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 Amendment
Claims 1 – 20 are pending.
Claims 1 – 10 are withdrawn.
Claims 11 – 20 maintained rejected.
In view of the amendment, filed on 05/04/2026, the following new grounds of the rejections are necessitated:
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:
Claim 11 recites “a distribution conveyor system … configured to receive at least a portion of the dry biomass feedstock” which includes a structural generic placeholder of “a distribution conveyor system” followed by a functional limitation of “configured to receive at least a portion of the dry biomass feedstock”, wherein specification recites “any “conveyor” or “conveyor system” encompasses any conveyor system that allows for transport of material from one location to another and may have any configuration known in the art, e.g., a belt support, a pully, and a drive unit” as a corresponding structure for claimed “distribution conveyor system” (see ¶ [0019]).
Claim 11 recites “a metering system configured to receive the ground dry fiber from the at least one hammermill from an intermediate conveyor system” which includes a structural generic placeholder of “a metering system” followed by a functional limitation of “configured to receive the ground dry fiber from the at least one hammermill from an intermediate conveyor system”, wherein specification recites “pellet mill metering bin 116” as a corresponding structure for claimed “metering system” (see ¶ [0026]).
Claim 11 recites “an overflow elevator system configured to recycle the excess ground dry fiber” which includes a structural generic placeholder of “an overflow elevator system” followed by a functional limitation of “configured to recycle the excess ground dry fiber from the at least one pellet mill metering bin”. However, specification fails to define any corresponding structural limitations for the claimed structural generic placeholder of “an overflow elevator system”.
Claim 16 recites “a collection conveyor system … configured to recover the overflow material from an outlet of the at least one pellet screener to produce a fiber pellet product” which includes a structural generic placeholder of “a collection conveyer system” followed by a functional limitation of “configured to recover the overflow material from an outlet of the at least one pellet screener to produce a fiber pellet product”, wherein specification recites “a dry biomass feedstock 102 is fed from an upstream dryer system (not illustrated) to a dry fiber silo 104 using a dryer collection conveyor 103. Herein, any “conveyor” or “conveyor system” encompasses any conveyor system that allows for transport of material from one location to another and may have any configuration known in the art, e.g., a belt support, a pully, and a drive unit” as a corresponding structure for the claimed “collection conveyer system” (see ¶ [0019]).
Claim 17 recites “a screened fines conveyer system … configured to recover a first portion of the underflow material from an outlet of the at least one pellet screener” which includes a structural generic placeholder of “a screened fines conveyer system” followed by a functional limitation of “configured to recover the overflow material from an outlet of the at least one pellet screener to produce a fiber pellet product”, wherein specification recites “any “conveyor” or “conveyor system” encompasses any conveyor system that allows for transport of material from one location to another and may have any configuration known in the art, e.g., a belt support, a pully, and a drive unit” as a corresponding structure for the claimed “screened fines conveyer system” (see ¶ [0019]).
Claim 19 recites “a fines collection conveyor system … configured to receive the first portion of the underflow material from the screened fines conveyor system and the second portion of the underflow material from the cyclone” which includes a structural generic placeholder of “a fines collection conveyer system” followed by a functional limitation of “configured to receive the first portion of the underflow material from the screened fines conveyor system and the second portion of the underflow material from the cyclone”, wherein specification recites “any “conveyor” or “conveyor system” encompasses any conveyor system that allows for transport of material from one location to another and may have any configuration known in the art, e.g., a belt support, a pully, and a drive unit” as a corresponding structure for the claimed “fines collection conveyer system” (see ¶ [0019]).
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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 11 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Amended claim 11 recites “an overflow elevator system configured to recycle the excess ground dry fiber from the at least one pellet mill metering bin directly to the distribution conveyor system” which was not described in the specification. Specification, in paragraph [0027], recites “any excess ground dry fiber that cannot be collected in the at least one pellet mill metering bin 116 is collected in a pellet mill overflow bin 118 and be can recycled from the pellet mill overflow bin 118 directly to the distribution conveyor system 114 using an overflow elevator system 120”. Therefore, according to the specification, an overflow elevator system 120 is configured to recycle the excess ground dry fiber that is collected in a pellet mill overflow bin 118, and cannot be collected in the at least one pellet mill metering bin 116. That is, in contrary, to the recitation of the newly added limitation to claim 11 “an overflow elevator system configured to recycle the excess ground dry fiber from the at least one pellet mill metering bin”. Therefore, amended claim 1 fails to comply with the written description requirement and the claim contains subject matter which was not described in the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 11 - 20 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 11 recites “an overflow elevator system configured to recycle the excess ground dry fiber from the at least one pellet mill metering bin directly to the distribution conveyor system”, however, the limitation conceptually is against what have been disclosed in the specification and figures of the instant application. Based on the disclosure of the specification, “an overflow elevator system 120” is not in communication with the at least one pellet mill metering bin 116, and is in fact, in communication with the pellet mill overflow bin 118 and receives the excess ground dry fiber from the pellet mill overflow bin 118 and not the at least one pellet mill metering bin 116. As a result, in absence of any disclosure, it is impossible to evaluate and understand what the newly added limitation is pointing to. Clarification is requested.
