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 without traverse of claims 1-13 in the reply filed on 05/26/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 14-15 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 26 May 2026.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because it contains an embedded hyperlink and/or other form of browser-executable code in paragraph [0024]. Applicant is required to delete the embedded hyperlink and/or other form of browser-executable code; references to websites should be limited to the top-level domain name without any prefix such as http:// or other browser-executable code. See MPEP § 608.01.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because “molecules in the effluent of the reactor” in line 1 should read “molecules in an effluent of the reactor”.
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 1-13 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.
The wording of claim 1 renders its meets and bounds unclear because the entire claim appears to only include a preamble, which is generally non-limiting in its effect unless there are clear structural limitations present. See MPEP 2111.02. The wording of claim 1 does not clearly introduce structural limitations, and there is no transition phrase or a claim body. Claim 1 appears to present the intended use of the process but does not clearly introduce structural limitations to it. In the interest of compact prosecution, Examiner interprets claim 1 to mean “A process for measuring the progress of a pyrolysis reaction in a reactor, wherein the progress of a pyrolysis reaction is measured by catalytic…”
Claims 2-13 are rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 1.
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.
(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) 1-4, 11, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Park et al. (Non-Patent Literature, as cited in the IDS on 2/20/2024). Note that references to page numbers are made using the scanned page numbers where possible.
Regarding claim 1, Park teaches a process for measuring the progress of a pyrolysis reaction in a reactor (pg. 75, second paragraph, see also pg. 71 second paragraph) (operation is monitored by third GC… This verifies continuous and constant pyrolysis) by catalytic oxidation of reaction products and subsequent measurement of the resulting CO2 (pg. 70 first paragraph) (response factors for CO and CO2 depend on the activity of the ruthenium catalyst).
Regarding claim 2, Park teaches the process of claim 1 as rejected above, wherein the progress of the reaction is monitored by passing organic molecules in the effluent of the reactor to a catalytic reactor for catalytic combustion of said organic molecules in the effluent to CO2 (pg. 75 last paragraph and pg. 79 first paragraph and pg. 70 first paragraph) (52 degradation species are positively identified by GC and GC/MS analysis; data are presented in Table 3.2. and Complete conversion of CO to CO2 occurs at a temperature of 750°C for polystyrene and response factors for CO and CO2 depend on the activity of the ruthenium catalyst).
Regarding claim 3, Park teaches the process of claim 2 as rejected above, wherein adjustments to the reaction are made based on the monitoring of the reaction (abstract on fourth page) (Temperatures in the main flow reactor are varied independently of the volatilization zone to observe conditions needed to convert the initial polymer fragments to CO, and H2O).
Regarding claim 4, Park teaches the process of claim 3 as rejected above, wherein the monitoring permits an adjustment to the length of the reaction (abstract on fourth page) (Temperatures in the main flow reactor are varied independently of the volatilization zone to observe conditions needed to convert the initial polymer fragments to CO, and H2O).
Regarding claim 11, Park teaches the process of claim 2 as rejected above, wherein the catalytic reactor contains a combustion catalyst (pg. 70 first paragraph) (response factors for CO and CO2 depend on the activity of the ruthenium catalyst).
Regarding claim 13, Park teaches the process of claim 11 as rejected above, wherein the catalytic oxidation is conducted in a reactor heated to 450-650° C (pg. 71 second paragraph) (Combustion products are monitored at the main reactor temperatures from 400°C to 750°C).
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) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (Non-Patent Literature, as cited in the IDS on 2/20/2024) in view of Martinez et al. in US20080035583A1 (as cited in the IDS on 2/20/2024).
Regarding claim 5, Park teaches the process of claimed 1 as rejected above. Park teaches of monitoring the progress of a pyrolysis reaction by measuring CO2 levels in the effluent (abstract on fourth page and pg. 79 first paragraph and pg. 70 first paragraph) (Combustion products are monitored and Complete conversion of CO to CO2 occurs at a temperature of 750°C for polystyrene and response factors for CO and CO2 depend on the activity of the ruthenium catalyst).
Park does not teach wherein the reaction is shut down once a minimal level of CO2 in the effluent of the reactor is measured.
