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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/12/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant has amended claim 1 and canceled claims 2-4. Claim 1 is pending.
The amendments to the claims have necessitated new prior art rejections under 103. See 103 rejections below for details.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 12/12/2025, with respect to the 103 rejections set forth in the previous Office Action have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakagawa et al. (US 2014/0373436), hereafter referred to as Nakagawa, in view of Nakagawa et al. (US 2015/0021158), hereafter referred to as Nakagawa II, and Endou et al. (US 2016/0024389), hereafter referred to as Endou.
With regard to claim 1: Nakagawa teaches a carbonizing apparatus (abstract, Figure 1, paragraph [0019] comprising:
A carbonization furnace (pyrolysis device) 121 which is an externally heated kiln configured to carbonize organic material (coal) (abstract, Figure 1, paragraphs [0019]-[0020]).
A combustion furnace 124 configured to combust gas discharged from the carbonization 121 furnace (abstract, Figure 1, paragraph [0021]).
A duct (gas supply pipe) 101 connecting the carbonization furnace 121 and the combustion furnace 124 (abstract, Figure 1, paragraph [0021]).
A gas supply path (mixed gas communication pipe) 104 connected to the duct 101 (abstract, Figure 1, paragraph [0021]).
And a gas supply source comprised of blower 126, mixed gas branch pipe 102, and flow rate adjustment valve 103, etc., for supplying oxygen-containing gas (low temperature heating gas and waste heat gas) 12 and 13 to the path 104 during operation of the carbonization furnace 121 (abstract, Figure 1, paragraphs [0026], [0028]-[0031], especially paragraph [0031]).
Wherein the gas supply source 126/102/103 and the gas supply path 104 are configured to supply the oxygen-containing gas into the duct 101 to combust tar generated in the carbonization furnace 121 within the duct, thereby preventing adhesion of the tar (paragraph [0031]).
Wherein the carbonization furnace 121 is heated by hot gas 11 generated in the combustion furnace 124 (abstract, Figure 1, paragraphs [0020]-[0021]).
And wherein an oxygen concentration in gas in the duct 101 after feeding the oxygen-containing gas is 1-2% (paragraph [0031]).
Nakagawa does not explicitly teach that the externally heated kiln 121 is an externally heated rotary kiln. However, a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the kiln 121 is implicitly a rotary kiln 121 because: i) it is comprised of nested cylinders 122 and 123 (Figure 1, paragraph [0020]), which is a well-known configuration used in externally heated rotary kilns, and ii) the application is classified in C10B 47/30, which is drawn to “Destructive distillation of solid carbonaceous materials with indirect heating, e.g. by external combustion” “in rotary ovens or retorts”.
Regardless of whether of not the kiln is implicitly a rotary kiln, the nested cylinder arrangement of the kiln 121 at least suggests that said kiln can be an indirectly heated rotary kiln. In addition, comparison of Nakagawa to Nakagawa II further reinforces said suggestion. To elaborate, Nakagawa II is drawn to a similar pyrolysis system to that disclosed in Nakagawa (abstract, Figures 1-3), and shares multiple inventors with Nakagawa. Nakagawa expressly teaches that the pyrolysis device 111 disclosed therein is an externally heated rotary kiln comprised of an inner tube 112 and an outer tube (Figure 1, paragraph [0041]). Given the similarities between Nakagawa and Nakagawa II, the teachings of Nakagawa suggest that the kiln of Nakagawa is, or at least can be, an externally heated rotary kiln.
Assuming that it is not implicit in Nakagawa, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Nakagawa in view of Nakagawa II by configuring the kiln to be an externally heated rotary kiln, in order to obtain a predictably functional pyrolysis system that is congruent with the teachings and suggestions of Nakagawa.
Nakagawa does not explicitly teach that the oxygen concentration in the carbonization furnace is 10% by volume or less.
However, Nakagawa teaches that the pyrolysis gas 14 exiting the carbonization furnace 121 has an oxygen content of 0% (paragraph [0031]). This teaching at least suggests that the oxygen content in the carbonization furnace is similarly low, i.e. 0% or at least below 10%. Furthermore, there is nothing in Nakagawa to suggest that the pyrolysis gas would
Furthermore, it is notoriously well-known that carbonization (pyrolysis) should be carried out under an atmosphere which does not contain oxygen, or at least one which is oxygen deficient. This is because any attempt to carry out pyrolysis in the presence of oxygen will result in at least partial combustion of the material to be pyrolyzed. Thus, it is understood that carbonization furnace oxygen content is a result effective variable. "[When] the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation," (see MPEP 2144.05 II A).
Endou teaches an externally heated rotary kiln pyrolysis device (Figures 1 and 2, paragraph [0033]), wherein pyrolysis is carried out within said kiln in the absence of oxygen (paragraph [0046]), thereby demonstrating that a zero-oxygen environment is workable in an externally heated pyrolysis kiln.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Nakagawa in view of Endou by configuring the pyrolysis furnace to operate with an oxygen content of 0%, in order to prevent any combustion of feed material within the pyrolysis furnace.