Claim 11 recites the limitation of “an overflow elevator system configured to recycle the excess ground dry fiber” that 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. Specification, in paragraph [0027], discloses “an overflow elevator system 120”, which is a structural generic placeholder associated with a function, however, the entire disclosure of the application fails to define any further corresponding structural limitation for the claimed structural generic placeholder of “an overflow elevator system 120”.
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 following rejections are maintained for the reason of records as given in the previous office action. The bases of these rejections are the same as given in the office action, mailed on 09/26/2018.
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.
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 non-obviousness.
Claims 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zeek (US 2015/0017313) in view of Kotyk (US 2016/0169581).
As to claim 11, Zeek (US ‘313) disclose a compact stacked plant (Fig. 2A and 2B) comprising:
- a staging and storage area (14, 16) to receive the stover bales (13) adjacent to the processing area (12) wherein the bales (13) in the staging and storage area (14, 16) are covered with a water resistant and fire-retardant tarp or cover (¶ [0049] - ¶ [0050]);
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (A staging and storage area (14, 16))]
PNG
media_image1.png
482
706
media_image1.png
Greyscale
- a distribution conveyor system (a bale feed conveyor 20 to convey through a de-stringer 24 and pass through the bales toward the bale shredder 22 wherein the shredded stover drops out into the stover transfer conveyor 26, the pneumatic separator 28, ¶ [0051] - ¶ [0053] and fig. 2A) coupled to the staging and storage area (14, 16) and configured to receive at least a portion of the dry biomass feedstock from the staging and storage area (14, 16);
[AltContent: textbox (A distribution conveyor system (20, 22, 24, 26, 28))][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (an intermediate conveyor system (32, 34))][AltContent: textbox (A hammermill (30))][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image2.png
440
758
media_image2.png
Greyscale
- at least one hammermill (grinder/hammer mill 30, ¶ [0054] - ¶ [0056]) directly vertically coupled to the distribution conveyor system (the stove transfer conveyor 26 and the pneumatic separator 28, ¶ [0053] and fig. 2A) and configured to grind the dry biomass feedstock, received from the distribution conveyor system (20, 22, 24, 26, 28; ¶ [0051] - ¶ [0053] and fig. 2A), to produce a ground dry fiber having a particle size smaller than a particle size of the dry biomass feedstock (¶ [0054] - ¶ [0056]);
- a metering system (the feeders 58 meter the proper amount of feed into each mill 56, ¶ [0062]) configured to receive the ground dry fiber from the at least one hammermill (grinder/hammer mill 30, ¶ [0054] - ¶ [0056]) from an intermediate conveyor system (an air conveying system 32 removes the ground material from the disengagement chamber and conveys it into a cyclone separator 34, ¶ [0057], with the ground stover collection conveyor 52 controls the flow of product to the ground stover bucket elevator 52 and ultimately the pellet mill supply drag conveyor 54, ¶ [0062]);
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Pellet mills (56))][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (An intermediate conveyor system (52, 54))][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (A metering system (58))][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image3.png
434
726
media_image3.png
Greyscale
- pellet mills (56, the feeders 58 meter the proper amount of feed into each mill 56 under consistent low pressure, ¶ [0062]) configured to form a plurality of fiber pellets using the ground dry fiber received from the metering system (58, ¶ [0062]);
- an overflow elevator system (a bucket elevator 72, ¶ [0062]) configured to recycle the excess ground dry fiber from the at least one pellet mill metering bin (¶ [0062]: the cooler 68 discharges the pellets onto a conveyor 70) directly to the distribution conveyor system (a conveyor 70, ¶ [0067]). (see below annotated Fig. 2C and Zeek (US ‘313) that teaches a screen 71 filters the pellets for dumping, with fines being redirected to the bucket elevator 52, for recycling to the conveyor 54 for further pelletizing. (see ¶ [0090]) the final densified pellets are conveyed from the cooled pellet conveyor 70 to a bucket elevator 72 and then to an indoor storage conveyor 74. A filter 73 may be provided at the discharge end of the elevator 72 to direct pellets to the conveyor 74 and to direct fines back to the conveyor 54. (see ¶ [0091]))
[AltContent: textbox (An overflow elevator system (72))]
PNG
media_image4.png
243
359
media_image4.png
Greyscale
As it was indicated above, Zeek (US ‘313) discloses a staging and storage area (14, 16) to receive the stover bales (13) adjacent to the processing area (12) wherein the bales (13) in the staging and storage area (14, 16) are covered with a water resistant and fire-retardant tarp or cover (¶ [0049] - ¶ [0050]), however, is silent on disclosing if the staging and storage area (14, 16) is actually a dry fiber silo, as claimed in claim 11.
