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 without traverse of claims 1-18 in the reply filed on 19 March 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 19-26 are withdrawn from further consideration as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Claim Interpretation
Claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art on the basis of structural differences. Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (“[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.”) (emphasis in original). Likewise, the “[i]nclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims.” In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937 (CCPA 1963). It is firmly rooted that because an apparatus is a structure, an apparatus must be distinguished from prior art on the basis of its structure, and where a prior art structure is inherently “capable of” performing the claimed function of the apparatus, the burden shifts to the applicant to show that the claimed function patentably distinguishes the claimed structure from the prior art structure. See, In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1478 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Hallman, 655 F.2d 212, 215 (CCPA 1981). 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).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office Action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Coates (US 2012/0063965).
With respect to claim 1, Coates discloses a system (see Coates, Fig. 7) comprising: (a) one or more condensers (C1, C2) for receiving vapor and oil, the oil cooling the vapor so as to condense at least a portion of the vapor (see Coates, paragraphs [0049] and [0050]); and (b) one or more recirculation loops to supply at least a portion of condensed oil to the one or more condensers (see Coates, Fig. 7; and paragraphs [0049] and [0050]).
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masemore (US 2002/0119089).
With respect to claim 1, Masemore discloses a system (see Masemore, Fig. 7) comprising: (a) one or more condensers (44) for receiving vapor and oil, the oil cooling the vapor so as to condense at least a portion of the vapor (see Masemore, paragraphs [0036] and [0037]); and (b) one or more recirculation loops to supply at least a portion of condensed oil to the one or more condensers (see Masemore, paragraph [0006]).
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 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coates (US 2012/0063965).
With respect to claims 2-4, see discussion supra at paragraph 7. Coates discloses wherein the system may comprise second (C2) and third (C3) condensers in fluid communication with the respective first (C1) and second (C2) condensers (see Coates, Fig. 7); wherein the second (C2) and third (C3) condensers have corresponding cooling means (see Coates, paragraphs [0050] and [0051]); wherein a fraction of cooled oil may bring about cooling in at least one condenser (see Coates, paragraph [0049]); and wherein various oil fractions may be collected from the various condensers (see Coates, paragraphs [0049]-[0051]). Each of the condensers (C1, C2, C3) have inlets for a gaseous portion and outlets for a condensed portion (see Coates, Fig. 7).
Claims 2-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masemore (US 2002/0119089).
With respect to claims 2-17, see discussion supra at paragraph 9. Masemore discloses wherein the system may comprise second and third condensers in fluid communication with the respective first and second condensers (see Masemore, paragraphs [0036], [0039], and [0043]); wherein the second and third condensers have corresponding cooling means (see Masemore, paragraphs [0039] and [0043]); wherein a fraction of cooled oil may bring about cooling in at least one condenser (see Masemore, paragraphs [0036]-[0039]); and wherein various oil fractions may be collected from the various condensers (see Masemore, paragraphs [0040]-[0042]). Each of the condensers have inlets for a gaseous portion and outlets for a condensed portion (see Masemore, paragraphs [0036]-[0043]). Condensation in one or more condensers may be effected by means of cooling water from a cooling tower as well as other cooling systems (see Masemore, paragraph [0039]), including cooled recirculated oil (see Masemore, paragraph [0042]), such oil being sprayed by a plurality of spray nozzles positioned appropriately inside of a separator/condenser unit (see Masemore, paragraph [0036]). The system may additionally comprise corresponding feed unit elements including a hopper, feed screw, pyrolysis reactor receiving a feedstock and generating a vapor and solid mass for discharge (see Masemore, paragraphs [0021]-[0032]), the vapor also comprising a particulate constituent (see Masemore, paragraph [0032]). The feed mechanism includes airlocks to limit intrusion of air flow (see Masemore, paragraph [0025]). The system may additionally comprise a flare for combustion of non-condensable vapor (see Masemore, paragraph [0044]). Finally, with respect to claims 9, 10, and 12, the claims do not structurally distinguish over the apparatus disclosed by Masemore.
Claims 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masemore (US 2002/0119089) in view of Carreira (EP 3627050 A1).
With respect to claims 15 and 16, see discussion supra at paragraph 16.
Masemore does not explicitly disclose wherein the feed mechanism receives a purge gas including a non-condensable portion of the vapor.
However, in a related apparatus, Carreira discloses recirculation of a non-condensable purge gas from the apparatus product recovery sections to the feed section, such purge gas having the function of preheating the feed material thereby reducing the need for supply of an external heat source and also functioning, in part, as an airlock thereby maintaining a seal against oxygen/air intrusion (see Carreira, paragraphs [0004], [0034], and [0043]).
Therefore, the person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the apparatus of Masemore to incorporate a non-condensable purge gas recycle as demonstrated in Carreira in order to achieve the same benefits noted by Carreira.
Finally, the person having ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying the apparatus of Masemore as described above because both Masemore and Carreira are directed to apparatuses for the pyrolysis of tire shred/crumb material.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masemore (US 2002/0119089) in view of Durai-Swamy (US 4,375,402).
With respect to claim 18, see discussion supra at paragraph 16.
Masemore does not explicitly disclose wherein a stripping column positioned between the separator and flare for the purpose of water treatment.
However, Masemore clearly discloses the use of water cooling systems such as cooling towers. In this regard, Durai-Swamy discloses a pyrolysis plant apparatus in which process water is treated by means of a steam stripper and further purification and treatment means (see Durai-Swamy, Abstract; and column 15, lines 52-58).
Therefore, the person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the apparatus of Masemore to incorporate the steam stripping and purification/treatment means of Durai-Swamy in order to ensure the release of water meeting appropriate environmental standards.
Finally, the person having ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying the apparatus of Masemore as described above because Masemore and Durai-Swamy are both directed to apparatuses for the pyrolysis of carbonaceous material.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Randy Boyer whose telephone number is (571) 272-7113. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday from 10:00 A.M. to 7:00 P.M. (EST).
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 number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Randy Boyer/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771
Prosecution Insights