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 .
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: “heating elements” in claim 1, 13 and 22.
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
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 7-8, 16-17 and 28-29 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.
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, each of claims 7-8, 16-17 and 28-29 recites the narrow recitation a temperature from 350 degrees Celsius to 700 degrees Celsius, and the claims also recites “and above” which is the broader 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. Applicant can consider deleting inexact language “and above” to overcome these rejections.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-12, 22-24 and 26-33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith (US 2008/0202983) taken in combination with Stanley et al (US 10,696,904).
Regarding claim 1, Smith teaches a pyrolysis chamber arrangement (title, abstract) comprising: a pyrolysis chamber 122 defining a toroidal passage 150 formed between concentric inner hollow cylinder 124 and outer hollow cylinder 126 and extending between chamber inlet and outlet ends along a chamber axis and formed by the auger screw 146/148; and a plurality of heating elements arranged adjacent to the toroidal passage and operable to provide thermal input thereinto by heating said hollow cylinders 124/126 (fig. 1-5 and 9, [0060-0075]); Smith teaches the plurality of heating elements can be arranged around inner 124 and outer chamber walls 126 of the pyrolysis chamber and located radially inward and outward of the toroidal passage, respectively, e.g. electric heating coils 952/954 arranged in heating element passages formed within the inner and outer chamber walls ([0071-0075, 0093-0096, 0120]; fig. 2, 9); Smith teaches the hollow inner passage within inner cylinder 124/1006, i.e. concentric with the toroidal passage, can be used for direct gas firing and therefore implicity comprises a gas feed system operable to supply a controllable flow of gas to the inner passage ([0046-0048, 0067]; fig. 10) and further teaches rotation of inner cylinder 124 that implies including of auger in inner passageway (Fig 1-5 [0065]). Lastly Smith teaches said pyrolysis chamber is connected to a solid feed extruder system 112 comprising an auger with motor 114, shaft 116 and flights 118 (Fig 1, [0056-0058]).
However Smith shows the solid feed extruder system 112 is parallel with the main pyrolysis chamber 122 (Fig 1), therefore Smith fails to teach wherein the biomass feed extruder is generally orthogonally connected with the pyrolysis chamber.
Stanley teaches system and method for pyrolysis (title, abstract), Stanley teaches pyrolysis system 100 comprises main pyrolysis chamber 110 with screw conveyor 114 feed stock inlet 120 has screw conveyor 122 that forms a biomass feed plug 124 to seal chamber 110 and allow components to expand and fragment as it enters chamber 110 from inlet 120, the angle can be from 0-90 degrees (C9:L7), and as shown in Fig 1 is 90 degrees (Fig 1, C4:L39-48, C6:L30-41, C7:L44-C9:L10).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Smith in view of Stanley to provide for orthogonally input from feed extruder to main pyrolysis chamber as taught by Stanley to ensure a plug and allow the biomass components to expand and fragment as they enter the main pyrolysis chamber as taught by Stanley.
Regarding claim 2, in modified Smith as set forth above, the orthogonal angle is 90 degrees.
Regarding claim 3, in modified Smith as set forth above, Stanley has taught expand and fragment of the biomass plug, which implies a shearing force is created.
Regarding claim 5, in modified Smith as set forth above Smith teaches the hollow inner passage within inner cylinder 124/1006, i.e. concentric with the toroidal passage, can be used for direct gas firing and therefore implicity comprises a gas feed system operable to supply a controllable flow of gas to the inner passage ([0046-0048, 0067]; fig. 10)
Regarding claim 6, in modified Smith as set forth above Smith teaches the plurality of heating elements can be arranged around inner 124 and outer chamber walls 126 of the pyrolysis chamber and located radially inward and outward of the toroidal passage, respectively, e.g. electric heating coils 952/954 arranged in heating element passages formed within the inner and outer chamber walls ([0071-0075, 0093-0096, 0120]; fig. 2, 9)
Regarding claim 7-8, in modified Smith as set forth above, in Smith the heaters are configured to heat to about 524-538 C in the reactor, and can operate up to 760 C ([0071-0073]).
Regarding claim 9, Smith teaches said heaters can be electrical heaters ([0066, 0071, 0094]).
