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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, claims 1-33, in the reply filed on 7/6/2026 is acknowledged.
The traversal is on the ground(s) that the claims of groups I and II are coextensive to some extent and therefore, would allegedly not pose an undue burden if examined in the same Application.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Examination of both groups I and II in the same Application would pose a serious search and/or examination burden at least because the claims of groups I and II are divergent in scope. Consequently, the claims of group II should be, and ultimately would need to be, rejected on different grounds than the claim of group I.
When different grounds of rejection are necessary to properly address the claims of separate groups an examination burden necessarily exists, and a search burden typically follows.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 34-41 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 7/6/2026.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 1 is/are objected to because it contains/they contain informalities.
With regard to claim 1: In line 4, replace “plurality of mixing flight” with --plurality of mixing flights--.
In line 5, replace “plurality of mixing flight” with --plurality of mixing flights--.Appropriate correction is required.
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 5-8, 12-13, 15-17, 26, and 28-31 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.
Claim 5 recites “a reactor discharge assembly positioned near a discharge end of the rotary drum”
The term “near” in claim 5 is a term of degree which renders the claim indefinite. The term “near” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
The term “near” thus renders indefinite the location of the discharge assembly.
Claims 6-8 are rejected due to their dependency on indefinite claim 5.
Claim 12 recites “wherein rotary drum comprises” in line 1. This limitation should be amended to recite --wherein the rotary drum comprises--.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the exterior" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 is rejected due to its dependency on indefinite claim 12.
Claim 15 recites “the furnace is lined with a thermal blanket or insulating refractory.”
It is unclear if this thermal blanket or insulating refractory is the liner described in claim 14. Presumably, such is Applicant’s intent.
To overcome this rejection, Applicant should amend claim 15 to recite --wherein the liner comprises a thermal blanket or insulating refractory--.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the rotating drum" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Note: There is sufficient antecedent basis for --the rotary drum-- but not “the rotating drum”.
Claim 16 recites “the rotating drum is positioned at an angle… with respect to the thermal treatment reactor”.
The “rotating drum” is presumed to be the “rotary drum” introduced in claim 1.
Said rotary drum is a component of the thermal treatment reactor, and is understood to form the reaction chamber thereof. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would consider an act of angling the rotary drum (e.g. with respect to horizonal) to be an act of angling the thermal treatment reactor itself. Thus, it is unclear how the rotary drum can be angled with respect to the thermal treatment reactor and/or such angling would actually look like.
Paragraph [00028] of the specification as filed 11/2/2023 describes the claimed angling, but is also unclear as to the actual nature of said angling. In particular, said paragraph states that an angle A is “formed between the abscissa of the furnace 12, illustrated in Figure 4 by the line T-T, and the centerline R-R of the rotary drum 28, also shown in Figure 4”. This disclosure suggests that the angle of the drum is measured relative to some feature of the furnace, but it is unclear what “abscissa” refers to.
According to Merriam-Webster, abscissa refers to “the horizontal coordinate of a point in a plane Cartesian coordinate system obtained by measuring parallel to the x-axis”. Examiner has found no other definition of “abscissa” which differs substantially from that of Merriam-Webster. Bearing this in mind, it is unclear exactly what one would consider to be the abscissa of the furnace, as the furnace would, no matter one’s perspective, be present at many different horizontal coordinates. More importantly, one cannot measure an angle relative to a point, let alone a single co-ordinate thereof.
One might assume that “abscissa” is a typo, and Applicant intended for paragraph [00028] to reference “the axis of the furnace”. However, paragraph [00028] states that “The rotary drum 28 and the furnace 12 are positioned concentric to each other.” Concentric is synonymous with coaxial, and if two objects are coaxial their axes are parallel to one another. Thus, the preponderance of evidence weighs heavily against the claimed angle being an angle between the rotary drum and an axis of the furnace.
