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
Claims 6 and 7 make use of the term “approximately”.
Paragraph [0047] of the specification states “When the terms ‘about,’ ‘approximately,’ ‘substantially,’ or the like are used in conjunction with a stated amount, value, or condition, it may be taken to mean an amount, value or condition that deviates by less than 20%, less than 10%, less than 5%, less than 1%, less than 0.1%, or less than 0.01% of the stated amount, value, or condition.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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) 1-4, 6-9, and 11-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moss (US 2018/0201841) in view of Wunderlich et al. (US 3,841,993), hereafter referred to as Wunderlich.
With regard to claims 1-4: Moss teaches a fast pyrolysis heat exchanger system (abstract, Figure 1, paragraphs [0012]-[0013], claim 1), the system comprising:
A multi-tube heat exchanger 15 having a hot air input passageway 30 connected to one end of tubes of the multi-tube heat exchanger and a cold air discharge passageway 35 connected to another end of the tubes (abstract, Figure 1, paragraphs [0012]-[0013], claim 1).
A granular solid heat carrier (abstract, Figure 1, paragraphs [0012]-[0013] and [0018], claim 1).
An elevator 5 having an input passageway 10 for lifting the heat carrier from a top of the input passageway to a top of the heat exchanger 15 (abstract, Figure 1, paragraphs [0012]-[0013], claim 1).
An auger 20 located at a bottom of the heat exchanger for controlling movement of the heat carrier through the heat exchanger 15 and for discharging heat carrier from the auger 20 through an output therefrom (abstract, Figure 1, paragraphs [0012]-[0013], claim 1).
Wherein the granular solid heat carrier may comprise steel spheres (steel shot), ceramic spheres (ceramic shot), or a catalyst (paragraph [0018]).
Because the heat carrier may comprise steel spheres, ceramic spheres, or catalyst, it is understood that solid heat carrier may comprise at least metals or non-metal mono-materials (e.g. ceramic spheres or catalyst material).
Moss does not explicitly teach that the granular solid heat carrier has a sphericity greater than or equal to 0.900.
However, because Moss teaches that the granular solid heat carrier may come in the form of spheres (i.e. steel shot or ceramic shot), Moss implicitly suggests that the heat carrier may have a high sphericity value.
Furthermore, it is known in the art the sphericity in solid heat carriers brings certain advantages. For example, Wunderlich teaches a pyrolysis system which uses spherical heat carriers having a sphericity of 0.9 of greater (Figures 1 and 2, Columns 3-5, especially Column 5 Line 55-72). Wunderlich teaches that providing heat carriers with a sphericity factor of 0.9 or greater facilitates movement of the heat carriers through process equipment, provides optimum solid-to-solid heat transfer and contact between heat carriers and solid feedstock, and is advantageous for the separation of solid byproducts from the heat carrier (Column 5 Line 55-72).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Moss in view of Wunderlich by optimizing the sphericity of the solid heat carrier so that the heat carrier would have a sphericity of 0.900 or greater, in order to facilitate movement of the heat carriers through process equipment, provide optimum solid-to-solid heat transfer and contact between heat carriers and solid feedstock, and provide advantages relating to separation of solid byproducts from the heat carrier.
With regard to claim 6: Modified Moss is silent to the solid heat carrier having a diameter of approximately 1/8 to approximately 1/4 inch.
However, a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the diameter of the solid heat carrier is a result effective variable. In particular, a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that if the heat carrier is sized too large, it will not easily move through the system of Moss. On the other hand, if the heat carrier is sized too small, then it will become entrained in the vapor products of pyrolysis and undesirably leave the reactor 25 and enter the filter 60. "[When] the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation," (see MPEP 2144.05 II A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Moss by optimizing the size of the solid heat carrier, such that said solid heat carrier has a diameter of approximately 1/8 to approximately 1/4 inch, in order to obtain a system wherein the solid heat carrier moves through the system with relative ease without becoming entrained in the vapor products of pyrolysis.
With regard to claim 7: Modified Moss is silent to the solid heat carrier having a diameter of approximately 3/16 inch.
