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 .
Drawings
The 11/10/23 drawings are provisionally accepted. Due to their complexity and numerosity, applicant’s assistance is requested to ensure that all component labels therein are correctly identified in the specification and vice versa. 37 CFR 1.3 (courtesy required).
Claim Interpretation
The claimed term “comburent” is understood to mean an oxidizing agent per par. 40 of the specification-as-filed. Claim 6’s phrase “substantially pure oxygen” is understood to mean ≥90% (dry volume) O2 per par. 89 of the specification-as-filed.
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.
Claim 1, 5-9, 11-19, 21, 25, and 27 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b)/2nd par. as 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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b)/2nd par. as indefinite because its recitation “the decarbonated materials (50)” lacks sufficient antecedent bases.
Applicant is hereby advised that, as independent claim 1 and various dependent claims (see below) are rejected for deficiencies under 35 USC 112(b)/2nd par., all claims depending therefrom also contain such deficiencies and are likewise rejected (unless the deficiencies are resolved by the dependent claim’s own limitations) - cure thereof is required for any and all claims affected even if any such claim were otherwise found allowable. See, e.g., In re Jolly, 172 F.2d 566, 567 (CCPA 1949) (holding that dependent claims of indefinite claims are thusly indefinite), and Ex parte Kristensen, 10 USPQ2d 1701, 1702-04 (BPAI 1989) (same); 35 USC 112(d)/4th par.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). Here, claim 6 recites the broad recitation “less than 70% N2”, and also recites “in particular less than 50% of N2” and “in particular said comburent being oxygen-enriched air or substantially pure oxygen”, which are the narrower statements of the range/limitation. Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b)/2nd par. as indefinite as there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by the narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and thus not required, or (b) a required feature of the claim. While interpretation (a) has been applied for examination purposes per the broadest reasonable interpretation standard of MPEP 2111.03, this rejection nevertheless needs addressing.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b)/2nd par. as indefinite because its recitation “the one or more cooling streams (92)” lacks sufficient antecedent bases; claim 1 recites “one or more cooling streams (91)”.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b)/2nd par. as indefinite because its recitation “and/or from the (412) or at least one of the cross-over channels (412, 423, 431)” appears to have text missing between “the” and “(412)”. This omission creates confusion as to the claimed scope and how to avoid infringement thereof (MPEP 2173.02), rendering the claim indefinite. The claim is further rejected for indefiniteness under 35 U.S.C. 112(b)/2nd par. because part (412) appears to have been doubly-recited in the quoted recitation. MPEP 2173.05(o).
Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b)/2nd par. as indefinite because their recitations of “the recycled exhaust gas (40)” lack sufficient antecedent bases; claims 1 and 12-13 instead recite “exhaust gas (40)” and/or “the generated exhaust gas (40)”.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b)/2nd par. as indefinite because its recitation “the one or more cooling streams (91,92)” lacks sufficient antecedent bases; claim 1 recites “one or more cooling streams (91)”. The claim is further so rejected for indefiniteness because its recitation of “cycle… C6” lacks sufficient antecedent bases; cycle C6 is only previously recited in claims 13 and 15, which are not in claim 16’s dependency chain.
Potentially Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 5-9, 11-19, 21, 25, and 27 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the above 35 U.S.C. 112(b)/2nd par. rejection(s) and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Regarding independent claim 1, the most pertinent prior art of record appears to be the 2002 Maerz® article (“Maerz”) (see applicant’s 11-10-23 IDS). Maerz teaches a method of decarbonating carbonated materials within a multi-shaft vertical kiln (“MSVK”) that comprises two shafts with preheating zones, heating zones, and cooling zones, with a cross-channel between the shafts (allowing cooling and exhaust gas streams to be sent from one shaft to the other), comprising alternatively heating carbonated materials by combusting a coal-based fuel with a comburent/oxidant to a T at which CO2 is released from the carbonated materials and thus generating an exhaust gas, and cooling the thus-decarbonated materials in the cooling zones with cooling streams. See Maerz at, e.g., §§5.3, 5.4.3, 5.8, and 6.1; Figs. 2, 3a-b, 4, 10, 12, and 16. Independent claim 1 is not anticipated or obvious over Maerz, however, because Maerz does not teach or suggest the remainder of claim 1, namely from “wherein a mixing between the exhaust gas (40) and the one or more cooling streams (91) is minimized by operating said kiln in a mode in which [the fuel supply to each shaft is stopped in between two subsequent alternating heating cycles between the shafts, during which time the decarbonated materials within the shafts are cooled with the cooling streams]” to the claim’s end.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL BERNS whose telephone number is (469)295-9161. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:00 (Central). 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, Anthony Zimmer can be reached at (571) 270-3591. 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.
/DANIEL BERNS/ June 18, 2026
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1736
Prosecution Insights