For the purposes of examination, claim 16 has been treated as requiring the drum be angled relative to a horizontal plane/axis.
Applicant should amend claim 16 to clarify as appropriate.
Claim 17 is rejected due to its dependency on indefinite claim 16.
Claim 26 recites the limitation "the stationary screw trough" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 28 recites the limitation "the thermally treated product" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 28 recites the limitation "the discharge assembly" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 29 recites the limitation "the lateral side of the rotating drum" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 29 recites the limitation "the rotating drum" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Note: There is sufficient antecedent basis for --the rotary drum-- but not “the rotating drum”.
Claim 29 recites the limitation "the shell temperature" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 29 recites the limitation “infrared thermocouples are mounted on the lateral side of the [rotary] drum”.
This limitation expressly requires that the thermocouples are mounted on the side of the rotary drum. However, the specification (see paragraph [0025] of the specification as filled 11/2/2023) indicates that the thermocouples 23 are actually mounted on an “exterior surface 25 of the furnace 12” rather than on the drum. Such placement of the thermocouples is confirmed by Applicant’s Figures 23.
The clear contradiction between the claimed thermocouple placement and the placement described in the specification renders claim 29 indefinite.
For the purposes of examination, claim 29 has been treated as requiring that the thermocouples are mounted on the furnace.
Claim 30 recites the limitation "the atmosphere" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Note: An argument that there is implicit antecedent basis for “the atmosphere” will not be found persuasive at least because it cannot be reasonably ascertained whether “the atmosphere” refers to an ambient atmosphere (e.g. the Earth’s atmosphere) or an atmosphere within the reactor.
Claim 31 is rejected due to its dependency on indefinite claim 16.
Claim 32 recites “a plurality of oscillating flights”.
It is unclear what is meant by the flights being “oscillating”.
When given its ordinary meaning, the term “oscillating flights” would refer to a plurality of flights, each of which oscillates, e.g. vibrates, reciprocates, etc. However, having reviewed the specification, there is no clear indication that the “oscillating flights” are capable of motion which could be fairly described as oscillation. Furthermore, Examiner does not see any clear mechanism by which the oscillating flights 36 described in the specification could oscillate.
Instead, it appears that Applicant is using the term “oscillating flights” to refer to flights which are arranged in a pattern oscillating (e.g. alternating) pattern.
For the purposes of examination, the claimed “oscillating flights” have been treated as flights arranged in an oscillating (e.g. alternating) pattern.
To overcome this rejection, Applicant should clarify what is meant by “oscillating flights”.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 5, 6, 8-14, 16-21, 23-27, and 29-33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Livingston et al. (US 10,844,285), hereafter referred to as Livingston, in view of Griffin et al. (US 9,932,524), hereafter referred to as Griffin.
With regard to claim 1: Livingston teaches a thermal treatment reactor for feedstocks (Figures 1-7, abstract, column 4), the thermal treatment reactor comprising:
A furnace (housing) 32 for thermally treating a feedstock (Figures 1-7, Columns 4 and 5); and
A rotary drum 34 having an interior (Figures 1-7, Columns 4 and 5), wherein within the interior are positioned:
A plurality of mixing flights (internal pins and blending bars) 86 and 88 (Figures 4 and 5, Column 6 lines 30-45)
And a plurality of forwarding flights 90 to move the feedstock toward the mixing flights 86 and 88 (Figures 4 and 5; Column 5 Lines 15-25).
Wherein at least a portion of the plurality of mixing flights 86 and 88 are insulated with heat insulation 64 and insulated tubular end housing 78 (Figures 4 and 5, Column 4 Line 55-Column 5 Line 25).
It is understood that the insulation of the drum by heat insulation 64 and insulated tubular end housing 78 is necessarily functional to prevent condensation on the interior of the rotary drum by mitigating escape of heat through the drum wall and subsequent cooling of the drum in areas protected by said insulation.