However, a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the diameter of the solid heat carrier is a result effective variable. In particular, a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that if the heat carrier is sized too large, it will not easily move through the system of Moss. On the other hand, if the heat carrier is sized too small, then it will become entrained in the vapor products of pyrolysis and undesirably leave the reactor 25 and enter the filter 60. "[When] the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation," (see MPEP 2144.05 II A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Moss by optimizing the size of the solid heat carrier, such that said solid heat carrier has a diameter of approximately 3/16 inch, in order to obtain a system wherein the solid heat carrier moves through the system with relative ease without becoming entrained in the vapor products of pyrolysis.
With regard to claim 8: The system of modified Moss further comprises a reactor 25 having a first reactor input 45, a second reactor input connected to the output of the auger 20, a first reactor output (first reactor output into reactor discharge passageway 55), and a second reactor output (second reactor output into screening system 95) (Moss: Figure 1, paragraphs [0012]-[0013] and [0016]).
With regard to claim 9: The reactor 25 may be an auger reactor or a rotating shell reactor (Moss: Figure 1, paragraph [0012]).
With regard to claim 11: The system of modified Moss further comprises a condensation device 100 which may include a plurality of condensers for condensing vapor exiting the reactor into bio-oil (Moss: Figure 1, paragraph [0017]).
With regard to claim 12: Ethyl glycol may be included in the condensers as a cooling medium (Moss: Figure 1, paragraph [0017]).
With regard to claim 13: The system of modified Moss further comprises a demister 105 that condenses a vapor exiting the plurality of condensers (Moss: Figure 1, paragraph [0017]).
With regard to claim 14: The system of modified Moss further comprises a vacuum-operated blow back filter 60 having an input connected to the first reactor output (Moss: Figure 1, paragraphs [0013] and [0014]).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moss in view of Wunderlich as applied to claims 1-4 above, and further in view of Tumiatti et al. (US 2013/0256113), hereafter referred to as Tumiatti.
With regard to claim 5: Modified Moss does not explicitly teach that the granular solid heat material comprises a zeolite.
However, as discussed in the rejections of claims 1-4 above, the granular solid heat carrier in Moss may comprise a catalyst (Moss: paragraph [0018]). Moss also teaches or at least suggests that a catalyst used in the system, i.e. in the catalyst bed 67 thereof, may be zeolite (paragraph [0017]). More specifically, Moss teaches that zeolite catalysts have been found to be particular useful in upgrading pyrolysis vapors (paragraph [0017]). Although Moss contains no explicit suggestion that the catalyst used as the granular solid heat material can be Zeolite, a person having ordinary skill in the art would take Moss’ teaching to the usefulness of Zeolite in upgrading pyrolysis vapors as a suggestion that zeolite catalysts would also yield a desirable effect if used a catalyst constituting the granular solid heat material.
As discussed in the rejection of claims 1-4, the granular solid heat carrier may comprise ceramic spheres (Moss: paragraph [0018]). It is well understood that zeolite is a ceramic material. Furthermore, it is known that zeolite can be formed into spherical granular heat carriers. For example, Tumiatti teaches a pyrolysis system using spherical solid heat carriers, wherein said heat carriers may be formed from zeolite (paragraph [0212]). Accordingly, a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that zeolite is a suitable material for forming the ceramic sphere (ceramic shot) heat carrier disclosed by Moss.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Moss in view of Tumiatti by using a zeolite catalyst in the form of spheres as the granular solid heat carrier, in order to obtain a system wherein the heat carrier has a predictably beneficial catalytic effect.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moss in view of Wunderlich as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Badger (US 2008/0006519).
With regard to claim 10: Modified Moss is silent to the cold air discharge passageway being configured to expel cold air to dry biomass before it is fed to the reactor.
However, it is known in the art to use cold air discharged from a heat carrier heater for the purpose of drying a biomass feed entering a pyrolysis reactor heated by said heat carrier. For example, Badger teaches a pyrolysis system having a heat exchanger 22 for reheating a heat carrier, wherein cold air (stack gas) exiting the heat exchanger 22/122 is supplied to a dryer 12 to dry a biomass feed before it enters a pyrolysis reactor 16 (Figures 1 and 2, paragraphs [0026]-[0032] and [0051]). Though direct supply of the cold air from the discharge passageway to the location of drying is not required in the present claims, it is nevertheless noted that Badger teaches or at least suggests that cold air (leftover heat) from the heat exchanger may be directly ducted from the heat exchanger to the dryer (paragraph [0051]).
