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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 26 February 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive, with the exception of the rejection under 35 USC 112(b).
Applicant argues that the claim limitations “a temperature control mechanism”, “an adjustable flow control mechanism”, and “emergency shutdown mechanisms” should not be interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) because “each limitation is associated with sufficient disclosed structure and uses no ‘means’ language” (emphasis added).
This argument is not found persuasive, but rather confirms why the limitations are interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) “means plus function”, as they require information from the specification in order to determine the structure implied. The office notes that 112(f) is not a rejection, but rather a way of interpreting the claim language. Given that the limitations, as recited in the claims, are not accompanied by structure, they must be interpreted under 112(f) based upon information in the specification which describes suitable structure to carry out the claimed functions. Explicit use of the word “means” is not required in order for a limitation to be interpreted under 112(f), but instead the requirement is for the presence of a generic placeholder coupled with functional language without reciting (in the claim itself) sufficient structure to perform the recited function. The office maintains the interpretations set forth in the previous office action. If Applicant does not want the claims interpreted under 35 USC 112(f), the claims must be amended to recite sufficient structure.
Applicant argues that “high temperature” should be interpreted as operation within 200 to 700°C, as described in the specification.
The office agrees and withdraws the rejection under 35 USC 112(b). The claim interpretation is noted below in the office action.
With respect to the prior art rejections, Applicant is of the position that Clifford fails to teach the claimed elements for the following reasons: (1) the plenum in Clifford is not a “lid integrated into the batch process cooker,” but rather is a component of a crossflow contactor for removing carbon dioxide from air, an entirely different type of apparatus with no batch processing cooker, no biomass basket, and no molten salt; (2) the fluid being distributed is a liquid solvent for carbon dioxide absorption and not molten salts; (3) the upper plenum is not a lid integrated into a cooker, but rather a separate upstream chamber.
Regarding (1) and (2), the office acknowledges that Clifford does not teach a batch processing cooker, a biomass basket, or a molten salt. However, the office notes that Clifford is a modifying reference to Shu, the primary reference, which does teach these features. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Further with respect to (3), applicant argues that the claim specifically requires a lid and not merely any component formed by or associated with a housing structure.
This argument is not found persuasive. Applicant appears to be applying an overly narrow interpretation of “lid integrated into the batch process cooker” than what is required by the claim language. While Applicant appears to contend that the lid requires closing functionality, the office respectfully disagrees that the claim language requires this. The broadest reasonable interpretation of “lid” is a cover for the opening of a container. The liquid distributor 20 of Clifford covers the mass transfer column 10 and comprises plenum 22(see Fig. 1), which is considered to teach the claimed lid.
Applicant argues that a perforated plate, as in Clifford, is structurally distinct from the claimed distribution channels, where perforations in a plate are simple apertures through a flat surface and distribution channels are elongated, directed passages that guide fluid along a defined path.
This argument is not found persuasive. Applicant again appears to be applying an overly narrow interpretation of “distribution channels” which is not required by the claim. The claims in no way require elongated passages. In fact, Figs. 3 & 4 of the instant application do not depict the “distribution channels” as elongated channels, but rather they appear more akin to apertures on the bottom of the plenum lid. Thus, the office maintains the position that the perforated plate of Clifford satisfies the broadest reasonable interpretation of distribution channels as claimed, where the perforated plate functions to uniformly distribute fluid into all or a selection portion of the open internal region below (see [0027]).
Applicant argues that there is no identified deficiency in Shu’s molten salt contact methodology that would prompt a skilled artisan to look at Clifford’s contactor for solution and the office’s motivation is not grounded in any problem identified in Shu.
In response, the office recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, Clifford discloses a liquid distributor arrangement that allows for uniform distribution of a liquid into the internal region below. A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that as an advantage over the supply pipe in Shu, i.e., a perforated distribution plate would provide more even distribution than a single supply pipe, as is disclosed in Shu.
In response to applicant's argument that Clifford is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, Clifford’s teachings with respect to uniform liquid distribution are considered relevant.
Claim Interpretation
“High temperature” is interpreted as operation within the temperature range of 200 to 700°C (see [0032]; [0038]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-6, 8, 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shu et al (US 2017/0233658) in view of Clifford et al (US 2022/0395806).
Regarding claim 1, Shu discloses a system comprising (see Abstract; Figs. 1-3):
a batch process cooker (supertorrefying unit 14 comprising container 34) for thermal processing of biomass, the batch process cooker configured to hold the biomass for high temperature conversion into biocarbon products (see [0021]; [0025]);
a biomass basket (holding member 40) disposed within the batch process cooker, wherein the biomass basket is configured to hold the biomass during thermal processing (see [0025]; [0035]);
a molten salt reservoir (liquid tank 16) positioned below the batch process cooker, the molten salt reservoir storing molten salts utilized for heating and converting the biomass within the biomass basket (see [0024]); and
a molten salt pump configured to pump molten salts from the molten salt reservoir to the batch process cooker (see [0027]; [0051]; [0063]).