Livingston does not explicitly teach that the forwarding flights 90 (i.e. those specific forwarding flights which are configured to move material towards the mixing flights) are insulated.
However, said forwarding flights 90 are positioned in an input end of the drum 34 which is positioned outside of the furnace (housing) 32 (Figures 4 and 5; Column 5 Lines 15-25).
Griffin teaches a thermal treatment reactor comprising a furnace (combustion chamber) 121 and a rotary drum 123 positioned therein (Figures 2-8, columns 4-7); wherein the reactor comprises insulation 178 which is positioned around a front bearing assembly 175 at an input end of the drum 123 as well as around any portion of the rotary drum 123 that extends out of the furnace (combustion chamber) 121 in order to moderate the temperature of the rotary drum 123 (Figures 2-8, especially Figure 8, Column 7 Lines 19-25). Figure 8 of Griffin in particular illustrates insulation 178 encasing substantially the entirety of the input end of rotary drum 123 where said drum protrudes outside of the furnace.
A person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that, when Griffin refers to the insulation 178 moderating the temperature of the drum (Column 7 Lines 19-25), Griffin is referring to at least to said insulation 178 mitigating heat loss from the areas which it covers. At the very least, a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize such mitigation of heat loss as an implicit advantage of including such insulation.
Turning back to Livingston, Livingston teaches that the rotary drum 34 is comprised of a metallic shell 72 (Column 4 Lines 64-66). Thus, a person having ordinary skill in the art, recognizing that metal is heat conducting, would recognize that the drum 34 of Griffin would benefit from heat insulation which at least partially encases the portions thereof which extend outside of the furnace 32, such as the input end comprising the forwarding flights, in order to mitigate loss of heat through said portions.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Livingston in view of Griffin by providing insulation around the input end of the drum 34 comprising the forwarding flights 90 (such that said forwarding flights are insulated), as well as other portions of the drum 34 which extend outside of the furnace 32 that are not already protected by insulation in base Livingston, in order to moderate the temperature in the rotary drum, e.g. by mitigating loss of heat from portions of the drum 34 which are not positioned within the furnace 32 and are not otherwise insulated.
In modified Livingston, the insulation which insulates the input end of the drum and the forwarding flights therein is necessarily functional to prevent condensation on the interior of the rotary drum by mitigating escape of heat through the input end of the drum 34 and subsequent cooling of the drum’s interior.
With regard to claims 5 and 6: The reactor of modified Livingston further comprises:
A reactor discharge assembly positioned near a discharge end of the rotary drum to transfer thermally treated feedstock therefrom; wherein the reactor discharge assembly forms an outer wall (exhaust stack) 132, an inner wall (coaxial pipe), and an annular space therebetween for the passage of hot gases (Livingston: Column 5 Line 59-Column 6 Line 3). This arrangement is necessarily functional to maintain a temperature that will minimize condensation of volatile organic compounds within the thermal treatment reactor.
With regard to claim 8: Modified Livingston further comprises an induction draft fan 28 for inducing hot gases from the furnace for downstream utilization and the volatile organic compounds from the rotary drum into the reactor discharge assembly by maintaining a negative static pressure (Livingston: Figure 7, Column 4 Lines 30-40).
With regard to claim 9: The rotary drum 34 of modified Livingston comprises an inlet end and a discharge end (Livingston: Figures 1-6, especially Figures 3 and 5, Columns 4 and 5). The discharge end is insulated at least by end housing 78 (Livingston: Figure 5, Column 4 Lines 64-Column 5 Line 6). The input end is insulated by the added insulation, i.e. the insulation added in view of Griffin as described in the rejection of claim 1 above (see rejection of claim 1 above for details). Furthermore, the insulation added in view of Griffin will also insulate an portion of the discharge end which is not already insulated by end housing 78 or by the insulation 64 (see rejection of claim 1 above for details).