A person having ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that using cold air for the purpose of drying a feed will advantageously utilize waste heat, thereby reducing the amount of externally supplied heat energy necessary for drying the feed.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Moss in view of Badger by configuring the cold air discharge passageway to expel cold air to dry biomass before it is fed to the reactor, in order to utilize waste heat contained in said cold air, thereby reducing the amount of external heat energy need to dry a biomass feed.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moss in view of Wunderlich as applied to claims 1-4 above, and further in view of Badger.
With regard to claim 15: Modified Moss is silent to the system being configured to direct syngas produced by the heat exchanger system to heat air supplied to the multi-tube heat exchanger.
Moss teaches that “Hot air from any source can be used to heat the heat exchanger tubes thus allowing the char to be harvested and the cheapest source of fuel can be utilized, i.e. raw biomass,” (paragraph [0013]). Moss also teaches that the system produces a clean syngas which is discharged from the system via line 115 (paragraph [0017]).
It is notoriously well understood that syngas is a combustible gas which can be burned to provide heating. For example, Badger (US 2008/0006519) teaches a pyrolysis process wherein syngas produced by a pyrolysis reactor 16/116 is combusted in a furnace/burner 18/118 and hot air (stack gas) resulting from the combustion of the syngas is used to heat a solid heat carrier in a heat exchanger 22/122 (Figures 1 and 2, paragraphs [0026]-[0037] and [0048]-[0051]). It is noted that Badger expressly discloses an embodiment wherein the heat exchanger 122 is a “jacketed auger” 168, such that the hot air from the furnace/burner 118 heats the heat carrier by indirect heat exchanger (Figures 2 and 8, paragraph [0051]).
A person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that, by burning syngas produced in a pyrolysis system to provide heat to a heat carrier therein, the need for an external supply of fuel and/or energy for heating will be reduced or eliminated.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Moss in view of Badger by burning the syngas produced by the system to heat the hot air supplied to the multi-tube heat exchanger, in order to obtain a system which is capable of heating the heat carrier with reduced reliance on external energy and/or fuel sources.
Claim(s) 16 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moss in view of Wunderlich as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Despen et al. (US 8,920,525), hereafter referred to as Despen.
With regard to claims 16 and 18: Modified Moss is silent to a flash distillation chamber configured to distill vapor exiting the reactor.
However, Moss comprises a condensation device 100 which condenses a portion of the pyrolysis vapors exiting the reactor 25 in order to separate condensable vapors from non-condensable gases (Figure 1, paragraph [0017]).
Despen teaches a pyrolysis process (Column 51 line 38-Column 52 Line 65) wherein pyrolysis vapors may be fed to a separation unit which may be a flash distillation chamber (flash vessel/tank) so as to separate condensable vapors from non-condensable gases (Column 52 Lines 33-65). Thus, a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a flash distillation chamber is a suitable alternative to the condensation device 100 of Moss.
It is well established that it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute one known prior art element for another in order to obtain predictable results.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Moss in view of Despen by replacing the condensation device 100 with a flash distillation chamber, in order to obtain a system having predictably functional means for separating condensable vapors from non-condensable gas in the pyrolysis vapor.
Claim(s) 17 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moss in view of Wunderlich as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Bolder et al. (US 10,010,881), hereafter referred to as Bolder.
With regard to claims 17 and 19: Moss does not explicitly teach a vapor cracker configured to crack vapor exiting the reactor into non-condensable gases.
However, Moss does include a catalyst bed 67 “which chemically upgrades the vapor into a higher quality vapor or at least one having a more desirable quality,” (paragraph [0017]). The catalyst can be a wide array of materials, but “catalysts belonging to the Zeolite family have proven particularly useful,” (paragraph [0017]). Moss’ teachings at least suggest that upgrading of the pyrolysis vapors involves the removal of oxygen (paragraph [0005]). With the forgoing in mind, Examiner’s position is that, in some embodiments of Moss (e.g. in embodiments wherein the catalyst is zeolite), the catalyst bed 67 likely functions as a vapor cracker which cracks a portion of the vapor exiting the reactor into non-condensable gases.
