DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of group I, claims 1-13, in the reply filed on 17 February 2026 is acknowledged.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it contains fewer than 50 words. 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.
Claim 6 is 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 6 recites the limitation "the oil-gas separator" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant may have intended for claim 6 to depend from claim 4 instead of claim 3.
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 1-6 and 9-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kimball (US 2013/0326935) in view of Mennell et al (US 2022/0340818) and Medoff (US 2010/0087687).
Regarding claims 1, 12 and 13, Kimball discloses a biomass waste processor, comprising (see Abstract; Fig. 1; [0019]):
a biomass feedstock storage, operative to store biomass feedstock at a fixed storage temperature (see [0032], disclosing indirectly heating the material while in storage);
a biomass feedstock dryer coupled to the biomass feedstock storage, operative to increase the temperature of the biomass feedstock (see [0010]; [0032], drying the material before size reduction; [0038]);
a biomass feedstock shredder coupled to the biomass feedstock dryer, operative to shred the biomass feedstock into reduced sized particles (see [0009]; [0030]; [0032]; [0037], including particle sizes within the claimed range);
a first reaction chamber coupled to the biomass feedstock shredder, operative to perform torrefaction of the biomass feedstock at a fixed temperature to produce a combination of torrefied biomass and syngas, the first reaction chamber comprising electric heating elements to maintain the fixed temperature (see [0011]; [0031]; [0044]-[0047], conditions described within the first reaction chamber are consistent with torrefaction; [0084]);
a second reaction chamber coupled to the first reaction chamber, operative to perform pyrolysis of the torrefied biomass at a fixed temperature to produce syngas and biochar, the second reaction chamber comprising electric heating elements to maintain the fixed temperature within the second reaction chamber (see [0014]; [0052]-[0055]; [0084]; [0087]-[0088]); and
a gas extractor coupled to the second reaction chamber, operative to extract syngas from the second reaction chamber during pyrolysis (see [0056]-[0059]).
Kimball does not disclose a third reaction chamber also coupled to the first reaction chamber, as claimed.
Mennell discloses parallel pyrolysis reactors, where the biomass feed to the reactors is torrefied biomass (see [0408]) and is thus analogous to the intermediate biomass of Kimball which is fed to the second reactor. By using parallel reactors, different operating conditions can be set in each of the reactors (see [0147]-[0148]) and therefore enables more control over conversion conditions and product characteristics.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the instant claimed invention to modify the system of Kimball to include a third reaction chamber operating in parallel with the second reaction chamber, i.e., where both are coupled to the first reaction chamber, as suggested by Mennell, in order to provide more flexibility in processing conditions of the intermediate biomass product, for example depending on desired characteristics of the resulting biochar product.
In implementing such reaction chamber, a person of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious for the structural features of the third reaction chamber to be in line with those disclosed as suitable for the second reaction chamber of Kimball, i.e., comprising electrical heating elements to maintain the fixed temperature therein. Duplication of parts is prima facie obvious absent new or unexpected results. MPEP 2144.04 VI B.
Kimball further disclose that non-condensable gases obtained from the reactors may be collected and/or burned in a combustion unit and may be recirculated for use in “various other parts of the system, or ancillary systems” (see [0022]; [0059]), but does not explicitly disclose an electricity generation system.
Medoff is directed to processing biomass and discloses a system comprising feed pretreaters, pyrolysis reactor(s), and gas separation unit(s) (see Abstract; Fig. 14). Gas obtained from the reactors can be used as fuel for burners producing steam and/or electricity (see [0162]; [0480]; [0498]). This results in the overall processing system being at least partially self-sustaining (see [0480]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the instant claimed invention to modify the system of Kimball to include an electricity generation system, as suggested by Medoff, in order to provide electricity for the overall system and allow for it to be at least partially self-sustaining.
The combination of references is considered to fully teach and/or suggest the structural features of the claimed apparatus. The remaining limitations pertain to the intended manner of operating the apparatus and are not structurally limiting. MPEP 2114 & 2115.
Regarding claim 2, Kimball discloses wherein the biomass feedstock dryer comprises an auger operative to mix the biomass feedstock within the dryer (see [0038]-[0039]).
Regarding claim 3, Medoff discloses a dust separator (filter) coupled to the gas extractor, operative to separate dust particulates from the syngas (see Fig. 14; [0362]).
Regarding claim 4, Kimball discloses an oil-gas separator operative to separate bio-oil from the syngas (see [0059]).
Regarding claim 5, Medoff discloses wherein the electricity generation system comprises an electrical generator operative to produce electricity for the biomass processing system (see [0498]).
Regarding claim 6, Medoff discloses a boiler operative to generate steam, the boiler comprising electric heating elements (see [0162]).
Regarding claim 9, Medoff discloses one or more batteries operative to store excess electricity from the electricity generation system (see [0498]; [0501]).
Regarding claim 10, determining suitable materials with which to construct the reaction chambers amounts to nothing more than routine experimentation for a person of ordinary skill in the art and selection of the claimed materials would be associated with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 11, Kimball discloses a heat exchanger coupled to the dryer, operative to exchange waste heat from an exhaust of the biomass waste processor with the dryer (see [0059], NCG can be combusted to provide heat for the dryer).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kimball in view of Mennell and Medoff, as applied to claim 1, in further view of Johnston et al (WO 2013/036694).
Regarding claim 7, Kimball discloses production of biochar, as discussed above, but does not disclose a biochar packaging system.
Johnston is directed to a thermal conversion combined torrefaction and pyrolysis reactor system. Biochar produced in the system is processed into pellets, granules, etc. to reduce airborne particulate matter. Johnston discloses a packaging system wherein the biochar is processed in an inert atmosphere for safety reasons. Biochar is then ready for transportation and sale offsite (see Fig. 1; pp. 27-28).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the instant claimed invention to further modify the system of Kimball by including a biochar packaging system, as suggested by Johnston, in order to provide the means to safely process the biochar produced into a saleable form.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kimball in view of Mennell and Medoff, as applied to claim 1, in further view of Lepez et al (US 2012/0043194).
Regarding claim 8, Kimball does not disclose wherein the electricity generation system comprises a solar panel array.
Lepez is directed to a system for processing biomass. In particular, Lepez discloses an electricity generation system which, in addition to a generator that is powered by the biomass, also comprises solar panels, which provide power supply that is advantageous for sites that are isolated, for example (see [0088]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the instant claimed invention to further modify the system of Kimball to include solar panels as a component of the electricity generation system, as suggested by Lepez, in order to provide the means for an alternate or backup supply of electricity to the system.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RENEE ROBINSON whose telephone number is (571)270-7371. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8:00a-5:00p and Friday 8:00a-2:00p.
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, In Suk Bullock can be reached at (571)272-5954. 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.
/Renee Robinson/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1772