Regarding claim 10, Smith teaches the plurality of heating elements can be controlled along the chamber axis to provide different temperature, hence the heating element form different active regions ([0112-0114]).
Regarding claim 11, Smith teaches further teaches rotation of inner cylinder 124 that implies including of auger in inner passageway (Fig 1-5 [0065]).
Regarding claim 12, in Smith the outer passage is generally toroidal 150 (see Fig 2-3, 9).
Regarding claim 22, Smith teaches a method of operation of pyrolysis chamber arrangement for biomass pyrolysis (title, abstract) comprising: a pyrolysis chamber 122 defining a toroidal passage 150 formed between concentric inner hollow cylinder 124 and outer hollow cylinder 126 and extending between chamber inlet and outlet ends along a chamber axis and formed by the auger screw 146/148; and a plurality of heating elements arranged adjacent to the toroidal passage and operable to provide thermal input thereinto by heating said hollow cylinders 124/126 (fig. 1-5 and 9, [0060-0075]); Smith teaches the plurality of heating elements can be arranged around inner 124 and outer chamber walls 126 of the pyrolysis chamber and located radially inward and outward of the toroidal passage, respectively, e.g. electric heating coils 952/954 arranged in heating element passages formed within the inner and outer chamber walls ([0071-0075, 0093-0096, 0120]; fig. 2, 9); Smith teaches the hollow inner passage within inner cylinder 124/1006, i.e. concentric with the toroidal passage, can be used for direct gas firing and therefore implicity comprises a gas feed system operable to supply a controllable flow of gas to the inner passage ([0046-0048, 0067]; fig. 10) and further teaches rotation of inner cylinder 124 that implies including of auger in inner passageway (Fig 1-5 [0065]). Lastly Smith teaches said pyrolysis chamber is connected to a solid feed extruder system 112 comprising an auger with motor 114, shaft 116 and flights 118 configured to receive biomass (Fig 1, [0056-0058]).
However Smith shows the solid feed extruder system 112 is parallel with the main pyrolysis chamber 122 (Fig 1), therefore Smith fails to teach wherein the biomass feed extruder is generally orthogonally connected with the pyrolysis chamber.
Stanley teaches system and method for pyrolysis (title, abstract), Stanley teaches pyrolysis system 100 comprises main pyrolysis chamber 110 with screw conveyor 114 feed stock inlet 120 has screw conveyor 122 that forms a biomass feed plug 124 to seal chamber 110 and allow components to expand and fragment as it enters chamber 110 from inlet 120, the angle can be from 0-90 degrees (C9:L7), and as shown in Fig 1 is 90 degrees (Fig 1, C4:L39-48, C6:L30-41, C7:L44-C9:L10).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Smith in view of Stanley to provide for orthogonally input from feed extruder to main pyrolysis chamber as taught by Stanley to ensure a plug and allow the biomass components to expand and fragment as they enter the main pyrolysis chamber as taught by Stanley.
Regarding claim 23, in modified Smith as set forth above, the orthogonal angle is 90 degrees.
Regarding claim 24, in modified Smith as set forth above, Stanley has taught expand and fragment of the biomass plug, which implies a shearing force is created.
Regarding claim 26, in modified Smith as set forth above Smith teaches the hollow inner passage within inner cylinder 124/1006, i.e. concentric with the toroidal passage, can be used for direct gas firing and therefore implicity comprises a gas feed system operable to supply a controllable flow of gas to the inner passage ([0046-0048, 0067]; fig. 10)
Regarding claim 27, in modified Smith as set forth above Smith teaches the plurality of heating elements can be arranged around inner 124 and outer chamber walls 126 of the pyrolysis chamber and located radially inward and outward of the toroidal passage, respectively, e.g. electric heating coils 952/954 arranged in heating element passages formed within the inner and outer chamber walls ([0071-0075, 0093-0096, 0120]; fig. 2, 9)
Regarding claim 28-29, in modified Smith as set forth above, in Smith the heaters are configured to heat to about 524-538 C in the reactor, and can operate up to 760 C ([0071-0073]).
Regarding claim 30, Smith teaches said heaters can be electrical heaters ([0066, 0071, 0094]).
