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 drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 31.
The drawings are objected to because there is only one drawing and, therefore, it should not be labeled “FIG.1” See 37 CFR 1.84(u)(1).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“a feedstock feeder” in claim 1.
“a feedstock advancing mechanism” in claim 1.
“an oxygen flowrate controller” in claim 1.
“an ignition mechanism” in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
“a pyrolysing feedstock” should be –the pyrolysing feedstock—to make clear Applicant is not intending to introduce another, distinct feedstock.
“a flow rate of oxygen containing gas” should be –the flow rate of oxygen containing gas— to make clear Applicant is referring to the flow rate of oxygen containing gas already introduced.
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 1-12 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 limitation “an ignition mechanism” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
The term “close” in claim 3 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “close” 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. It is unclear from the context of the claim and corresponding specification what distance from the feedstock would be within the scope of “close.”
The term “close-fitting” in claim 6 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “close-fitting” 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. It is unclear from the context of the claim and corresponding specification what metrics would be applied to determine the scope of “close-fitting.”
The term “relatively high” in claim 11 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “relatively high” 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. It is unclear from the context of the claim and corresponding specification what distance within the headspace would be within the scope of “relatively high.”
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-4, 8, 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Olofsson et al (US 2014/0208995) in view of Sanderson et al (US 2015/0210926).
Regarding claim 1, Olofsson discloses an apparatus 1 for drying and pyrolyzing (torrefaction) a feedstock containing carbonaceous material (biomass) to produce char (torrefied biomass), the apparatus including (see Fig. 1; [0001]; [0015]; [0021]; [0043]; [0070]):
a reaction chamber 2 which is substantially sealed except for one or more inlet ports 13 at a distal end of the reaction chamber connectable to a supply of an oxygen-containing gas and an outlet port 18 at a proximal end of the reaction chamber for release of gaseous combustion products (see [0021]-[0022]; [0036]; [0041]-[0042]);
a feedstock feeder 5, 3 to feed the feedstock into the proximal end of the reaction chamber;
a feedstock advancing mechanism (transport screw 7) in a lower portion of the reaction chamber to advance the feedstock laterally along the lower portion (arrow 20) as it pyrolyzes in its progression form the proximal end to the distal end (see [0057]);
headspace (arrow 19) in the rection chamber above the pyrolyzing feedstock in the lower portion;
a char discharge port 4 to discharge the feedstock after pyrolyzing from the distal end of the reaction chamber;
an oxygen flowrate controller (valves 17) for adjusting a flow rate of the oxygen-containing gas through the inlet port (see [0022]; [0055]; [0067]);
temperature probes 26, 27, 28 to provide temperature measurements in the reaction chamber;
a control system operably connected at least with the oxygen flowrate controller and the temperature probes to control at least a flow rate of oxygen-containing gas entering the reaction chamber via the inlet port(s) in response to the temperature measurements so that the temperature measurements are appropriate for the production of char from the feedstock and so that a zone of volatile gas combustion is established in the headspace, involving consumption of incoming free oxygen in the headspace without contacting the feedstock (see [0042]-[0043]; [0055]; [0067]; [0073]); and
an ignition mechanism for providing an initial source of heat into the reaction chamber to achieve a self-sustaining pyrolyzing steady state maintained by combustion of volatile gases from the pyrolyzing feedstock (see [0058]; [0067]; [0081]).
While Olofsson discloses temperature probe(s) in the reaction chamber, as discussed above, the reference does not explicitly disclose temperature probes provided at different heights in the reaction chamber.
Sanderson is directed to an apparatus for drying and pyrolyzing carbonaceous materials, wherein thermal energy required to drive the process is provided via combustion of produced gases with an oxygen-containing gas (see Abstract). Temperature probes are installed in different heights in the reaction chamber so as to provide temperature measurements at such locations (see [0016]). The flow of oxygen-containing gas is controlled such that the temperature is controlled to a certain target value (see [0028]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the instant claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Olofsson by installing temperature probes at different heights in the reaction chamber, as suggested by Sanderson, in order to collect more data from within the reactor that can be used to provide better control of the flowrate of oxygen-containing gas needed to maintain target reaction temperature.
Regarding claims 2-4, determining suitable locations at which to place the temperature probes within the reaction chamber is a matter of obvious engineering choice for a person or ordinary skill in the art and would be associated with a reasonable expectation of success. A person of ordinary skill in the art would select appropriate locations within the reactor for providing temperature measurements which assist in optimization of oxygen flowrate and temperature control.