Nakagawa is silent to the carbonization temperature in the carbonization furnace being 300°C or lower.
However, methods of mild biomass carbonization (called torrefaction) carried out temperature of 300 °C or lower are well-known in the art. For example, Endou teaches a method of torrefying biomass in an externally heated rotary kiln 4 comprised of an inner tube and an outer tube 12 (Figures 1 and 2, paragraphs [0003]-[0007] and [0030]-[0047]), wherein the torrefaction is carried out at a temperature of 250-350 °C (paragraphs [0004] and [0046]).
The teachings of Endou clearly demonstrate that it possible to torrefy biomass in an externally heated kiln comprised of an inner cylinder (tube) and an outer cylinder (tube). Therefore, in view of Endou, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation that it is possible configure the carbonization furnace of Nakagawa so as to torrefy biomass at a temperature of 300 °C or less, e.g. a temperature of 250-300 °C
It is noted that the taught range pyrolysis (torrefaction) temperature range overlaps the claimed range. “In the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists,” (MPEP 2144.05 I). Furthermore, it is understood that torrefaction temperature, and carbonization/pyrolysis temperature in general are result effective variables, as is evident from Endou (e.g. paragraph [0004] thereof). "[When] the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation," (see MPEP 2144.05 II A).
Furthermore, Endou teaches that torrefying biomass yields biomass which is suitable for use as a coal substitute in a pulverized coal boiler (paragraph [0004]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Nakagawa in view of Endou by configuring the device of Nakagawa to torrefy biomass at a carbonization temperature of 300°C or less, e.g. a temperature of 250-300 °C, within the carbonization furnace, in order to obtain a device which, with predictable success, produces a useful torrefied biomass that is suitable for use as a coal substitute in a pulverized coal boiler.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Endou (US 2016/0024389) in view of Nakagawa (US 2014/0373436).
With regard to claim 1: Endou teaches a biomass carbonizing apparatus (Figure 2, paragraphs [0003]-[0007]), the apparatus comprising:
A carbonization furnace (pyrolysis gasification furnace) 4 configured to carbonize biomass (Figure 2, paragraphs [0003]-[0007]).
Note: Though the furnace 4 is not expressly taught to be an externally heated rotary kiln with respect to Figure 2, Endou’s teaching to the furnace 4 in Figure 1 being an externally heated rotary kiln, coupled with the stark resemblance of the furnaces in Figures 1 and 2, in terms of both their illustration and their function, implicitly indicates that the furnace in Figure 2 is also an externally heated rotary kiln. In the unlikely alternative, the disclosure of Endou at least suggests that the furnace 4 of Figure 2 can be an externally heated rotary kiln for the forgoing reasons.
A combustion furnace 3 configured to combust gas discharged from the carbonization furnace (Figure 2, paragraphs [0003]-[0007]).
A duct connecting the carbonization furnace 4 and the combustion furnace 3 (Figure 2, paragraphs [0003]-[0007]).
Wherein the carbonization furnace 4 is heated by hot gas generated in the combustion furnace 3 (Figure 2, paragraphs [0003]-[0007]).
Wherein a carbonization temperature in the carbonization furnace is 250-300 °C (paragraph [0004]).
Wherein the oxygen concentration in the furnace 4 is 0%, i.e. the pyrolysis (torrefaction) carried out in said furnace is done so “in the absence of oxygen” (paragraph [0004]).
Endou does not explicitly teach that the carbonization furnace 4 in the system of Figure 2 is an externally heated rotary kiln. However, the system of Figure 1 includes a carbonization furnace 4, wherein said carbonization furnace 4 is illustrated in a substantially identical manner to that of Figure 2, and wherein said carbonization furnace 4 has substantially the same function as the (Figure 2, paragraphs [0003]-[0007], [0030], and [0033]). Endou teaches that the carbonization furnace 4 of Figure 1 is an externally heated rotary kiln (Figure 1, paragraph [0033]). By this teaching Endou implicitly teaches that the furnace 4 in Figure 2 is also an externally heated rotary kiln.
In the unlikely alternative, Endou’s teachings would, to one of ordinary skill in the art, at least suggest that the furnace 4 in the system of Figure 2 is an externally heated rotary kiln.
If it were not implicit in Endou, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Endou by configuring the carbonization furnace to be an externally heated rotary kiln, in order to obtain a predictably functional pyrolysis system that is congruent with the teachings of Endou.
Endou is silent to a gas supply path connected to the duct; and a gas supply source for supplying oxygen-containing gas to the path during operation of the carbonization furnace, wherein the gas supply source and the gas supply path are configured to supply the oxygen-containing gas into the duct to combust tar generated in the carbonization furnace within the duct, thereby preventing adhesion of the tar.
