DETAILED ACTION
Claim Objections
Claims 65, 66, and 67 objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of claims 55, 56, and 57, respectfully. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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.
Claims 55, 56, 58, 62, 64 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Dai et al. US 6,723,746.
Regarding claim 55, Dai teaches a system comprising (See Figure 1):
a) An adsorber 16 configured to contain an exhaust stream from a wood drying process (through line 21) and a sorbent 18 suitable for capturing volatile compounds within the exhaust stream (column 3 lines 1-6);
b) A desorber 12 fluidically connected to the adsorber 16 (through conduit 23) wherein the desorber is configured to accept loaded sorbent from the adsorber, then release the VOCs from the sorbent (column 3 lines 10-14); and
c) A reactivator (cooling system in column 4 line 37) that in in fluid communication with the desorber as it accepts the side stream desorbed material through output manifold 52. Here, the VOCs present in the sorbent are distilled to recover terpine VOC from the sorbent, thereby reactivating the sorbent.
Regarding claim 56, the adsorber may be a fluidized bed comprising the sorbent (column 3 line 2).
Regarding claim 58, Dai teaches that the spent sorbent is cooled in the reactivation stage, thus it is taken that the sorbent is thermally treated.
Regarding claim 62, Dai teaches the adsorber is directly coupled to the desorber via line 23 or line 25 (Figure 1).
Regarding claim 64, the VOCs in the exhaust comprises methanol, formaldehyde, and terpines (column 1 line 23).
Regarding claim 65, Dai teaches a system comprising (See Figure 1):
a) An adsorber 16 configured to contain an exhaust stream from a wood drying process (through line 21) and a sorbent 18 suitable for capturing volatile compounds within the exhaust stream (column 3 lines 1-6);
b) A desorber 12 fluidically connected to the adsorber 16 (through conduit 23) wherein the desorber is configured to accept loaded sorbent from the adsorber, then release the VOCs from the sorbent (column 3 lines 10-14); and
c) A reactivator (cooling system in column 4 line 37) that in in fluid communication with the desorber as it accepts the side stream desorbed material through output manifold 52. Here, the VOCs present in the sorbent are distilled to recover terpine VOC from the sorbent, thereby reactivating the sorbent.
Regarding claim 66, the adsorber may be a fluidized bed comprising the sorbent (column 3 line 2).
Regarding claim 69, Dai teaches the two adsorbers are arranged in series (column 3 line 1 and Figure 1).
Regarding claim 73, Dai implies that further fractionation and distillation devices can be implemented downstream from the desorber in order to condense out sorbent from terpines (column 4 line 36).
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.
Claims 57, 59-61, 63 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious by Dai et al. US 6,723,746.
Regarding claim 57, Dai does not explicitly teach the adsorber is configured to house two or more fluidized beds in series or parallel. Dai however does teach that the two fluidized bed desorbers may be arranged serially (Figures 1-3). Thus, it would have been within ordinary skill in the art to repeat the adsorber beds since the modification would be a mere repetition of parts. One would be motivated and find it obvious to have two adsorbers because it would provide the benefit of having different conditions for the adsorbers or have one operating while the other undergoes maintenance.
Regarding claims 59 and 60, Dai does not explicitly teach a hopper inlet for introducing the sorbent into the adsorber chamber 16. However, Dai does teach that the sorbent comprises resin beads which typically can be introduced by a hopper including air. Thus, it would have been obvious to use known inlet methods to introduce sorbent into the adsorber.
Regarding claim 61, Dai teaches the regeneration stage is a condenser (column 4 line 27). Though Dai is not explicit to excluding thermal oxidizers, Dai does strongly imply that thermal oxidizers are not used for distillation and it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art that a simple condensation process would not have oxidizers.