In the analogous art of oxidative waste treatment, Martinez teaches of stopping a reaction once the effluent contains minimal products ([75] and [85]) (When startup is authorized, a series of emergency pre-shutdown alarms are activated and Low effluent:H2O2 ratio, less than 8 with an H2O2 concentration above 4.4%). Martinez teaches that this allows for a safe shutdown that does not leave behind any unreacted material (paragraph [98]) (The purpose of this stage is to shut down the installation safely and without producing untreated water).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the monitoring of the progress of a pyrolysis reaction using effluent CO2 levels as disclosed by Park by shutting off the reaction when effluent product levels become minimal as suggested by Martinez because doing so would lead to the predictable outcome of safely shutting down the reaction while not leaving behind unreacted material with a reasonable expectation of success (see abstract, pg. 70, and pg. 79 of Park and [98] of Martinez). See MPEP 2143(I)(G).
Claim(s) 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (Non-Patent Literature, as cited in the IDS on 2/20/2024) in view of Whitney et al. in US20160363384A1 (as cited in the IDS on 2/20/2024).
Regarding claim 6, Park teaches the process of claim 1 as rejected above. Park utilizes a reactor with multiple heat sources to uniformly reach pyrolysis temperatures (pg. 12 “2.2.2 Experimental Apparatus” section) (a series of electrical heaters to effect uniform temperature profile).
Park is silent to the use of a heat transfer fluid.
In the analogous art of designing reactors for thermal processing of materials, Whitney teaches the use of solar salts as heat transfer fluids (paragraph [166]) (commonly used in heat transfer applications… HITEC SOLAR® brand salt mixture… is a eutectic mixture of potassium nitrate, sodium nitrite, and sodium nitrate). Whitney teaches that heat transfer fluids are advantageous for their low melting point, high heat transfer coefficient, and low cost (paragraph [166]) (It is used as a heat transfer medium because of its low melting point of 288° F., its high heat transfer coefficient and its low cost).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the process of using multiple heating sources as disclosed by Park by using heat transfer fluid as disclosed by Whitney because doing so would lead to the predictable outcome of lowering cost while utilizing a high heat transfer fluid with a low melting point with a reasonable expectation of success (see pg. 12 of Park and [166] of Whitney). See MPEP 2143(I)(G).
Regarding claim 7, modified Park teaches the process of claim 6 as rejected above. Park utilizes a reactor with multiple heat sources to uniformly reach pyrolysis temperatures (pg. 12 “2.2.2 Experimental Apparatus” section) (a series of electrical heaters to effect uniform temperature profile).
Park is silent to the use of solar salt compositions as heat transfer fluids.
In the analogous art of designing reactors for thermal processing of materials, Whitney teaches the use of solar salts as heat transfer fluids (paragraph [166]) (commonly used in heat transfer applications… HITEC SOLAR® brand salt mixture… is a eutectic mixture of potassium nitrate, sodium nitrite, and sodium nitrate). Whitney teaches that heat transfer fluids are advantageous for their low melting point, high heat transfer coefficient, and low cost (paragraph [166]) (It is used as a heat transfer medium because of its low melting point of 288° F., its high heat transfer coefficient and its low cost).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the process of using multiple heating sources as disclosed by Park by using a solar salt composition as disclosed by Whitney because doing so would lead to the predictable outcome of lowering cost while utilizing a high heat transfer fluid with a low melting point with a reasonable expectation of success (see pg. 12 of Park and [166] of Whitney). See MPEP 2143(I)(G).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (Non-Patent Literature, as cited in the IDS on 2/20/2024) in view of Tenore et al (US20200369964A1).
Regarding claim 8, Park teaches the process of claim 1 as rejected above. Park utilizes a variable drive syringe-pump to move the material while it is in the reactor chamber (pg. 14 second paragraph) (fed slowly into the volatilization oven by connecting it to a variable drive syringe-pump via a 2-mm diameter stainless steel rod, which passes through a septum at the upstream end of the reactor tube).
Park is silent to the use of a twin screw conveyor which comprises twin screws with cuts and folds.
In the analogous art of recycling materials using pyrolysis, Tenore teaches a process that utilizes a twin screw conveyor comprising twin screws with cuts and folds (paragraph [172]) (The plastic… pulled along the upper and lower reactor by double flighted screws that are designed with cut and fold slots). Tenore teaches that a twin screw conveyor is advantageous because it wipes product from the wall of the reactor and moves it downstream (paragraph [175]) (The screw conveyors depicted in FIG. 21 continue to wipe the product from the wall and move it downstream through the reactor).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the variable drive syringe-pump as disclosed by Park by using a twin screw conveyor with cuts and folds as disclosed by Tenore because doing so would lead to the predictable outcome of wiping product from the wall of the reactor and moving it downstream with a reasonable expectation of success (see pg. 14 of Park and [172]/[163] of Tenore). See MPEP 2143(I)(G).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (Non-Patent Literature, as cited in the IDS on 2/20/2024) in view of Tenore et al. (US20200369964A1) further in view of Whitney et al. in US 20160363384 A1 (as cited in the IDS on 2/20/2024).