However, it is known in the art of pyrolysis to provide a gas supply path and gas supply source for supplying an oxygen-containing gas into a pyrolysis gas duct so as to combust tar and thereby prevent its adhesion to the pyrolysis gas duct. For example, Nakagawa teaches a carbonizing apparatus (abstract, Figure 1, paragraph [0019] comprising: A carbonization furnace (pyrolysis device) 121 which is an externally heated kiln configured to carbonize organic material (coal) (abstract, Figure 1, paragraphs [0019]-[0020]); A combustion furnace 124 configured to combust gas discharged from the carbonization 121 furnace (abstract, Figure 1, paragraph [0021]); A duct (gas supply pipe) 101 connecting the carbonization furnace 121 and the combustion furnace 124 (abstract, Figure 1, paragraph [0021]); A gas supply path (mixed gas communication pipe) 104 connected to the duct 101 (abstract, Figure 1, paragraph [0021]); And a gas supply source comprised of blower 126, mixed gas branch pipe 102, and flow rate adjustment valve 103, etc., for supplying oxygen-containing gas (low temperature heating gas and waste heat gas) 12 and 13 to the path 104 during operation of the carbonization furnace 121 (abstract, Figure 1, paragraphs [0026], [0028]-[0031], especially paragraph [0031]); Wherein the gas supply source 126/102/103 and the gas supply path 104 are configured to supply the oxygen-containing gas into the duct 101 to combust tar generated in the carbonization furnace 121 within the duct, thereby preventing adhesion of the tar (paragraph [0031]); And wherein the carbonization furnace 121 is heated by hot gas 11 generated in the combustion furnace 124 (abstract, Figure 1, paragraphs [0020]-[0021]).
With reference to Figure 1, Endou teaches that “the pyrolysis gasification furnace 4 and the coal-fired power plant 7 are adjacently disposed, and the pyrolysis gas introduction passage 8 is shortened, thereby making it possible to suppress the condensation of tar included in the pyrolysis gas P,” (paragraph [0063], emphasis added). It is understood that the pyrolysis gas P in Figure 1 is analogous to the pyrolysis gas P in Figure 2. The pyrolysis gas P in Figure 2 flows through the duct connecting the carbonization furnace 4 and the combustion furnace 3 (Figure 2, paragraphs [0003]-[0007]). Therefore, it is understood that condensation of the pyrolysis gas P and adhesion of tar is a potential problem in said duct. On this basis, a person having ordinary skill in the art would expect that Figure 2 of Endou would benefit from means for preventing condensation of pyrolysis gas and adhesion of tar in the duct connecting the carbonization furnace and the combustion furnace 3.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Endou in view of Nakagawa by incorporating: i) a gas supply path connected to the duct, and ii) a gas supply source for supplying oxygen-containing gas to the path during operation of the carbonization furnace, wherein the gas supply source and the gas supply path are configured to supply the oxygen-containing gas into the duct to combust tar generated in the carbonization furnace within the duct, thereby preventing condensation and adhesion of the tar.
Modified Endou is silent to an oxygen concentration in gas in the duct after feeding the oxygen-containing gas being 10% by volume or less.
However, considering that the purpose of feeding the oxygen containing gas is to prevent adhesion of tar by combusting said tar (Nakagawa: paragraph [0031]), a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the oxygen content following feeding of the oxygen containing gas is a result effective variable. Specifically, a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that, if the oxygen content in the duct is too low, there will not be sufficient oxygen to partially combust the gas from the carbonization furnace 10 to prevent tar condensation. On the other hand, if the oxygen content is too high, a greater amount of the gas will be combusted within the duct than is desired, with very high levels of oxygen resulting in undesirable complete combustion of the gas. "[When] the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation," (see MPEP 2144.05 II A).
Furthermore, Nakagawa teaches that an oxygen concentration in gas in the duct 101 after feeding the oxygen-containing gas is 1-2% (paragraph [0031]), thereby suggesting that an oxygen content below 10% is desirable or at least workable.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Endou in view of Nakagawa by configuring the gas supply path and gas supply source to feed an amount of oxygen containing gas into the duct such that an oxygen concentration in gas in the duct after feeding the oxygen-containing gas is 10% by volume or less, e.g. 1-2%, in order to obtain a system which is capable of supplying sufficient oxygen to facilitate the desired partial combustion of the gas within the duct.
Citation of Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Nakagawa et al. (US 2014/0373435) teaches a system similar to that of the Nakagawa PG pub (US 2014/0373436) relied upon in both of the 103 rejections above.
Endou et al. (US 10,184,082) is the granted patent corresponding to the Endou PG Pub relied upon in the 103 rejections above.
US 6178899 B1, JP 4224920 B2, JP 5713592 B2, US 9150791 B2, US 10377952 B2, US 20160177183 A1, and US 9494313 B2 all disclose systems which are relevant to the invention as presently claimed.
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