upstream supply position;" Weber supplies coal briquettes to the tops of vertical coking chambers; the briquettes travel downward to lower coke-discharge structures. The top-feed region constitutes the upstream inlet (Weber, col. 1, ll. 18-32; col. 5, ll. 48-62; Figs. 2a, 2b, and 6).
Claim 37 further requires "a gas outlet for discharging the obtained gas from the reaction zone, wherein the gas outlet is positioned at a first discharging position downstream of the reaction zone;" Weber discloses gas extraction openings 23 at the upper part of cooling chamber 1a, immediately below the coking chamber. The extracted hydrogen-rich circuit gas is replenished by gases originating at the bottom of the coking stage (Weber, col. 3, ll. 14-24 and 35-55; col. 5, ll. 38-45; Fig. 5). The openings are downstream of the carbonization chamber in the downward feed direction. This mapping relies on the coking-stage-origin gas carried into the cooling-gas recovery circuit, rather than incorrectly treating Weber's separate upper coke-oven-gas outlet 6 as downstream.
Claim 37 further requires "a combustion channel that is in heat conducting relationship with the heat conducting walls, wherein the combustion channel comprises gas entry points configured to receive an oxygen comprising gas;" Weber teaches heating flues 8 adjacent to heating walls 9 that transfer combustion heat indirectly to the coke-oven chambers. Rich gas nozzles 13 feed flues 8 and combustion air enters via ducts 16, 11a, 11b and slots 12a, 12b (Weber, col. 1, ll. 6-14; col. 5, ll. 1-35; Figs. 3 and 4). Air is an oxygen-comprising gas.
Claim 37 further requires "a connection channel connecting the gas outlet and the combustion channel, and" Weber expressly discloses an embodiment in which a gas outlet from the cooling-gas cycle is connected to the fuel-gas supply of the oven battery so that hydrogen-rich gas extracted from that circuit is fed to and combusted in its heating flues. This expressly calls for a fluid-connection channel between the recovered-gas outlet and the flue-fuel supply (Weber, col. 3, ll. 48-63; col. 5, ll. 1-9). No assertion is made that Weber's illustrated upper product-gas receiver 7 is itself the claimed downstream connection.
Claim 37 further requires "a solid outlet for discharging the residue at a discharging position downstream of the gas outlet," Weber discloses coke discharge pockets 28 and rotating forks 30 at the lower end of the cooling chamber, below gas extraction openings 23 at its upper part (Weber, col. 3, ll. 14-33; col. 5, ll. 38-63; Figs. 5-6). These structures remove the coke residue downstream of the gas-outlet position.
Claim 37 further requires "wherein the hydrocarbon comprising material is indirectly heated to at least 900 °C." Weber teaches indirect heat transfer through heating walls and expressly reports feedstock briquettes heated to approximately 1000 C in the final third of the chamber, above the claimed 900 C threshold (Weber, col. 2, ll. 51-64; Fig. 1).
Weber teaches using the recovered hydrogen-rich gas from the cooling circuit as a heating-flue fuel; the gas recovery circuit is supplied by gas from the bottom of the coking stage, and its gas withdrawal openings precede solid-coke discharge in the direction of solids movement (Weber, col. 3, ll. 14-24 and 35-63; Figs. 5-6).
Regarding claim 39, Weber discloses the subject matter of claim 37 as mapped above.
Claim 39 further requires "wherein the reaction zone is arranged vertically." Weber describes vertically elongated chambers 1 and an upper charging/lower discharge arrangement in Figs. 2a, 2b and 6 (Weber, col. 1, ll. 5-14; col. 4, ll. 58-68). This feature is expressly part of the same continuous coke-oven embodiment; no modification is required.
Regarding claim 40, Weber discloses the subject matter of claim 37 as mapped above.
Claim 40 further requires "comprising two or more reaction zones parallel relative to each other." Weber discloses a battery of parallel coke-oven chambers, recited as parallel interior coke-oven chambers in claim 1 and shown in Figs. 2-4 (Weber, claim 1, col. 6, ll. 15-24; col. 4, ll. 59-66).
Regarding claim 41, Weber discloses the subject matter of claim 37 as mapped above.
Claim 41 further requires "wherein the reaction zone comprises more than one gas outlet for discharging the obtained gas and more than one combustion channel for combusting the obtained gas with the oxygen comprising gas." Weber teaches multiple spaced gas exit openings 23 across the upper portion of the cooling stage adjoining the same coking chamber, and a plurality of parallel heating flues 8 in heating relationship with the oven walls and supplied with combustion air (Weber, col. 3, ll. 14-24; col. 5, ll. 1-30 and 38-46; Figs. 3-5).
Regarding claim 42, Weber discloses the subject matter of claim 37 as mapped above.
Claim 42 further requires "further comprising a cooling system arranged at a downstream position of the gas outlet, wherein the cooling system is configured for cooling down the residue." Weber discloses cooling chamber 1a which extends below recovered-gas outlets 23 and receives hot coke from the carbonization chamber, with cooling-gas supply pockets 22 and coke being cooled to around 30 C before withdrawal at lower discharge pockets 28 (Weber, col. 3, ll. 14-35; col. 5, ll. 38-64; Figs. 5-6). The cooling device extends downstream of the extraction outlets and cools the claimed residue.