Regarding claim 9, modified Park teaches the process of claim 8 as rejected above, which utilizes a twin screw conveyor with cuts and folds (paragraph [172] of Tenore) (The plastic… pulled along the upper and lower reactor by double flighted screws that are designed with cut and fold slots).
Park does not disclose wherein the heat transfer fluid is passed internally through the twin screws of the twin screw conveyor.
In the analogous art of designing reactors for thermal processing of materials, Whitney teaches of heat transfer fluid that is passed internally through the twin screws of a twin screw conveyor (paragraph [101]) (molten-salt-indirectly heated screw-type thermal processing apparatus… with heat transfer fluid spaces 32, heat transfer fluid inlets 38, heat transfer fluid outlets 84). Whitney teaches that this indirect heating method is advantageous for cost and safety reasons (paragraph [10]) (a fluid-heated indirect thermal processor that operates safely and economically without dependency on a high-powered electric heating system in addition to a combustion heating system). See also modified figure 2, which shows the twin screw conveyor in the reactor chamber (red box) and the inlet/outlet for heat transfer fluid (yellow highlight):
PNG
media_image1.png
835
724
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the twin screw conveyor with cuts and folds as disclosed by Modified Park by passing heat transfer fluid internally through the twin screws of the twin screw conveyor as disclosed by Whitney because doing so would lead to the predictable outcome of lowering costs and ensuring safety with a reasonable expectation of success (see [172] of Tenore and [10], [101], and Fig. 2 of Whitney). See MPEP 2143(I)(G).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (Non-Patent Literature, as cited in the IDS on 2/20/2024) in view of Parfenyuk et al. (Non-Patent Literature, Chemical and Petroleum Engineering, Vol. 34, pgs. 285-287, published in 1998).
Regarding claim 10, Park teaches the process of claim 1 as rejected above. Park describes removing a sample boat that contains solid carbon product for analysis (pg. 93 second paragraph) (The residual char in the sample boat at the end of each run is then separately measured… Mass % of char is determined from the amount of char in the boat and total mass of vapor produced).
Park does not teach wherein a solid carbon product is collected from the reactor and is buried underground and covered.
In the analogous art of industrial ecology surrounding pyrolysis, Parfenyuk teaches of burying solid carbon-containing wastes (SCW) (pg. 285, first paragraph) (The SCW that cannot be utilized are often buried). Parfenyuk teaches that this is an advantageous approach in order to save costs (pg. 285) (for economic and technological reasons SCW cannot be fully utilized at present).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the removal of solid carbon waste as taught by Park by burying and covering the waste as disclosed by Parfenyuk because doing so would lead to the predictable outcome of lowering costs with a reasonable expectation of success (see pg. 93 second paragraph of Park and pg. 285 of Parfenyuk). See MPEP 2143(I)(G).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (Non-Patent Literature, as cited in the IDS on 2/20/2024) in view of Leonhardt (US20140202073A1).
Regarding claim 12, Park teaches the process of claim 11 as rejected above. Park teaches the use of a ruthenium combustion catalyst (pg. 70 first paragraph) (response factors for CO and CO2 depend on the activity of the ruthenium catalyst).
Park does not disclose wherein the combustion catalyst comprises Pt, Pd, Rh and/or Co.
In the analogous art of torrefying biomass, Leonhardt teaches the use of a Pd or Pt combustion catalyst (paragraph [28]) (combustion catalysts, such as platinum/palladium catalyst). Leonhardt teaches that these catalysts may be used to lower cost and reduce residual oxygen in the effluent (paragraph [14]) (the oxidation catalyst thus provides a low residual-oxygen flue gas stream that… improving heat integration and allowing lower capital and operating costs).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the ruthenium catalyst as taught by Park with a Pt or Pd catalyst as disclosed by Leonhardt because doing so would lead to the predictable outcome of lowering costs and reducing oxygen in the effluent with a reasonable expectation of success (see pg. 70 first paragraph of Park; [14] and [28] of Leonhardt). See MPEP 2143(I)(G).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HOUSTON D COLE whose telephone number is (571)272-8405. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9:00am-5:00pm EST.
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, Maris Kessel can be reached at (571) 270-7698. 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.
/H.D.C./Examiner, Art Unit 1758
/CHRISTINE T MUI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1797
Prosecution Insights