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 with traverse of species (i), gasification, in the reply filed on 07 July 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that searching both species would not impose an additional burden on the examiner. This is not found persuasive because the office respectfully disagrees with this assertion. As noted in the election requirement, the reactions are different in nature and examining the two together would require additional searching not required for examination of one of the species.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Objections
Claim 34 is objected to because of the following informalities: “The A feedstock conversion facility” is a typo of –A feedstock conversion facility— (delete “The”).
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 1-36 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.
Regarding claim 1, the relationship between “rotating and stationary blades” in line 10 and prior recitation of “rotor blades” and “stationary blades or vanes”, respectively, is unclear. Is the former intended to introduce new elements or refer back to the elements previously introduced?
The term “essentially” in claims 1, 2, 4, 7, 11, 12, 19, 34 and 35 is a relative term which renders the claims indefinite. The term “essentially” is not defined by the claim(s), 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 claims and corresponding specification what degree of deviation is encompassed by recitation of “essentially.”
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the at least one feedstock conversion unit" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the at least one feedstock conversion unit" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "said essentially solid carbon-based feedstock" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the feedstock conversion unit" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the bed material" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the feedstock conversion unit" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claims 21, 22, 30 and 33, the phrase "such as" renders the claims indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
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). In the present instance, claim 24 recites the broad recitation “temperatures exceeding 1000°C” and the claim also recites “preferably, provided within a range of about 1000°C to about 1700°C” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Regarding claim 27, it is unclear what the relationship is between “at least one rotary apparatus” recited therein and recitation of the same in claim 1. Are they the same or different?
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.
Claims 1-4, 15, 16, 18-23, 25-27, 29-32 and 34-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Seppala et al (US 9,234,140).
Regarding claims 1-3 and 32 and 34-36, Seppala discloses a method and apparatus for thermal or thermochemical conversion of carbon-based feedstocks into usable products, the method comprising generation of a heated fluidic medium by a rotary apparatus, the rotary apparatus comprising (see col. 2, lines 4-10):
a rotor with a plurality of rotor blades arranged into at least one row around a rotor hub (rotor disk) mounted onto a rotor shaft (see col. 2, lines 11-13; col. 3, lines 9-13; col. 6, lines 6-14);
a plurality of stationary blades or vanes arranged into an assembly adjacent to the at least one row of rotor blades (see col. 2, lines 13-17); and
a casing with a duct formed between at least one inlet and at least one outlet, the duct configured to encompass the rotor and stationary blades such that bladeless portion(s) of the duct is/are arranged subsequently to bladed portions thereof (see col. 2, lines 16-18 and 34-41).
The rotary apparatus is configured to impart thermal energy to a stream of fluidic medium flowing in the duct between the inlet and the outlet by virtue of a series of transformations (kinetic energy to heat) occurring when the stream of fluidic medium successively passes through the bladed and bladeless portions of the duct, whereby a stream of heated fluidic medium is generated (see col. 2, lines 46-57).
Seppala further discloses two reactors connected in series, wherein the stream of heated fluidic medium generated by the first rotary reactor is supplied to a second rotary reactor (equivalent to the claimed feedstock conversion facility/unit and its integration) (see col. 3, lines 31-34; col. 9, line 63 – col. 10, line 3). The reactors are operated to carry out thermal or thermochemical conversion of carbon-based feedstocks into useable products at temperatures exceeding 400°C (see col. 3, lines 23-26, disclosing biomass feedstock, i.e., carbon-based, and 60-63; col. 8, lines 1-4, disclosing 500-1000°C, within the claimed range).
Regarding claims 4 and 18, Seppala discloses bringing the stream of heated fluidic medium generated by the rotary apparatus into contact with carbon-based feedstock in the feedstock conversion unit, wherein the heated fluidic medium generated by the rotary apparatus provides heat for thermal or thermochemical conversion of the carbon-based feedstock into usable products (see col. 3, lines 60-64; col. 10, lines 1-2, where additional feed is injected into the second rotary reactor).
Regarding claims 15 and 16, Seppala discloses wherein thermal or thermochemical conversion is carried out by gasification or by pyrolysis and the feedstock conversion unit comprises a gasifier or pyrolyzer (see col. 10, lines 40-49).
Regarding claim 19, Seppala discloses wherein the fluidic medium that enters the rotary apparatus is a gaseous medium (see col. 3, lines 17-18).
Regarding claim 20, Seppala discloses wherein the heated fluidic medium generated by the rotary apparatus comprises steam (see col. 9, lines 48-50).
Regarding claim 21, Seppala discloses wherein the heated fluidic medium generated by the rotary apparatus comprises an oxidative gas (see col. 10, lines 29-32).