With regard to claim 10: The inlet end of the rotary drum 34 comprises a drum inlet seal 77 and the discharge end of the rotary drum comprises a drum discharge seal 77 (Livingston: Figure 5, Column 5 Lines 35-60).
With regard to claim 11: The rotary drum 34 has an exterior and wherein the drum inlet seal 77 and the drum discharge seal 77 are mounted on ells on the exterior of the rotary drum (Livingston: Figure 5, Column 5 Lines 35-60).
With regard to claim 12: The rotary drum 34 comprises a heated zone (the portion thereof positioned within the furnace) 32, wherein an exterior of the rotary drum 34 comprises a plurality of heat transfer fins 84 within the heated zone (Figures 4-6, Column 5 Lines 5-15).
With regard to claim 13: Said fins 84 can be fairly described as being arranged in a straight pattern, e.g. said fins 84 extend straight along the axial length of the drum (Livingston: Figures 4-6, Column 5 Lines 5-15, especially Figure 6).
Said fins 84 can also be fairly described as being arranged in a staggered pattern, e.g. said fins are arranged in groups arranged around a circumference of the drum 34, wherein the fins of adjacent groups (separated by rings) 85 are circumferentially off-set from one another (Livingston: Figures 4-6, Column 5 Lines 5-15, especially Figure 6).
With regard to claim 14: The furnace 32 comprises a liner (heat insulation) 64 (Livingston: Figures 4 and 5, Column 4 Lines 55-65).
With regard to claims 16 and 17: The rotary drum can be positioned at an angle of 1-4° relative to a horizontal plane or axis (Livingston: Lines 44-50).
With regard to claims 18 and 19: The furnace comprises a plurality of ports (gas outlets) 66 for release of gases emanating from a thermal energy source fed to the furnace (Livingston: Column 4 Lines 55-65, Figures 1-6), wherein the thermal energy source may be natural gas, propane, fuel oil, or process volatiles burned by a burner 94, or waste heat, or electricity (Livingston: Figures 1-6, Column 5 lines 24-35, Column 9 Lines 4-16).
With regard to claims 20 and 21: Feedstock moisture content is merely a property of material worked upon by the claimed system, and therefore, does not limit the scope of the claimed invention (see MPEP 2115). Nevertheless, Livingston expressly teaches using the reactor to process a feedstock that “should have a moisture content of up to about 20%, more preferably up to about 10%, and most preferably up to about 5% by weight,” (Column 6 Lines 15-21).
With regard to claims 23-25: The reactor further comprises an infeed assembly 38 comprising a stationary trough (auger pipe) 110 housing a rotating screw/auger 112, wherein the stationary trough 110 is in communication with the rotary drum 34 and with the rotating screw or auger 112 (Livingston: Figures 1, 2, 3, and 5, Column 5 Lines 35-50).
With regard to claim 26: The reactor further comprises a reactor inlet seal 77 to seal an interface between the rotary drum 34 and the stationary trough 110 to prevent ingress of ambient air into the rotary drum.
With regard to claim 27: The reactor is a pyrolysis reactor which can be used to generate a biochar product (Livingston: Column 4 Lines 14-20, Column 7 Lines 10-18). It is understood that biochar can be used as a renewable bio-fuel or a soil amendment. It is further understood that biochar can be converted into activated carbon (which has utility as a filter media) and graphene. Thus, the reactor has applicability at least for use in renewable energy production, organic soil amendment production, air and gas filtration system(s) production, and graphene production. See MPEP 2114 for guidance.
Furthermore, because the reactor is a pyrolysis reactor, it is understood that it can be used to produce bio-oil (which has utility as a renewable liquid fuel) and renewable syngas. Thus, the reactor has further applicability for use in renewable liquid fuel production and renewable syngas production. See MPEP 2114 for guidance.
With regard to claim 29: Thermocouples 136 are mounted on the furnace 32 to record a shell temperature of the rotating drum 34 and thereby aid process control (Livingston: Column 6 Lines 4-14, Figures 2-4).
