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
Claims 17-18, 20-25 and 28 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 05/07/2026.
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-3, 5-8, 10-11, 14 and 16 in the reply filed on 05/07/2026 is acknowledged.
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) 1-3 and 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tetzlaff (WO 2011/026631, Provided English translation used for the rejection) in view of Hu (EP 0801126).
With respect to claim 1, Tetzlaff discloses a reactor for the generation of hydrocarbon products by thermochemical treatment, comprising:
a feeding means (2) for the addition of feedstock material to the reactor (see page 12, figure 1);
an outlet (4) for the extraction of hydrocarbon products from the reactor (see page 12, figure 1);
a devolatilization zone (16)(see page 12, pyrolysis reactor, figure 1); and
a cracking zone (11) (coke cloud reactor, see figure 1, page 12 and abstract);
wherein the devolatilization zone is in fluid communication with the cracking zone through a plurality of apertures (9a,9b and 9c) permitting the passage of gas from the devolatilization zone into the cracking zone (see page 12, figure 1).
Tetzlaff does not disclose wherein the devolatilization zone comprises a first gas distribution base plate for the generation of a fluidized bed of material in the devolatilization zone and cracking zone comprises a second gas distribution base plate for the generation of a fluidized bed of material in the cracking zone.
However, the use of gas distributing grids within fluidized for fluidizing means is well-known and conventional, as disclosed by Hu (see col 6 lines 40-50), wherein Hu discloses utilizing two distribution plates to separate two localized zones (see figure 1, see col 6 lines 5-25, conduit 18 and grid 22 and 24).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the reactor of Tetzlaff in view of Hu with claimed gas distributors as said devices are conventional.
With respect to claim 2, the prior combination teaches the limitation of claim 1. Tetzlaff further discloses wherein the cracking zone more than one gas distribution plate (9a, 9b and 9c, see page 12).
With respect to claim 3, the prior combination teaches the limitation of claim 1.
Tetzlaff further discloses wherein the reactor is for the generation of products (syngas) by thermochemical treatment of one or more polymers (biomass) (see abstract).
With respect to claim 5, the prior combination teaches the limitation of claim 1.
The prior combination does not disclose wherein the hydrocarbon product comprises C5-C19 hydrocarbons.
However, an apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
Consequently, since all the structural limitations are disclosed by the prior art, said limitations pertaining to the manner of operation the apparatus do not overcome the rejection of claim 1.
With respect to claim 6, the prior combination teaches the limitation of claim 1. Tetzlaff further discloses wherein the pyrolysis (devolatization zone ) reactor operates at a temperature from about 400 to 1000°C (see page 7, 6th paragraph).
The prior combination does not disclose wherein the cracking zone is operated at a temperature of 500-650°C.
However, an apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
Consequently, since all the structural limitations are disclosed by the prior art, said limitations pertaining to the manner of operation the apparatus do not overcome the rejection of claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tetzlaff and Hu and as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mink (US 4,955,989)
With respect to claim 10, the prior combination teaches the limitation of claim 1.
The prior combination does not disclose wherein the fluidized gas is one or more of CO2 and N2.
However, in a related apparatus, Mink discloses the utilization of CO2 and N2 as fluidizing mediums (see col 4 lines 10-25).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the prior combination in view of Mink with the claimed fluidizing gas, as said inert fluidizing gases are conventional.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 1 as applied to claim Tetzlaff and Hu above, and further in view of Banasiak et al (US 2011/0258914).
With respect to claim 16, the prior combination teaches a modular reactor comprising the reactor of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1).
The prior combination does not teach wherein the modular reactor further comprises a feedstock material separation module upstream of the reactor, as claimed.
However, in a related method and apparatus for the fast pyrolysis of biomass, Banasiak discloses biomass feedstock preparation includes drying and milling upstream of the reactor (see paragraph 0067).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the prior combination reactor with drying and milling units upstream of the reactor, as said units are conventionally used in the preparation of biomass.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-8, 11 and 14 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUAN C VALENCIA whose telephone number is (571)270-7709. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10am - 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, Prem C Singh can be reached at 571 272-6381. 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.
/JUAN C VALENCIA/Examiner, Art Unit 1771
/Randy Boyer/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771
Prosecution Insights