In the analogous art, Kotyk (US ‘581) discloses a pelletizing device for producing pellets from biomass comprising a) a drying apparatus (3) for drying biomass, in particular fibrous biomass, b) a press apparatus (10) for pressing pellets and c) a cooling apparatus (11) for cooling pellets, wherein a heat dissipation channel (11a) of the cooling apparatus (11) is connected to a heat supply channel (3a) of the drying apparatus (3) to carry heat from the cooling apparatus (11) into the drying apparatus (3) (see page 16, left column, claim 16), wherein a separation fraction, in particular wood fibers, is/are stored in a buffer (6) (see page 16, left column, claim 15) in such a way that the buffer serves as a fiber silo (see ¶ [0131]) to provide temporary storage if there is a stoppage in the downstream production and to use the fiber silo for admixture of dry woods shavings and sawdust and thus to further improve utilization of the downstream production processes (see ¶ [0141]).
[AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image5.png
556
504
media_image5.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (A dry fiber silo (6 or 7))]
PNG
media_image6.png
486
306
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Therefore, as to claim 11, Kotyk (US ‘581) discloses a dry fiber silo configured to hold a dry biomass feedstock (see ¶ [0131] and ¶ [0141]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the time of applicant’s invention, to substitute a staging and storage area (14, 16), as taught by Zeek (US ‘313), with a dry fiber silo configured to hold a dry biomass feedstock in order for the fiber silo serves to provide temporary storage if there is a stoppage in the downstream production and thus to further improve utilization of the downstream production processes, as suggested by Kotyk (US ‘581). See ¶ [0141].
As to claim 12, Zeek (US ‘313) disclose a portion of the dry biomass feedstock that is not fed to the at least one hammermill (30, ¶ [0054] - ¶ [0057]) and a portion of the ground dry fiber that is not fed to the metering system (metering screw 60, ¶ [0063]) are recycled back to the staging and storage area (14, 16) (a screen 71 filters the pellets for dumping, with fines being redirected to the bucket elevator 52, for recycling to the conveyor 54 for further pelletizing, ¶ [0090]).
As to claim 13, Zeek (US ‘313) teach the dry biomass feedstock is configured to be heated to a temperature of at least 165 ̊ F while being grinded by the at least one hammermill (30). (it is subject to a pressure of 60 to 500 kPa and heat of approximately 150 to 250 degrees F, ¶ [0082])
As to claim 14, Zeek (US ‘313) disclose at least one pellet cooler (68) coupled to the at least one pellet mill (56) and configured to cool the plurality of fiber pellets to a temperature within 15 ̊ F of an ambient temperature thereby producing a plurality of cooled fiber pellets. (the hot pellets from the pellet mill entering the cooler are 150 to 180 degrees F and 17% to 18% moisture, ¶ [0065])
As to claim 15, Zeek (US ‘313) teach at least one pellet screener (a screen 71 filters the pellets for dumping, ¶ [0090]) coupled to the at least one pellet cooler (the pellets are discharged onto a conveyor 67, which delivers the hot pellets to a cooling station 68, ¶ [0090]) having square sieves and configured to sort the plurality of cooled fiber pellets into an overflow material having a particle size larger than 3.15 mm as measured via the square sieves and an underflow material having a particle size less than 3.15 mm as measured via the square sieves. (¶ [0042]: when grinding through a secondary grinder screen, such as a 1/4 inch screen, then vibration screening for custom particle sizing and feed into a customer feed auger pelleting using 1/4 inch dies, the final product will have a bulk density range of 35 to 40 pounds per cubic foot and a particle size of 1/4'' round by 1/2'' to 3/4'' long.)
As to claim 16, Zeek (US ‘313) disclose a collection conveyer system (a ground stover collection conveyor 38, ¶ [0057] - ¶ [0058]) coupled the at least one pellet screener (a screen 71, ¶ [0090]) and configured to recover the overflow material from an outlet of the at least one pellet screener to produce a fiber pellet product. (a screen 71 filters the pellets for dumping, with fines being redirected to the bucket elevator 52, for recycling to the conveyor 54 for further pelletizing, ¶ [0090]).
As to claim 17, Zeek (US ‘313) disclose a screened fines conveyer system coupled to the at least one pellet screener (a screen 71 filters the pellets for dumping, ¶ [0090]) and configured to recover a first portion of the underflow material from an outlet of the at least one pellet screener (a screen 71 filters the pellets for dumping, with fines being redirected to the bucket elevator 52, for recycling to the conveyor 54 for further pelletizing, ¶ [0090]).