Regarding claim 31, Smith teaches the plurality of heating elements can be controlled along the chamber axis to provide different temperature, hence the heating element form different active regions ([0112-0114]).
Regarding claim 32, Smith teaches further teaches rotation of inner cylinder 124 that implies including of auger in inner passageway (Fig 1-5 [0065]).
Regarding claim 33, in Smith the outer passage is generally toroidal 150 (see Fig 2-3, 9).
Claim(s) 4 and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over any of Smith (US 2008/0202983) taken in combination with Stanley et al (US 10,696,904), as applied above, and further in combination with Evans et al (US 3,776,150) and Badger et al (US 2008/0006520).
Regarding claims 4 and 25, modified Smith teaches all limitations as set forth above, however, none teaches the ram drive auger of the feeder as claimed.
Evans teaches a pyrolysis reactor system having a solid waste feeder (title, abstract), Evans teaches solid waste feeder includes screw conveyor 15 that extrudes the solid feed against ram 18 having a ram face 20, a rod 22, and piston 24; ram 18 is mounted for reciprocating and rotational movement in cylinder 25, rotational movement can be provided by any suitable means such as by use of gears and a motor; this creates a void free plug of feed to pyrolysis unit (fig 1, and C2:L16-68).
Badger teaches a pyrolysis system (title, abstract), Badger teaches the system comprises main auger 134 in toroidal passageway of pyrolysis reactor chamber 116, and smaller augers 128-130 for creating air-tight feeding zone of biomass 112 to pyrolysis chamber 116, therefore having smaller radial dimension of teeth compared with toroidal passage (Fig 2, [0032-0035]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system Smith in view of Evans to provide void free plug to the pyrolysis chamber as taught by Evans, by including a ram feeder arrangement in combination with screw feeders and to ensure; and to size the feeder screws smaller than the main pyrolysis compartment as taught by Badger in order to ensure the air free feed plug is substantially free of air as feeding the reactor as suggested by Badger.
Claim(s) 13-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over any of Smith (US 2008/0202983) taken in combination with Stanley et al (US 10,696,904), Evans et al (US 3,776,150) and Badger et al (US 2008/0006520).
Regarding claim 13, Smith teaches a pyrolysis chamber arrangement (title, abstract) comprising: a pyrolysis chamber 122 defining a toroidal passage 150 formed between concentric inner hollow cylinder 124 and outer hollow cylinder 126 and extending between chamber inlet and outlet ends along a chamber axis and formed by the auger screw 146/148; and a plurality of heating elements arranged adjacent to the toroidal passage and operable to provide thermal input thereinto by heating said hollow cylinders 124/126 (fig. 1-5 and 9, [0060-0075]); Smith teaches the plurality of heating elements can be arranged around inner 124 and outer chamber walls 126 of the pyrolysis chamber and located radially inward and outward of the toroidal passage, respectively, e.g. electric heating coils 952/954 arranged in heating element passages formed within the inner and outer chamber walls ([0071-0075, 0093-0096, 0120]; fig. 2, 9); Smith teaches the hollow inner passage within inner cylinder 124/1006, i.e. concentric with the toroidal passage, can be used for direct gas firing and therefore implicity comprises a gas feed system operable to supply a controllable flow of gas to the inner passage ([0046-0048, 0067]; fig. 10) and further teaches rotation of inner cylinder 124 that implies including of auger in inner passageway (Fig 1-5 [0065]). Lastly Smith teaches said pyrolysis chamber is connected to a solid feed extruder system 112 comprising an auger with motor 114, shaft 116 and flights 118 (Fig 1, [0056-0058]).
However Smith shows the solid feed extruder system 112 is parallel with the main pyrolysis chamber 122 (Fig 1), therefore Smith fails to teach wherein the biomass feed extruder is generally orthogonally connected with the pyrolysis chamber.