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(s) 38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weber (US 4,260,458) as applied to claim 37 above, and further in view of Yao (CN 111040782 A).
With respect to claim 38, Weber teaches the reactor system of claim 37 as discussed above. Claim 38 further requires "wherein at least the heat conducting walls and the combustion channels are made up from refractory materials." Weber teaches heated chamber walls and combustion flues (Weber, col. 1, ll. 5-14; col. 5, ll. 1-30), but Weber does not teach "wherein at least the heat conducting walls and the combustion channels are made up from refractory materials." Yao expressly teaches carbonization chamber 10 and combustion chamber 20 constructed from thermally conductive silica bricks, along with their adjacent gas-fired flues (Yao, Fig. 1 and Example 1, opening paragraph, as machine translated). Silica bricks are refractory materials forming the corresponding heated wall and combustion chamber structures.
It would have been obvious to construct the heating walls and flues of Weber using such heat-resistant, thermally conductive refractory brick because Yao teaches those materials for heat conduction and combustion-chamber construction in the same coke-oven field, thereby predictably retaining high-temperature integrity while transferring burner heat into the charge. A skilled oven designer would have had a reasonable expectation of success because Yao uses silica-brick construction in a comparable coke oven and that refractory construction would have been expected to withstand Weber's approximately 1000 C operating conditions while preserving the heating-flue function (Yao, Fig. 1, Example 1; Weber, col. 2, ll. 52-64).
Claim(s) 43 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weber (US 4,260,458) as applied to claim 37 above, and further in view of Latorre (US 2020/0291300 A1).
With respect to claim 43, Weber teaches the reactor system of claim 37, including burner-supplied indirect coking heat, as discussed above.
Claim 43 further requires "further comprising a pre-heat and dry box arranged near the inlet of the reaction zone, wherein the pre-heat and dry box is configured for pre-heating and optionally drying the feedstock by contact with the combusted gas." Weber teaches preheated and dried briquettes and flying-stream drying before coking (Weber, col. 3, ll. 65-68; col. 4, ll. 1-12), but Weber does not teach "further comprising a pre-heat and dry box arranged near the inlet of the reaction zone, wherein the pre-heat and dry box is configured for pre-heating and optionally drying the feedstock by contact with the combusted gas." However, Latorre teaches a wood dryer 18 in the charging train of a continuous charcoal reactor and expressly teaches directing heating gas after combustion and heat recovery to the wood dryer to dry material subsequently fed through the inlet/charging zone (Latorre, Fig. 1A; specification description of wood dryer 18 and hot-gas generator 11; claim 6). The dryer corresponds to the claimed pre-heat/dry unit in the incoming-feed line.
It would have been obvious to incorporate Latorre's dryer close to Weber's charge inlet and route spent combustion products into it because Latorre uses otherwise available post-combustion heat to remove feed moisture before coking, thereby predictably reducing the evaporation burden in Weber's hot reaction chamber. Since Weber already processes dried/preheated briquettes, an ordinary oven designer would have had a reasonable expectation of success with such upstream fuel-gas drying in the known temperature-controlled feed system (Weber, col. 1, ll. 44-65; Latorre, Fig. 1A and claim 6).
Claim(s) 44 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weber (US 4,260,458) as applied to claim 37 above, and further in view of Peltekis (WO 2018/000050 A1)
With respect to claim 44, Weber teaches the reactor system of claim 37 and coke discharge pockets 28 with rotating discharge forks 30 (Weber, col. 5, ll. 48-64; Figs. 5-6).
Claim 44 further requires "further comprising a breaker mechanism arranged at the solid outlet." Weber teaches rotating discharge forks but does not teach "further comprising a breaker mechanism arranged at the solid outlet." However, Peltekis teaches a turnstile-type char discharge system configured to break up solid matter at the char discharge of its pyrolysis vessel (Peltekis, Fig. 1 and description of char discharge following the fluidized-bed heater discussion, passage beginning "A turnstile-type char discharge system"). The turnstile break-up structure corresponds to a breaker mechanism arranged at a solid outlet.
It would have been obvious to modify Weber's solid coke outlet with Peltekis's known breaking/turnstile discharge mechanism to break up agglomerated or oversized carbonization residue at removal, thereby preserving reliable continuous flow and reducing outlet obstruction. Such a mechanical discharge adaptation is predictably applicable to solid coke handling following Weber's cooling stage, and does not require altering Weber's carbonization chemistry or its heating-flue arrangement (Weber, col. 5, ll. 48-64; Peltekis, cited turnstile-discharge passage).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STARFARI TESHAWN MCCLAIN whose telephone number is (571)272-0169. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 AM- 5 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, Anthony Zimmer can be reached at (571) 270-3591. 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.
/STARFARI TESHAWN MCCLAIN/ Examiner, Art Unit 1736
/ANTHONY J ZIMMER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1736