Regardless, it is well-known in the art to catalytically crack pyrolysis vapor using a zeolite catalyst so as to upgrade it into higher quality vapor. For example, Bolder teaches passing catalytically cracking pyrolysis vapors by passing them over a hot catalyst bed thereby deoxygenating the pyrolysis vapor and breaking down higher molecular weight compounds into lower molecular weight compounds including non-condensable gases, i.e. CO2 and CO (Column 4 Line 65-Column 5 Line 5). Boulder’s disclosure shows that that zeolite (e.g. HZSM-5) is a suitable catalyst for cracking pyrolysis vapors (Columns 5, 6, 14, 15, 17 and 18; especially: Column 14 Lines 63-68, Column 15 Lines 20-36, Column 18 Lines 40-Column 18 Line 10, Column 5 Lines 28-40, Column 5 Line 65-Column 6 Line 5, and Column 6 Lines 44-50).
Assuming that the catalyst bed 67 of Moss is not already functional as a vapor cracker, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Moss in view of Bolder by configuring the catalyst bed 67 to function as a catalytic vapor cracker which catalytically cracks pyrolysis vapor exiting the reactor into non-condensable gases (e.g. CO and CO2) in order to deoxygenate and thereby upgrade said pyrolysis vapor.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moss (US 2018/0201841) in view of Despen.
With regard to claim 18: Moss teaches a fast pyrolysis heat exchanger system (abstract, Figure 1, paragraphs [0012]-[0013], claim 1), the system comprising:
A multi-tube heat exchanger 15 having a hot air input passageway 30 connected to one end of tubes of the multi-tube heat exchanger and a cold air discharge passageway 35 connected to another end of the tubes (abstract, Figure 1, paragraphs [0012]-[0013], claim 1).
A granular solid heat carrier (abstract, Figure 1, paragraphs [0012]-[0013] and [0018], claim 1).
An elevator 5 having an input passageway 10 for lifting the heat carrier from a top of the input passageway to a top of the heat exchanger 15 (abstract, Figure 1, paragraphs [0012]-[0013], claim 1).
An auger 20 located at a bottom of the heat exchanger for controlling movement of the heat carrier through the heat exchanger 15 and for discharging heat carrier from the auger 20 through an output therefrom (abstract, Figure 1, paragraphs [0012]-[0013], claim 1).
And a reactor 25 connected to the output of the auger 20 (Moss: Figure 1, paragraphs [0012]-[0013] and [0016]).
Moss is silent to a flash distillation chamber configured to distill vapor exiting the reactor.
However, Moss comprises a condensation device 100 which condenses a portion of the pyrolysis vapors exiting the reactor 25 in order to separate condensable vapors from non-condensable gases (Figure 1, paragraph [0017]).
Despen teaches a pyrolysis process (Column 51 line 38-Column 52 Line 65) wherein pyrolysis vapors may be fed to a separation unit which may be a flash distillation chamber (flash vessel/tank) so as to separate condensable vapors from non-condensable gases (Column 52 Lines 33-65). Thus, a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a flash distillation chamber is a suitable alternative to the condensation device 100 of Moss.
It is well established that it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute one known prior art element for another in order to obtain predictable results.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Moss in view of Despen by replacing the condensation device 100 with a flash distillation chamber, in order to obtain a system having predictably functional means for separating condensable vapors from non-condensable gas in the pyrolysis vapor.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moss in view of Bolder.
With regard to claim 19: Moss teaches a fast pyrolysis heat exchanger system (abstract, Figure 1, paragraphs [0012]-[0013], claim 1), the system comprising:
A multi-tube heat exchanger 15 having a hot air input passageway 30 connected to one end of tubes of the multi-tube heat exchanger and a cold air discharge passageway 35 connected to another end of the tubes (abstract, Figure 1, paragraphs [0012]-[0013], claim 1).
A granular solid heat carrier (abstract, Figure 1, paragraphs [0012]-[0013] and [0018], claim 1).
An elevator 5 having an input passageway 10 for lifting the heat carrier from a top of the input passageway to a top of the heat exchanger 15 (abstract, Figure 1, paragraphs [0012]-[0013], claim 1).
