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. Specification The specification and drawings have been reviewed and no clear informalities or objections have been noted. 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, 5 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Shimizu (EP 3650518 A1) . Regarding claim 1 , Shimizu discloses a biomass gasification furnace that produces a fuel gas by heating and gasifying a ligneous biomass raw material (see abstract which discloses a biomass gasifier that produces a gas) , the biomass gasification furnace comprising: an outer tube (22) provided so that an axis thereof extends in a vertical direction (see Fig. 2 which illustrates a vertically aligned outer tube) ; an inner tube (24) provided inside the outer tube so that an axis thereof extends in the vertical direction and so that a lower end thereof is located higher than a lower end of the outer tube (see Fig. 1 which illustrates an inner tube 24 inside an outer tube 22 and shows a lower end of the inner tube is higher than the lower end of the outer tube) ; and a reactor that heats the outer tube from outside (reactor is heater 12 that sits outside the outer tube, see Fig. 1) , wherein a combustion air supply portion that supplies combustion air is provided inside the inner tube so as to be spaced from the lower end of the inner tube (see annotated Fig. 5 below which illustrates a combustion air/oxidant inlet that is spaced from the lower end of the inner tube and sends combustion air/oxidant into the inner tube) , the biomass raw material is supplied from above to the inside of the inner tube (see Fig. 3 in which the biomass inlet 32 is positioned above the inner tube and feeds biomass into the inner tube) so as to form an accumulation portion (see accumulation portion Z formed in Fig. 5) in which the biomass raw material has accumulated from the lower end of the outer tube to a location higher than the combustion air supply portion inside the inner tube (see Fig. 5 which illustrates a structure which is capable or accumulating biomass on the bottom of the outer tube and teaches that the top level of the accumulated biomass is above the combustion air supply 73) , and the fuel gas is produced in the accumulation portion, and the fuel gas that has been produced is discharged through a space between the inner tube and the outer tube (see Fig. 3 which illustrates the accumulated gas H being discharged through the annular space between the inner and outer tubes) . Annotated Fig. 5 Regarding claim 2 , Shimizu further discloses the fuel gas that has been produced is discharged after being guided upward through the space between the inner tube and the outer tube (see Fig. 3 which illustrates the accumulated gas H being discharged through the annular space between the inner and outer tubes and exits via outlet 38 ) . Regarding claim 4 , Applicant is claiming reactions that are occurring in the accumulated portion. However, these reactions do not further define the claimed structure. It is also noted that the structure disclosed by Shimizu, which is identical to the claimed structure, is capable of being operated in such a way by modifying feed rates/temperatures as well as external heating from the heater and feed rates/temperature of the oxidant gas supplied to the accumulated portion. As such, r egarding limitations recited in claim 4 which are directed to a manner of operating disclosed system, neither the manner of operating a disclosed device nor material or article worked upon further limit an apparatus claim. Said limitations do not differentiate apparatus claims from prior art. See MPEP §2114 and 2115. Further, process limitations do not have a patentable weight in an apparatus claim. See Ex parte Thibault , 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969) that states "Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and to an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim. Regarding claim 5 , Shimizu further discloses an accumulated matter discharge portion (such as the bottom of the outer tube, where there is an opening 80) , provided at the lower end of the outer tube, through which the accumulated matter located at the lower end of the accumulation portion is discharged (solids are discharged through opening 80, as illustrated) ; and a discharge promotion portion (discharge promotion portion is scraper 77) , provided at the lower end of the outer tube (see Fig. 5 which illustrates scraper 77 at the bottom of the outer tube) , which promotes discharge by guiding the accumulated matter located at the lower end to the accumulated matter discharge portion (by scraping the solids into discharge hole 80) . Regarding claim 7 , Shimuzu further discloses a fuel gas discharge portion (38) , provided on an upper side of the outer tube (see Fig. 3 where the discharge portion exits from the top of the outer tube 22) , that discharges the fuel gas guided upwards to an outside; and a fan, provided outside the fuel gas discharge portion, so as to guide the fuel gas to the fuel gas discharge portion (as described in paragraph 41) . 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. Claim (s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimizu (EP 3650518 A1) in view of Jakobsen (WO 03/040267 A2) . Regarding claim 3, Shimizu teaches gasification of a biomass that exits via the annular space between the outer tube and the inner tube, but is silent regarding treatment of this gas. More specifically, Shimizu does not teach a fuel gas adjuster supply portion that supplies, as an adjuster, one or both of an oxidizer and a modifier of the fuel gas, downward from above, into the space between the inner tube and the outer tube . Bell also discloses a gasification process (see paragraph ). Bell teaches that with gasification/pyrolysis of biomass, tar is a common contaminant of the produced gas stream ( paragraph 3 ). Bell goes on to teach that in order to reduce the tart content of the produced gas/syngas, the hot syngas can be fed with an oxygen containing stream and combusted to crack the tar (paragraph 7). Bell teaches that this reaction takes place at a high temperature (900C-2000C, see paragraph 7). As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to add an oxygen containing gas stream, as taught by Bell, from the top of the outer tube to the space between the inner and outer tube of Shimizu, similar to how other reactants are brought into the reactor of Shimizu, in order to oxidize the tar coming from the gasified biomass. Claim (s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimizu (EP 3650518 A1) in view of Potgieter (US 2014/0219874) . Regarding claim 6 , Shimizu teaches the generation of a bed/accumulation layer on the bottom of the reactor (as depicted in Fig. 5 where the bed sits at an undisclosed level) and teaches a grate/scraper (77) at the bottom of the reactor to facilitate removal of the solids. However, Shimizu is silent regarding how the level of the bed is managed. More specifically, Shimizu does not teach a sensor that detects a height of the accumulation portion; and a controller that stops the discharge promotion portion when the height of the accumulation portion is equal to or lower than a height threshold value located higher than the combustion air supply portion, and that activates the discharge promotion portion when the height of the accumulation portion is higher than the height threshold value. Potgieter also discloses a gasifier (see abstract). Potgieter, like Shimizu, teaches management of a bed of fuel in the gasifier (paragraph 131 which discloses a bed in the gasifier) and teaches a controller (gasifier control system, see paragraph 131) and a sensor (level in indicator 12) that are utilized to manage movement of the grate/discharge promotion portion in order to control the height of the bed (paragraph 131). Potgieter teaches such a configuration in order to control the stratified reactions that occur in the bed (paragraph 131). As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to add the level sensor and controller of Potgieter to the system of Shimizu in order to control the bed height of the gasifier while also managing the reactions that take place within that bed. Relevant Prior Art JP 2009235141 A - Discloses a gasifier with a double tube structure and external heating but does not teach the claimed orientation of the combustion air supply. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT MATTHEW J MERKLING whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-9813 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday - Thursday 8am-6pm . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Basia Ridley can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-272-1453 . 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. /MATTHEW J MERKLING/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725