Livingston does not explicitly teach that the thermocouples are infrared thermocouples.
However, Livingston teaches that the thermocouples are non-contact thermocouples, i.e. the measure the temperature of shell 72 without contact therewith (Column 6 Lines 4-14, Figures 2-4). To one of ordinary skill, this teaching would at least suggest that the thermocouples are infrared thermocouples, as infrared thermocouples are a well-known type of non-contact thermocouples. In fact, Examiner is not aware of any other type of non-contact thermocouples.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Livingston by providing infrared thermocouples as the non-contact thermocouples 136, in order to obtain a device wherein the thermocouples can predictably measure the temperature of shell 72 without contact therewith.
With regard to claims 30 and 31: The furnace 32 comprises a heated zone (i.e. the interior thereof) (Livingston: Figures 1-6, Columns 4-6).
Even before modification in view of Griffin as described in the rejection of claim 1 above, the forwarding flight 90 of Livingston is insulated from the ambient atmosphere in that it is disposed within the rotary drum 32 and thereby isolated from the atmosphere by the walls of the drum (Livingston: Figures 1-6, Columns 4-6).
In modified Livingston, the forwarding flight 90 is insulated from the ambient atmosphere in the further sense that the added insulation disposed around the portion of the drum 34 comprising the flight 90 thermally insulates the forwarding flight from the ambient atmosphere (see rejection of claim 1 above).
At least a portion of the mixing flights 86 and 88 are held within the heated zone (Livingston: Figures 1-6, Columns 4-6).
At least a portion of the mixing flights 86 and 88 are thermally insulated from the ambient atmosphere by the insulation 64 and/or the insulated housing 78 (Livingston: Figures 1-6, Columns 4-6).
At least a portion of the mixing flights 86 and 88 are thermally insulated from the ambient atmosphere by the added insulation disposed around the portions of the drum positioned outside of the furnace 32 and which are not otherwise insulated (see rejection of claim 1 above).
The mixing flights 86 and 88 are insulated from the ambient atmosphere in the further sense that they are disposed within the rotary drum 32 and thereby isolated from the atmosphere by the walls of the drum (Livingston: Figures 1-6, Columns 4-6).
With regard to claims 32 and 33: The flights (blending bars) 88 can be additionally or alternatively characterized as oscillating flights, i.e. flights arranged in an oscillating pattern, as the flights 88 alternate between forward and aft positioning within the drum 34 (Livingston: Figure 5).
The furnace 32 comprises a heated zone (i.e. the interior thereof) (Livingston: Figures 1-6, Columns 4-6).
The oscillating flights 88 are insulated from the atmosphere by being held at least partially within the heated zone (Livingston: Figure 5).
With regard to claims 32 and 33: The system further comprises a plurality of oscillating flights (fins) 84, i.e. flights arranged in an oscillating (alternating) pattern (Livingston: Figure 5, Column 5 Lines 5-15).
The furnace 32 comprises a heated zone (i.e. the interior thereof) (Livingston: Figures 1-6, Columns 4-6).
The oscillating flights 85 are insulated from the atmosphere by being held within the heated zone (Livingston: Figures 4-6, Column 5 Lines 5-15).
Claim(s) 2 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Livingston in view of Griffin as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Yamamoto et al. (US 9,879,912), hereafter referred to as Yamamoto.
With regard to claim 2: In modified Livingston:
The furnace 32 is fixed in position on the thermal treatment reactor (Livingston: Figures 1-6, Columns 4-6).
A portion of the rotary drum 34 is positioned partially within the furnace and a portion of the rotary drum is positioned outside the furnace (Livingston: Figures 1-6, Columns 4-6).
In modified Livingston, the portion of the rotary drum that is positioned outside of the furnace comprises insulation (see rejection of claim 1 above).