An auger 20 located at a bottom of the heat exchanger for controlling movement of the heat carrier through the heat exchanger 15 and for discharging heat carrier from the auger 20 through an output therefrom (abstract, Figure 1, paragraphs [0012]-[0013], claim 1).
And a reactor 25 connected to the output of the auger 20 (Moss: Figure 1, paragraphs [0012]-[0013] and [0016]).
Moss does not explicitly teach a vapor cracker configured to crack vapor exiting the reactor into non-condensable gases.
However, Moss does include a catalyst bed 67 “which chemically upgrades the vapor into a higher quality vapor or at least one having a more desirable quality,” (paragraph [0017]). The catalyst can be a wide array of materials, but “catalysts belonging to the Zeolite family have proven particularly useful,” (paragraph [0017]). Moss’ teachings at least suggest that upgrading of the pyrolysis vapors involves the removal of oxygen (paragraph [0005]). With the forgoing in mind, Examiner’s position is that, in some embodiments of Moss (e.g. in embodiments wherein the catalyst is zeolite), the catalyst bed 67 likely functions as a vapor cracker which cracks a portion of the vapor exiting the reactor into non-condensable gases.
Regardless, it is well-known in the art to catalytically crack pyrolysis vapor using a zeolite catalyst so as to upgrade it into higher quality vapor. For example, Bolder teaches passing catalytically cracking pyrolysis vapors by passing them over a hot catalyst bed thereby deoxygenating the pyrolysis vapor and breaking down higher molecular weight compounds into lower molecular weight compounds including non-condensable gases, i.e. CO2 and CO (Column 4 Line 65-Column 5 Line 5). Boulder’s disclosure shows that that zeolite (e.g. HZSM-5) is a suitable catalyst for cracking pyrolysis vapors (Columns 5, 6, 14, 15, 17 and 18; especially: Column 14 Lines 63-68, Column 15 Lines 20-36, Column 18 Lines 40-Column 18 Line 10, Column 5 Lines 28-40, Column 5 Line 65-Column 6 Line 5, and Column 6 Lines 44-50).
Assuming that the catalyst bed 67 of Moss is not already functional as a vapor cracker, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Moss in view of Bolder by configuring the catalyst bed 67 to function as a catalytic vapor cracker which catalytically cracks pyrolysis vapor exiting the reactor into non-condensable gases (e.g. CO and CO2) in order to deoxygenate and thereby upgrade said pyrolysis vapor.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moss in view of Bolder as applied to claim 19 above, and further in view of Badger.
With regard to claim 20: Modified Moss is silent to the system being configured to direct syngas produced by the heat exchanger system to heat air supplied to the multi-tube heat exchanger.
Moss teaches that “Hot air from any source can be used to heat the heat exchanger tubes thus allowing the char to be harvested and the cheapest source of fuel can be utilized, i.e. raw biomass,” (paragraph [0013]). Moss also teaches that the system produces a clean syngas which is discharged from the system via line 115 (paragraph [0017]).
It is notoriously well understood that syngas is a combustible gas which can be burned to provide heating. For example, Badger (US 2008/0006519) teaches a pyrolysis process wherein syngas produced by a pyrolysis reactor 16/116 is combusted in a furnace/burner 18/118 and hot air (stack gas) resulting from the combustion of the syngas is used to heat a solid heat carrier in a heat exchanger 22/122 (Figures 1 and 2, paragraphs [0026]-[0037] and [0048]-[0051]). It is noted that Badger expressly discloses an embodiment wherein the heat exchanger 122 is a “jacketed auger” 168, such that the hot air from the furnace/burner 118 heats the heat carrier by indirect heat exchanger (Figures 2 and 8, paragraph [0051]).
A person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that, by burning syngas produced in a pyrolysis system to provide heat to a heat carrier therein, the need for an external supply of fuel and/or energy for heating will be reduced or eliminated.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Moss in view of Badger by burning the syngas produced by the system to heat the hot air supplied to the multi-tube heat exchanger, in order to obtain a system which is capable of heating the heat carrier with reduced reliance on external energy and/or fuel sources.
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.