Regarding claim 22, Seppala discloses wherein the heated fluidic medium generated by the rotary apparatus comprises a non-oxidative gas (see col. 12, lines 28-30; col. 13, lines 24-29).
Regarding claim 23, Seppala discloses wherein the heated fluidic medium generated by the rotary apparatus comprises a recycle gas recycled from exhaust gases generated during feedstock conversion process(es) in the feedstock conversion facility (see col. 12, lines 24-29).
Regarding claim 25, Seppala discloses adjusting velocity and/or pressure of the stream of fluidic medium propagating through the rotary apparatus (see col. 7, lines 47-57; col. 8, lines 61-65).
Regarding claim 26, Seppala discloses the rotary apparatus comprising two or more rows of rotor blades sequentially arranged along the rotor shaft (see col. 9, lines 8-12).
Regarding claim 27, Seppala discloses wherein the bladeless portion of the duct is arranged downstream of the at least one row of rotor blades (see col. 2, lines 52-57; col. 6, lines 60-64).
Regarding claim 29, Seppala discloses wherein electrical energy consumed by the apparatus is obtainable from a combination of different sources of energy (see col. 11, lines 5-7).
Regarding claim 30, Seppala discloses the rotary apparatus may be configured to receive input energy from a turbine or mechanical drive engine (see col. 11, lines 7-9).
Regarding claim 31, Seppala discloses generation of the heated fluidic medium by at least two rotary apparatus integrated into the feedstock conversion facility, wherein the at least two rotary apparatuses are connected in parallel or in series (see col. 3, lines 31-34; col. 10, lines 61-67).
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 24 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seppala, as applied to the claims above.
Regarding claim 24, Seppala discloses generating the fluidic medium heated up to temperatures in the range of about 500 to 1000°C (see col. 8, lines 1-4), overlapping the claimed range.
Regarding claim 28, Seppala discloses wherein the rotary apparatus is electrically operated (see col. 11, lines 5-7), but does not explicitly disclose the percentage of energy consumption which is electrical. Nevertheless, determining energy demands and the means by which to fulfill them amounts to nothing more than routine experimentation for a person of ordinary skill in the art. The claimed percentage of energy consumption being electrical is not considered to patentably distinguish the instant claims over the cited prior art.
Claim 33 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seppala, as applied to the claims above, in view of Smith (US 2009/0007484).
Regarding claim 33, Seppala does not disclose pretreatment of the carbon-based (biomass) feedstock comprising size reduction of feedstock particles carried out through grinding.
In this regard, however, it is noted that size reduction of biomass feedstocks prior to processing in thermal reactions into useable products is common practice in the art. Smith, for example, is directed to thermal decomposition of biomass and discloses that is preferable to provide biomass feed in a size range of about 1/8” to about ¼” for a good combination of handleability and moveability (see [0183]; [0207]). Size reduction may be accomplished by cryogenic shredding (see [0076]).
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 process of Seppala to include pretreatment of the biomass feedstock, including size reduction by cryogenic shredding, as suggested by Smith, in order to provide the biomass at a size that is advantageous for handling and processing during conversion.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-14 and 17 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Seppala, relied upon above, is considered to be the closest prior art.
Regarding claim 5, Seppala does not disclose the additional features discloses therein, including bringing the stream of heated fluidic medium generated by the rotary apparatus into contact with heat transfer material in a heat transfer section of the feedstock conversion unit and transferring heated heat transfer material from the heat transfer section into a conversion section of the feedstock conversion unit. There is no disclosure with respect to implementing a heat transfer medium in a feedstock conversion unit. Nor does there appear to be sufficient teachings and/or suggestions in the prior art which would lead a person of ordinary skill to modify Seppala in such a way as to arrive at the claimed embodiment.
Claims 6, 7, 10, 14 and 17 depend from claim 5.
Regarding claim 8, Seppala does not disclose a fluidized bed feedstock conversion unit integrated with its rotary apparatus, as claimed. While Seppala discloses multiple rotary apparatuses in series, these rotary apparatuses are reactors, i.e., thermal or thermochemical reactions are taking place within the rotary reactors themselves (see Abstract; col. 2, lines 3-10). Seppala provides no motivation to implement an embodiment as claimed, wherein a fluidic medium is heated in a rotary apparatus and supplied to a fluidized bed reactor to provide heat of reaction to a carbon-based feedstock therein. Nor does there appear to be sufficient teachings and/or suggestions in the prior art which would lead a person of ordinary skill to modify Seppala in such a way as to arrive at the claimed embodiment.
Claims 9 and 11-13 depend from claim 8.
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
Prosecution Insights