In modified Livingston, the portion of the rotary drum that is positioned outside of the furnace comprises at least: i) a first wall/layer comprised of portions of metallic shell (Livingston: Figures 1-6, Columns 4 and 5), and ii) the added insulation which has been positioned around the drum 34 and thus around the outside of shell 72 thereof (see rejection of claim 1 above).
Livingston does not explicitly teach that the portion of the rotary drum that is positioned outside of the furnace comprises a second wall/layer positioned around an outside of the insulation, i.e. such that said portion of the rotary drum comprises a double wall wherein the insulation is between the first wall/layer and a second wall/layer.
However, such double wall insulation arrangements are known in the art. For example, Yamamoto teaches a reactor comprising a rotating drum (inner cylinder) 1 and a furnace (outer cylinder) 2, wherein a portion of the rotating drum which extends outside of the furnace 2 comprises a double wall having two walls/layers, i.e. an inner wall (conical portion) 13 and an outer wall (first outer shell) 17, and insulation 19 between the two layers/walls of the double wall (Columns 5-10, especially Column 6 Line 54-Column 7 Line 3, Figures 1 and 2, especially Figure 2). A person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that this double wall insulation arrangement advantageously provides protective walls both inside and outside the insulation, preventing damage thereof.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Livingston in view of Yamamoto by providing the portion of the rotary drum that is positioned outside of the furnace with a second wall/layer positioned around an outside of the insulation, i.e. such that said portion of the rotary drum comprises a double wall wherein the insulation is between the first wall/layer and a second wall/layer, in order to protect said insulation from damage.
With regard to claim 4: The mixing flights (pins) 86 can be additionally or alternatively characterized as raking pins (Livingston: Figures 4 and 5, Column 5 Lines 5-15, Column 6 Lines 30-45).
Said raking pins are necessarily functional to release VOCs from the thermally treated feedstock into the rotary drum, e.g. by providing mixing and heating to the feedstock to drive off VOCs. See MPEP 2114 for guidance.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Livingston in view of Griffin and Yamamoto as applied to claim 2 above, and in further view of Livingston et al. (US 8,388,813), hereafter referred to as Livingston II.
With regard to claim 3: Modified Livingston comprises trunnions 80 (Figures 1-6, Column 4 Line 64-Column 5 Line 6), which imply the presence of drum tracks in communication with the rotary drum 34.
In the unlikely event that such drum tracks are not implicitly present, a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that drum tracks cooperating with the turions 80 would be advantageous, as such tracks would allow for stable rotation of the drum.
Furthermore, providing rotary drums with such tracks is well-known in the art. For example, Livingston II, drawn to a similar reactor device to that of Livingston (abstract, Figures, whole document), teaches a rotary drum having drum tracks in communication therewith and cooperating with conventional trunnion assemblies 58 and 60 (Figures 2-7, Column 4 Line 60-Column 5 Line 6). Note that although the tracks are not explicitly mentioned in the specification of Livingston II, they are clearly illustrated in the Figures thereof.
If they are not implicitly present in Livingston, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Livingston in view of Livingston II by adding drum tracks in communication with the drum and cooperating with the turions 80, in order to stabilize rotation of the drum.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Livingston in view of Griffin as applied to claim 6 above, and in further view of Lamie et al. (US 1,980,828), hereafter referred to as Lamie.
With regard to claim 7: Livingston does not explicitly teach that the outer wall of the reactor discharge assembly is insulated to mitigate condensation.
However, it is well-known in the art to insulate reactor discharge assemblies. For example, Lamie, drawn to a rotary drum reactor (Figure 1, whole document), teaches a reactor discharge assembly 41 which is insulated by insulation 42 (Figure 1, page 2 Lines 55-65). It is understood that insulating the insulation 42 necessarily mitigates condensation within the assembly 41.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Livingston in view of Lamie by insulating the outer wall of the reactor discharge assembly to mitigate condensation.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Livingston in view of Griffin applied to claim 14 above, and in further view of Livingston II.