Regarding claim 63, Dai implies that the desorber is directly coupled to the reactivation since the desorbed media is sent there from the desorber. Dai does not explicitly teach that the reactivation is directly coupled to the adsorber, however does teach that terpines are separated from sorbent, thus leaving a reactivated sorbent (column 4 lines 35-40). It would be obvious to send this recovered sorbent directly to the adsorber in order to save on resources and costs. Thus, Dai implicitly teaches or makes it obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to directly connect the reactivation stage with the adsorber in order to transport regenerated sorbent.
Regarding claims 67 and 68, Dai does not explicitly teach the adsorber is configured to house two or more fluidized beds in series or parallel. Dai however does teach that the two fluidized bed desorbers may be arranged serially (Figures 1-3). Thus, it would have been within ordinary skill in the art to repeat the adsorber beds since the modification would be a mere repetition of parts. One would be motivated and find it obvious to have two adsorbers because it would provide the benefit of having different conditions for the adsorbers or have one operating while the other undergoes maintenance.
Regarding claim 70, Dai does not explicitly teach the reactivators two or more fluidized reactivators in series or parallel. Dai however does teach that the two fluidized bed desorbers may be arranged serially (Figures 1-3). Thus, it would have been within ordinary skill in the art to repeat the reactivators since the modification would be a mere repetition of parts. One would be motivated and find it obvious to have two reactivators because it would provide the benefit of having different conditions for the adsorbers or have one operating while the other undergoes maintenance.
Claims 71 and 72 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious by Dai et al. US 6,723,746 in view of Ackerson US Patent 5,603,751.
Regarding claims 71 and 72, Dai does not explicitly teach a separator upstream from the absorbers, wherein the separator comprises wet electrostatic precipitators, dry electrostatic precipitators, cyclones, bag filters, mist eliminators, wet venture scrubbers, mesh screens, perforated plate or cyclonic separators.
However, Ackerson teaches a system for removing particulates from a wood drying exhaust that comprises cyclonic separators (Figure 1) for the benefit of removing particle fines from the exhaust (column 1 lines 15-30). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to implement a cyclonic separator upstream from the absorber to remove particle fines which would otherwise damage the absorbers.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 55-73 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-26 of U.S. Patent No. 11,890,573.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the Applicant’s instant claim 55 (and 65) recite the same combination of elements: A system for treating an exhaust stream from a wood drying process, comprising: an adsorber configured to contain an exhaust stream derived from a wood drying process and a sorbent suitable for capturing one or more chemical compounds within the exhaust stream; a desorber in fluid communication with the adsorber, the desorber configured to release at least one of the one or more captured chemical compounds from the sorbent; and a reactivator in fluid communication with the absorber, the desorber, or both the adsorber and the desorber, the reactivator configured to receive and contain a side stream of the sorbent and reactivate the sorbent within the side stream.
Patent ‘573 discloses a system for controlling emissions from a wood drying process, comprising: an exhaust stream from a wood drying process, the exhaust stream comprising one or more of particulate wood matters, terpenes, formaldehyde, methanol, acetic acid, acetone, or fatty acids; and an adsorber, coupled to the exhaust stream, the adsorber configured to contain a sorbent for capturing the one or more of particulate wood matters terpenes, formaldehyde, methanol, acetic acid, acetone, or fatty acids from the exhaust stream to generate a purified air stream containing less than 10 wt % of the one or more of particulate wood matters terpenes, formaldehyde, methanol, acetic acid, acetone, or fatty acids in the exhaust stream; a desorber coupled to the adsorber and configured to desorb the one or more particulate wood matters, terpenes, formaldehyde, methanol, acetic acid, acetone, or fatty acids captured by the sorbent; and a side stream reactivator configured to reactivate a portion of spent sorbent within the system, the side stream reactivator coupled to the desorber, the adsorber or both the adsorber and the desorber.
The differences between the claimed system and the patented system of 11,890,573 are matters of phrasing and do not patentably distinguish the claimed subject matter since both claims recites the same system components (adsorber, desorber, and reactivator) arranged in the same layout and relationship, and configured to perform the same process.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHARON PREGLER whose telephone number is (571)270-5051. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9am - 5pm.
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.
/SHARON PREGLER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1772