Claims 1-20 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-22 of U.S. Patent No. 9,920,252 in view of Wunderlich (US 3,841,993), Bolder (US 10,010,881), and Despen (US 8,920,525).
The principle differences between the present claims and those of the ‘252 patent are that the claims of the ‘252 patent do not include limitations to:
A) the granular solid heat carrier having a sphericity of 0.900 or greater (independent claim 1);
B) a flash distillation chamber (independent claim 18 and dependent claim 16); and
C) a vapor cracker configured to crack vapor exiting the reactor into non-condensable gases (independent claim 19 and dependent claim 17).
Limitation A is obvious over the claims of the ‘252 patent in view of Wunderlich for substantially the same reason(s) said limitation is obvious over Moss (US 2018/0201841) in view of Wunderlich as described in the 103 rejection of claim 1 above.
Limitation B is obvious over the claims of the ‘252 patent in view of Despen for substantially the same reason(s) said limitation is obvious over Moss in view of Despen as described in the 103 rejections of claims 16 and 18 above.
Limitation C is obvious over the claims of the ‘252 patent in view of Bolder for substantially the same reason(s) said limitation is obvious over Moss in view of Bolder as described in the 103 rejections of claims 17 and 19 above.
Claims 1-20 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-5 of U.S. Patent No. 11,634,644 in view of Wunderlich (US 3,841,993), Bolder (US 10,010,881), and Despen (US 8,920,525).
The principle differences between the present claims and those of the ‘644 patent are that the claims of the ‘644 patent do not include limitations to:
A) the granular solid heat carrier having a sphericity of 0.900 or greater (independent claim 1);
B) a flash distillation chamber (independent claim 18 and dependent claim 16); and
C) a vapor cracker configured to crack vapor exiting the reactor into non-condensable gases (independent claim 19 and dependent claim 17).
Limitation A is obvious over the claims of the ‘644 patent in view of Wunderlich for substantially the same reason(s) said limitation is obvious over Moss (US 2018/0201841) in view of Wunderlich as described in the 103 rejection of claim 1 above.
Limitation B is obvious over the claims of the ‘644 patent in view of Despen for substantially the same reason(s) said limitation is obvious over Moss in view of Despen as described in the 103 rejections of claims 16 and 18 above.
Limitation C is obvious over the claims of the ‘644 patent in view of Bolder for substantially the same reason(s) said limitation is obvious over Moss in view of Bolder as described in the 103 rejections of claims 17 and 19 above.
Claims 1-20 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. 12,331,249 in view of Wunderlich (US 3,841,993), Bolder (US 10,010,881), and Despen (US 8,920,525).
The principle differences between the present claims and those of the ‘249 patent are that the claims of the ‘249 patent do not include limitations to:
A) the granular solid heat carrier having a sphericity of 0.900 or greater (independent claim 1);
B) a flash distillation chamber (independent claim 18 and dependent claim 16); and
C) a vapor cracker configured to crack vapor exiting the reactor into non-condensable gases (independent claim 19 and dependent claim 17).
Limitation A is obvious over the claims of the ‘249 patent in view of Wunderlich for substantially the same reason(s) said limitation is obvious over Moss (US 2018/0201841) in view of Wunderlich as described in the 103 rejection of claim 1 above.
Limitation B is obvious over the claims of the ‘249 patent in view of Despen for substantially the same reason(s) said limitation is obvious over Moss in view of Despen as described in the 103 rejections of claims 16 and 18 above.
Limitation C is obvious over the claims of the ‘249 patent in view of Bolder for substantially the same reason(s) said limitation is obvious over Moss in view of Bolder as described in the 103 rejections of claims 17 and 19 above.
Citation of Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Liang et al. (US 9,181,489) teaches a pyrolysis (torrefaction) furnace which makes use of spherical solid heat carriers (heat transfer elements) 200 (abstract, Figures 1, 2A, 2B). Liang teaches that the sphericity facilitates relatively unhindered movement of the heat carrier and also provides a larger surface area for promoting heat transfer (Column 8 Lines 10-21). From Liang’s teachings, it would be understood that sphericity in solid heat carriers is a result effective variable.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN "LUKE" PILCHER whose telephone number is (571)272-2691. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm.
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 5712725954. 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 LUKE PILCHER/ Examiner, Art Unit 1772