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 .
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.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers (FINLAND 20215103 02/01/2021) required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements dated 8/4/2023 and 12/17/2025 have been considered and made of record.
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 1-19 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.
In claim 1, the following claim elements lack antecedent basis:
“the outer surface” at line 6;
“the shell” at line 8;
“the outer shell elements and inner shell element” at line 9;
“the housing structure” at line 11;
“the filling space or housing” bridging lines 11-12; and
“said shell elements” at line 12 (Note: it is not clear if this reference to shell elements is referring to the outer, inner or both of the previously recited shell elements).
Additionally in claim 1, use of the language “is concreted” is considered indefinite because it is not clear if the “filling space or housing” includes concrete or is merely intended to be “concreted”. Clarification and/or correction is requested. This claim language will be treated on its merits as thought the “filling space or housing” includes concrete.
In claim 7, at line 2, “the corners” lacks antecedent basis.
In claim 12, bridging lines 3-4, “the liquid raw material” lacks antecedent basis.
Claims 2-6, 8-11 and 13-19 are indefinite because they depend from an indefinite claim and fail to cure the deficiencies of the claim from which they depend.
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.
Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rautiainen et al. (WO 2019/102074) in view of Lee et al. (WO 2009/002112).
With respect to claim 1, the reference of Rautiainen et al. discloses:
A reactor (10) for manufacturing biogas from organic raw material using anaerobic digestion, the reactor (10) including a tubular reaction chamber (12) composed of a bottom (14), walls (16) and a ceiling (18) for processing the raw material into end products, and agitation and transfer equipment (28) arranged in the reaction chamber (12), wherein the reactor (10) further includes an external support frame structure (24) arranged on the outer surface (22) included in the reaction chamber (12) for stiffening and supporting the reaction chamber (12) externally against the forces generated by the raw material, and that the shell (modular elements)(32) of the reaction chamber (12) of the reactor (10) is composed of the outer shell elements (outer steel casing)(90) and inner shell elements (inner steel casing)(90) (page 13, line 4, to page 14, line 5) placed at a distance from each other inside a space defined by the support frame structure (24), which together form the housing structure (space between the casings) of the shell, and that said shell elements (90) are sandwich elements having steel casings and insulation (96), and that on the inner surfaces of opposing shell elements (90) are plate stiffeners (steel profiles)(92) to form a stiffening casing structure.
While the reference of Rautiainen et al. discloses that the shell elements (steel casings)(90) form a filling space or housing structure that includes insulation (96), claim 1 differs by reciting that the space also includes concrete.
The reference of Lee et al. discloses that it is known in the art to reinforce a steel plate or casing wall structure, such as the configuration as disclosed in the walls of the reference of Rautiainen et al., with concrete for increased strength and allows the structure to be formed directly at the construction site (pages 1-2).
In view of this teaching and in the absence of a showing of unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to employ the steel plate concrete wall structure suggested by the reference of Lee et al. in the construction of the walls of the reactor of the reference of Rautiainen et al. for the known and expected result of providing the benefits of increased strength and other advantages discussed by the reference of Lee et al.
With respect to claim 2, the reference of Rautiainen et al. discloses the agitation and transfer equipment (28) is supported to the external support frame (page 17, line 31, to page 18, line 5).
With respect claims 3 and 15, the reference of Rautiainen et al. discloses that the reactor can have a height in the range of 3m-15m (page 4, lines 1-9).
With respect claims 4, 6 and 16, the reference of Rautiainen et al. discloses that the wall modules (32) have a height in the range of 1.0m-3.6m (page 4, lines 15-20).
With respect claims 5, 17 and 18, the reference of Rautiainen et al. discloses that the wall modules (32) have a length in the range of 6m-13m (page 4, lines 21-26).
With respect to claims 7 and 8, in the absence of a showing of unexpected results, the use of fastening structures between the modular elements would have been well within the purview of one having ordinary skill in the art to ensure the structural integrity of the separate modular parts.
With respect to claim 9, the reference of Rautiainen et al. discloses the use of edged reinforcement elements (23).
With respect to claim 10, the reference of Rautiainen et al. discloses the use of plate stiffeners (20).
With respect to claims 11 and 19, the reference of Rautiainen et al. discloses the reactor walls can be in the range of 100mm-300mm (page 7, lines 11-16).
With respect to claim 12, the reference of Rautiainen et al. discloses the reaction chamber includes sealed leadthroughs for the agitation and transfer equipment (page 7, lines 1-5).
With respect to claim 13, the reference of Rautiainen et al. discloses the external frame structure includes tubular beams that are welded together (page 7, lines 18-24).
With respect to claim 14, the reference of Rautiainen et al. discloses the external support structure is configured as required of claim 14 (page 5, lines 10-29).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The reference of Rautiainen et al. (US 2016/0298067) is cited as prior art that pertains to a reactor for producing a biogas with a tubular reaction chamber.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM H BEISNER whose telephone number is (571)272-1269. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri from 8am to 5pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, MICHAEL A MARCHESCHI, can be reached at telephone number (571)272-1374. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/William H. Beisner/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1799
WHB