Stanley teaches system and method for pyrolysis (title, abstract), Stanley teaches pyrolysis system 100 comprises main pyrolysis chamber 110 with screw conveyor 114 feed stock inlet 120 has screw conveyor 122 that forms a biomass feed plug 124 to seal chamber 110 and allow components to expand and fragment as it enters chamber 110 from inlet 120, the angle can be from 0-90 degrees (C9:L7), and as shown in Fig 1 is 90 degrees (Fig 1, C4:L39-48, C6:L30-41, C7:L44-C9:L10).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Smith in view of Stanley to provide for orthogonally input from feed extruder to main pyrolysis chamber as taught by Stanley to ensure a plug and allow the biomass components to expand and fragment as they enter the main pyrolysis chamber as taught by Stanley.
However, Smith does not teach the ram drive auger of the feeder as claimed.
Evans teaches a pyrolysis reactor system having a solid waste feeder (title, abstract), Evans teaches solid waste feeder includes screw conveyor 15 that extrudes the solid feed against ram 18 having a ram face 20, a rod 22, and piston 24; ram 18 is mounted for reciprocating and rotational movement in cylinder 25, rotational movement can be provided by any suitable means such as by use of gears and a motor; this creates a void free plug of feed to pyrolysis unit (fig 1, and C2:L16-68).
Badger teaches a pyrolysis system (title, abstract), Badger teaches the system comprises main auger 134 in toroidal passageway of pyrolysis reactor chamber 116, and smaller augers 128-130 for creating air-tight feeding zone of biomass 112 to pyrolysis chamber 116, therefore having smaller radial dimension of teeth compared with toroidal passage (Fig 2, [0032-0035]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Smith in view of Evans to provide void free plug to the pyrolysis chamber as taught by Evans, by including a ram feeder arrangement in combination with screw feeders and to ensure; and to size the feeder screws smaller than the main pyrolysis compartment as taught by Badger in order to ensure the air free feed plug is substantially free of air as feeding the reactor as suggested by Badger.
Regarding claim 14, in modified Smith as set forth above, the orthogonal angle is 90 degrees.
Regarding claim 15, in modified Smith as set forth above Smith teaches the plurality of heating elements can be arranged around inner 124 and outer chamber walls 126 of the pyrolysis chamber and located radially inward and outward of the toroidal passage, respectively, e.g. electric heating coils 952/954 arranged in heating element passages formed within the inner and outer chamber walls ([0071-0075, 0093-0096, 0120]; fig. 2, 9)
Regarding claim 16-17, in modified Smith as set forth above, in Smith the heaters are configured to heat to about 524-538 C in the reactor, and can operate up to 760 C ([0071-0073]).
Regarding claim 18, Smith teaches said heaters can be electrical heaters ([0066, 0071, 0094]).
Regarding claim 19, Smith teaches the plurality of heating elements can be controlled along the chamber axis to provide different temperature, hence the heating element form different active regions ([0112-0114]).
Regarding claim 20, Smith teaches further teaches rotation of inner cylinder 124 that implies including of auger in inner passageway (Fig 1-5 [0065]).
Regarding claim 21, in Smith the outer passage is generally toroidal 150 (see Fig 2-3, 9).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1-33 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-23 of copending Application No. 18/591,038 (reference application) in combination with Stanley et al (US 10,696,904). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims are substantially overlapping, however the instant claims combine features of dependent claims which is held to be obvious to claim in independent claims. However, the instant claims require the feature the orthogonally connected biomass feed extruder with auger as claimed.
Stanley teaches system and method for pyrolysis (title, abstract), Stanley teaches pyrolysis system 100 comprises main pyrolysis chamber 110 with screw conveyor 114 feed stock inlet 120 has screw conveyor 122 that forms a biomass feed plug 124 to seal chamber 110 and allow components to expand and fragment as it enters chamber 110 from inlet 120, the angle can be from 0-90 degrees (C9:L7), and as shown in Fig 1 is 90 degrees (Fig 1, C4:L39-48, C6:L30-41, C7:L44-C9:L10).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to claim the orthogonal feed extruder in view of Stanley to provide for orthogonally input from feed extruder to main pyrolysis chamber as taught by Stanley to ensure a plug and allow the biomass components to expand and fragment as they enter the main pyrolysis chamber as taught by Stanley.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Pertinent Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Neville (US 11,542,435) teaches a pyrolysis system.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN MILLER whose telephone number is (571)270-1603. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9 - 5.
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.
/JONATHAN MILLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1772