Shu does not disclose a plenum lid integrated into the batch process cooker, the plenum lid including a plurality of distribution channels for evenly distributing molten salts onto the biomass within the biomass basket.
Clifford is directed to a mass transfer column which comprises a liquid distributor for delivering a fluid stream into solid elements housed within the column (see [0008]). In particular, the mass transfer column comprises a liquid distributor formed by the shell 12 (i.e., integrated) for delivering a fluid stream into an open internal region 14 from above. The liquid distributor 20 comprises an upper plenum 22 positioned above and separated from the open internal region 14 by a perforated plate 24 that uniformly distributes the second fluid stream into all of the internal region 14 (see Fig. 1; [0027]).
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 Shu to include a liquid distributor, as described in Clifford, comprising a plenum and a perforated plate, within the batch process cooker in order to uniformly distribute the molten salt stream over the biomass housed therein, thereby improving contact of the molten salts with the biomass.
Regarding claim 2, Shu in view of Clifford discloses the structural features of the claimed system. The limitations of claim 2 are directed to the materials acted upon and the intended manner of operating the claimed system and are not structurally limiting. MPEP 2114 & 2115. The office notes, however, that Shu is directed to supertorrefaction of biomass at tunable temperatures and time periods with molten salt mixtures to produce biocarbon products (see [0008]-[0009]; [0027]; [0048]; [0051]; [0063]).
Regarding claim 3, Shu discloses wherein the biomass basket includes a robotic arm attachment (machine-graspable handle 42) for loading and unloading the biomass basket to and from the batch process cooker (see [0025]).
Regarding claim 4, the material acted upon by the apparatus is not structurally limiting. However, the office notes that Shu discloses eutectic mixtures of molten salts (see [0053]).
Regarding claim 5, Shu discloses wherein the batch process cooker further comprises a temperature control mechanism for regulating the temperature within the cooker during thermal processing (see [0027], heating unit 18 heats molten salt to a first temperature, then to a second temperature; [0063]).
Regarding claim 6, Clifford discloses wherein the plenum lid includes an adjustable flow control mechanism (nozzle 26) for fine-tuning the distribution of liquid (see [0027]); also see Shu: [0051], which suggests controlling the flow rate of molten salt to the supertorrefying unit).
Regarding claim 8, Shu discloses a bypass system between the molten salt reservoir and the batch process cooker, the bypass system enabling the recirculation of pumped molten salts to the molten salt reservoir (see [0028]; [0031]).
Regarding claim 10, Shu discloses the system further comprising a sluice washer (wash unit 20) configured to remove salts from the processed biocarbon product (see [0025]; [0030]).
Regarding claim 11, Shu discloses wherein the batch process cooker and the biomass basket are cylindrical (see Figs. 2-3; [0025]-[0026]).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shu in view of Clifford, as applied to claim 1, in further view of Benson et al (US 2019/0371482).
Regarding claim 7, Shu in view of Clifford does not disclose the molten salt reservoir having safety interlocks and emergency shutdown mechanisms for ensuring safe operation.
Benson discloses a molten salt reactor system which includes safety systems, such as emergency dump tanks (see [0026]).
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 Shu in view of Clifford to include safety systems associated with the molten salt reservoir, such as emergency dump tanks, as suggested by Benson, in order provide capability of avoiding unsafe conditions in the event of an emergency or unsafe operating environment.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shu in view of Clifford, as applied to claim 1, in further view of Pinatti et al (US 2011/0315349).
Regarding claim 9, Shu in view of Clifford does not disclose wherein the plenum lid includes heat insulation.
Pinatti is directed to an apparatus for thermal decomposition of organic material. In particular, Pinatti discloses disposing a thermal insulation layer throughout the inner surface of the lid of the thermal decomposition reactor (see [0034]).
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 Shu in view of Clifford by including a thermal insulation layer on the lid of the reactor, as suggested by Pinatti, in order minimize heat losses from the system, i.e., to improve thermal efficiency.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shu in view of Clifford, as applied to claims 1 and 11, in further view of Ge et al (CN 204138604).
Ge is cited from the English machine translation, provided herewith.
Regarding claim 12, Shu’s basket is cylindrical, as discussed above (see Fig. 3). While Shu depicts a basket comprising mesh on the bottom and the vertical walls, the reference discloses that the basket may be “any other form as long as the holding member 40 can hold the biomass or the resulting charcoal and allow the…heat transfer fluids to be in direct contact with the biomass or the charcoal” (see [0026]).
In this regard, the office notes that baskets having the claimed configuration, i.e., solid vertical walls and a mesh bottom, are known in the art, as shown in Ge. Ge discloses a biomass material basket for a carbonization furnace comprising a basket body with a mesh bottom and solid vertical walls. This configuration holds the biomass therein and improves heat efficiency (see Abstract; Figs. 1-3).
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 Shu in view of Clifford by utilizing a biomass basket as disclosed by Ge, where Shu discloses that any basket may be used so long as it holds the biomass and charcoal and allows for contact with the molten salt and Ge discloses that a configuration as claimed, i.e., mesh bottom and solid walls, is associated with improved heat efficiency.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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
Prosecution Insights