Regarding claim 8, Olofsson discloses wherein the feedstock advancing mechanism is a screw conveyor 7 configured to operate in a channel in the lower portion of the reaction chamber to advance the feedstock by rotation of the screw conveyor (see [0057]).
Regarding claim 11, Olofsson discloses wherein the inlet port(s) are located in the headspace and are configured to prevent any entering oxygen-containing gas impinging onto the pyrolyzed feedstock below (see Fig. 1; [0055]).
Regarding claim 12, Olofsson in view of Sanderson discloses a method of using the apparatus described above for drying and pyrolyzing the feedstock, the method comprising (see Olofsson: Fig. 1; [0001]; [0015]; [0021]; [0043]; [0070]):
loading feedstock into the feedstock feeder and operating the feeder to feed the feedstock into the proximal end of the reaction chamber (see [0070]);
operating the feedstock advancing mechanism to progress the feedstock from the proximal end to the distal end (see [0057]);
operating the char discharge port to discharge the feedstock after pyrolyzing from the distal end of the reaction chamber (see [0070]);
operating the control system to control at least the flow rate of oxygen-containing gas entering the reaction chamber via the inlet port in response to the temperature measurements so that the temperature measurements are appropriate for the production of char from the feedstock so that a zone of volatile gas combustion is established in the headspace, involving essentially complete consumption of all incoming free oxygen in the headspace without contacting the feedstock (see [0042]-[0043]; [0055]; [0067]; [0073]); and
operating the ignition mechanism during a start-up period to heat the reaction chamber to a self-sustaining steady state maintained by combustion of volatile gases from the pyrolyzing feedstock (see [0058]; [0067]; [0081]).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Olofsson in view of Sanderson, as applied to claim 1, in further view of Rotter (US 4,308,103).
Regarding claim 5, Olofsson does not explicitly disclose wherein the char discharge port comprises a rotary valve airlock.
Rotter is directed to an apparatus for pyrolysis of solid carbonaceous materials (see Abstract). Solid residue is passed from the reactor via a rotary valve which is actuated in response to a material level sensing device to pass material through the valve for passage out of the reaction system. This arrangement seals the reaction zone at its outlet end from oxygen-containing gases (see col. 8, line 58 – col. 9, line 14).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the instant claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Olofsson in view of Sanderson by implementing a rotary valve on the discharge port, as suggested by Rotter, in order to seal the reaction zone at the outlet end from oxygen-containing gases.
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Olofsson in view of Sanderson, as applied to claim 1, in further view of Stein (WO 2007/113497).
Regarding claims 6 and 7, Olofsson does not disclose wherein the feedstock feeder comprises a feed ram configured to push feedstock through an opening into the reaction chamber such that the feed ram is configured to act as a gas seal in a closed position.
Stein discloses a feed mechanism in which a ram 2 fed from a hopper 1 compresses a feed against a closed valve 11 which is then opened for the ram to push the feed toward rotary scroll for delivery into a processing vessel. The feedstock feeder comprises a feed chute above the feed ram with a lower opening closable by a chute gate (guillotine valve), the feed chute configured to receive a load of feedstock from above and hold the load while the chute gate is closed and allow feedstock to fall through the chute gate when it is open. The chute gate is configured to operate in opposition to the feed ram, thereby providing a gas seal (see Abstract; Figs. 1-2; p. 1; claims 1-3). Stein discloses that this feed mechanism provides a smoother flow of feed into the reaction chamber (see p. 2).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the instant claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Olofsson in view of Sanderson by implementing the feed mechanism disclosed by Stein in order to ensure a gas seal in feeding the material to the reactor in a manner that provides smooth operation.
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Olofsson in view of Sanderson, as applied to claim 8, in further view of Robert (US 2015/0007446)
Regarding claim 9, Olofsson does not disclose wherein the screw conveyor comprises a hollow shaft through which a cooling fluid may be passed.
Robert discloses a hollow-flight cooling screw for use in biomass processing systems, wherein a cooling fluid may circulate through the hollow screw to remove heat therefrom (see [0001]; [0025]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the instant claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Olofsson in view of Sanderson by using a hollow-flight cooling screw for the screw conveyor, as suggested by Robert, in order to provide the means for enhancing temperature control within the system.
Regarding claim 10, the material worked upon by the apparatus is not structurally limiting. Recitation of the specific type of cooling fluid used is therefore not considered to patentably distinguish the instant claims over the cited prior art. MPEP 2115.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RENEE ROBINSON whose telephone number is (571)270-7371. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8:00a-5:00p and Friday 8:00a-2:00p.
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 (571)272-5954. 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.
/Renee Robinson/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1772