As to claim 18, Zeek (US ‘313) teach a cyclone (35) coupled to the at least one pellet cooler (68) and configured to recover a second portion of the underflow material from an air exhaust of the at least one pellet cooler. (dust from the cooler 68 may be recirculated to a cyclone 35 for eventual re-introduction into the mixer 220D, ¶ [0090])
As to claim 19, Zeek (US ‘313) disclose a fines collection conveyor system (an air conveying system 32 removes the ground material from the disengagement chamber, ¶ [0057]) configured to receive the first portion of the underflow material from the screened fines conveyor system (a screen 71 filters the pellets for dumping, ¶ [0090]) and the second portion of the underflow material from the cyclone (an air conveying system 32 removes the ground material from the disengagement chamber and conveys it into a cyclone separator 34, ¶ [0057]).
As to claim 20, Zeek (US ‘313) teach the fines collection conveyor system (an air conveying system 32 removes the ground material from the disengagement chamber, ¶ [0057]) is coupled to the staging and storage area (14, 16, ¶ [0049] - ¶ [0050]) and is configured to transport the underflow material to the staging and storage area (14, 16) to be recycled (a screen 71 filters the pellets for dumping, with fines being redirected to the bucket elevator 52, for recycling to the conveyor 54 for further pelletizing, ¶ [0090]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, filed on 05/04/2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues “Zeek does not teach nor suggest that grinder is directly vertically coupled to a conveyor system as in amended claim 11”.
This is not found persuasive. Zeek (US ‘313) discloses at least one hammermill (grinder/hammer mill 30, ¶ [0054] - ¶ [0056]) directly vertically coupled to the distribution conveyor system (the stove transfer conveyor 26 and the pneumatic separator 28, ¶ [0053] and above annotated fig. 2A) and configured to grind the dry biomass feedstock, received from the distribution conveyor system (20, 22, 24, 26, 28; ¶ [0051] - ¶ [0053] and fig. 2A), to produce a ground dry fiber having a particle size smaller than a particle size of the dry biomass feedstock (¶ [0054] - ¶ [0056]).
Further, applicant argues “Neither Zeeck nor Kotyk disclose or suggest an overflow elevator system for directly recycling material. Thus, the benefit of eliminating the need to route excess material back to the dry fiber silo and the subsequent rework and process energy would not be an obvious effect based on the systems of Zeeck and Kotyk”. (page 8, second paragraph)
This is not found persuasive. Zeek (US ‘313) discloses a screen 71 filters the pellets for dumping, with fines being redirected to the bucket elevator 52, for recycling to the conveyor 54 for further pelletizing. (see ¶ [0090]) the final densified pellets are conveyed from the cooled pellet conveyor 70 to a bucket elevator 72 and then to an indoor storage conveyor 74. A filter 73 may be provided at the discharge end of the elevator 72 to direct pellets to the conveyor 74 and to direct fines back to the conveyor 54. (see ¶ [0091]) and above annotated Fig. 2C). Therefore, Zeek (US ‘313) teaches an overflow elevator system (a bucket elevator 72, ¶ [0062]) configured to recycle the excess ground dry fiber from the at least one pellet mill metering bin (¶ [0062]: the cooler 68 discharges the pellets onto a conveyor 70) directly to the distribution conveyor system (a conveyor 70, ¶ [0067]).
Finally, after a full review of the submitted remarks in view of prior art rejections, it has been concluded that there are differences in interpreting the claimed subject matter and the cited references by the Applicant and the Office. Therefore, Examiner would like to suggest that if Applicant’s Counsel believes an interview can benefit the prosecution of the instant application, Applicant’s Counsel is kindly invited to contact the undersigned examiner.
Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hauserman (US 7,926,750) disclose a compactor feeder for feeding relatively low-density biomass materials into a grinding device, such as a hammer mill, comprising: a hopper within which a biomass feed is contained; a feeder connected to said hopper having a first inlet and a charging end, wherein said biomass feed is conveyed from said hopper to said charging end; a compactor having a tapered conical-shaped interior sidewall with an interior top and bottom, said top having an opening into which said feeder charging end communicates for receiving the charge of said feeder, said compactor further including a screw compactor member that has at least one flight that generally conforms to said interior sidewall, such that said screw compactor member has a first wide radial diameter at said top decreasing to a reduced diameter relative to said first diameter at said bottom, said bottom further having a discharge opening in communication with a grinding device.
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 SEYED MASOUD MALEKZADEH whose telephone number is (571)272-6215. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30AM-5:00PM.
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, SUSAN D. LEONG can be reached at (571)270-1487. 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.
/SEYED MASOUD MALEKZADEH/Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1754
07/15/2026
Prosecution Insights