With regard to claim 15: Livingston does not explicitly teach that the liner is a thermal blanket or insulating refractory.
However, as discussed in the rejection of claim 14 above, the liner 64 is heat insulation (Livingston: Figures 4 and 5, Column 4 Lines 55-65). Both thermal blankets and insulating refractory are notoriously well-known forms of heat insulation for use in furnaces and the like. For example, Livingston II, drawn to a similar reactor device to that of Livingston (abstract, Figures, whole document), teaches a furnace (housing) 36 which is provided with a liner comprised of insulating refractory 126/144 (Figures 5-8, Column 5 Lines 48-67).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Livingston in view of Livingston II by selecting insulating refractory for use as the liner in order to obtain a system having a predictably functional insulating liner within the furnace.
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Livingston in view of Griffin applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Livingston II.
With regard to claim 22: Livingston does not explicitly describe posterior and anterior seals to prevent ingress of ambient air into the furnace. However, Examiner holds that Livingston illustrates such seals in the Figures (see annotated Figure 5 below for details).
PNG
media_image1.png
684
910
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In the event that the Figures don’t implicitly disclose posterior and anterior seals by the elements identified in the annotated Figure above, Livingston’s drawing at least suggest the presence of such seals. Furthermore, it is notoriously well-known in the art to provide such seals to reactors like that of Livingston. For example, Livingston II, drawn to a similar reactor device to that of Livingston (abstract, Figures, whole document), teaches a furnace (housing) 36 having an anterior seal 138a and a posterior seal 140a for providing a seal between the furnace and a rotary drum positioned therein (Figures 6 and 7, Column 5 Lines 48-67).
Assuming such seals are not implicitly present in Livingston, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Livingston in view of Livingston II by adding posterior and anterior seals to prevent ingress of ambient air into the furnace and to prevent escape from gases within the furnace.
Claim(s) 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Livingston in view of Griffin applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Herbertson et al. (US 2020/0010763), hereafter referred to as Herbertson.
With regard to claim 28: Modified Livingston further comprises a liberator device comprised of discharge airlock 124 and conveyor (not shown) which is configured to agitate the thermally treated product discharged through the discharge assembly (Livingston: Figures 1-6, Column 5 Lines 49-58). Said liberator device is necessarily capable of liberating trapped volatiles from the product and into the discharge assembly by said agitation, e.g. by allowing passage of solid product while preventing passage of gas.
Modified Livingston is silent to the liberator device being a liberator screw.
However, Livingston’s device is of the pyrolysis art (column 1 lines 10-20).
In the context of the pyrolysis art, liberator devices comprised of one or more screws which are functional as both a discharge airlock and a conveyor are notoriously well-known. For example, Herbertson teaches a pyrolysis reactor (converter) 3 having a liberator device comprised of screws 27 and 29 which function to discharge material from the reactor 3 while also compressing treated product to seal the discharge end of said reactor against escape and intrusion of gas (Figure 3, paragraphs [0116]-[0119]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Livingston in view of Herbertson by replacing the liberator device of Livingston with a liberator device comprising one or more screws which serve as both a conveyor and a discharge airlock by compressing solid product conveyed thereby, in order to obtain a system having a predictably functional liberator device capable of discharging solid product while sealing reactor against intrusion and escape of gas.
Citation of Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Strezov et al. (US 10,364,394) teaches a device which is substantially identical to that of the Herbertson PG pub relied upon in the rejection of claim 28 above.
Herbertson et al. (US 11,110,421) teaches a device which is substantially identical to that of the Herbertson PG pub relied upon in the rejection of claim 28 above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN "LUKE" PILCHER whose telephone number is (571)272-2691. 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 5712725954. 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.
/JONATHAN LUKE PILCHER/ Examiner, Art Unit 1772
Prosecution Insights