METHOD OF HEATING SOLIDS IN A REACTOR TO PRODUCE A HEAT-TREATED MATERIAL

§102 §103

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 . Status of the Claims In the reply of 8/3/26, the following has occurred: Claim(s) 1-4, 9, 11-15, 20 is/are amended Claim(s) 5-6, 16 is/are canceled Claim(s) 21 is/are new Claim(s) 1-4, 7-15, 17-21 is/are pending Election/Restrictions Applicant's election with traverse of Group II, claims 11-18, in the reply filed on 8/3/26 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the prior art described in the requirement for restriction fails to read on the shared technical features. This is found persuasive; however, the restriction requirement is being maintained for the reasons described below. The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL. Claims 1-10, 19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 8/3/26. In particular, the prior art listed below reads on the shared technical feature (updated to reflect the latest claim amendments): AT 516178 B1 to Markus reads on the shared technical features: Markus teaches a device for carrying out a method of heating solids in a reactor to produce a heat-treated material (fig. 1), the method comprising: continuously feeding solids into the reactor at a feeding end of the reactor (material feed, which is understood to receive solids substantially continuously), conveying the solids through the reactor from the feeding end to a discharge end so as to form a material bed extending from the feeding end to the discharge end (p. 4 para. 5, “The auger ensures a continuous transport and at the same time a constant circulation of the feed material.”), heating the solids during the conveying step to at least 600°C (pp. 4-5, “The process is preferably carried out so that the waste in the first section of the reaction chamber are heated to a temperature of 600-1,000°C.”), wherein the material bed is mobilized during the conveying step to renew the surface of the material bed that is exposed to the radiative heating (p. 4 para. 5, “The auger ensures a continuous transport and at the same time a constant circulation of the feed material. When the auger itself is heated, it also causes the permanent renewal of the material in contact with the heated surface.” Where the heat transfer would be at least partially radiative, per se), wherein the radiative heating comprises emitting thermal radiation from a plurality of radiant heater elements that are arranged at a roof and/or at side walls of the reactor along the material bed (coil 6, p. 5, second to last paragraph, “A coil 6 connectable to a power source surrounds the reactor jacket and forms an inductive heating for the screw conveyor 3.”), and wherein the radiant heater elements are operated by electrical energy only (p. 4 para. 6, “Advantageously, it is provided that the conveyor is electrically heated, in particular inductive, conductive or capacitive. With such heating, the atmosphere in the first section of the reaction chamber can be kept reliably anoxic.”) or by a mixture of electrical energy and another source of energy (optional limitation, see mapping to alternative). PNG media_image1.png 514 712 media_image1.png Greyscale Claim Interpretation Regarding claim 11. The claim recites the limitation, “the conveyor is configured to mobilize the solids during the conveying step in order to renew a surface of a material bed of the solids that is exposed to radiative heating from the radiant heater elements”. This limitation is being interpreted consistent with para. 14 of the Applicant’s PGPUB, which states, “Further, the mobilizing of the material bed during the conveying step results in that too high or too low temperatures are avoided within the material bed. The mobilizing step causes a constant renewal of the surface of the material that is exposed to the radiative heating.” Therefore, prior art that simply conveys the material past radiative heaters would not read on claim 11, even though a “new” surface is provided to the radiative heaters as it gets conveyed past. For example, US 3432397 A to Berg, cited as a relevant prior art reference in the conclusion, does not read on claim 11 since the material surface is not “renewed”. Drawings The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the conveyor details of claims 14-15 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. Claim Objections The claims are objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 11 should read, “… heating the solids during the conveying step to at least 600°C[[.]], …” to remove an inadvertent period. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claim(s) 11-13, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by AT 516178 B1 to Markus. Note: Reference is made to the attached translation of Markus. Regarding claim 11. Markus teaches a device (fig. 1) for carrying out a method according to claim 1 (intended use which the device is capable of) comprising: a reactor (reactor 1) having a feeding opening at a feeding end (material feed 2) and a discharge opening at a discharge end (discharge line 10), a conveyor arranged within the reactor for conveying solids through the reactor from the feeding end to the discharge end (screw conveyor 3), and radiant heater elements that are arranged at a roof and/or at side walls of the reactor along the conveyor (coil 6) for heating the solids during the conveying step (p. 5, second to last paragraph, “A coil 6 connectable to a power source surrounds the reactor jacket and forms an inductive heating for the screw conveyor 3.” Where the heating of the material via conveyor would at least partially involve radiative heating, per se) to at least 600°C[[.]] (pp. 4-5, “The process is preferably carried out so that the waste in the first section of the reaction chamber are heated to a temperature of 600-1,000°C.”), wherein the conveyor is configured to mobilize the solids during the conveying step (it is understood that the conveyor “conveys” the solids through the reactor, i.e. mobilizes the solids) in order to renew a surface of a material bed of the solids that is exposed to radiative heating from the radiant heater elements (p. 4 para. 5, “The auger ensures a continuous transport and at the same time a constant circulation of the feed material. When the auger itself is heated, it also causes the permanent renewal of the material in contact with the heated surface.”), wherein the radiant heater elements are operated by electrical energy only (p. 4 para. 6, “Advantageously, it is provided that the conveyor is electrically heated, in particular inductive, conductive or capacitive. With such heating, the atmosphere in the first section of the reaction chamber can be kept reliably anoxic.”) or by a mixture of electrical energy and another source of energy (optional limitation, see mapping to alternative). PNG media_image1.png 514 712 media_image1.png Greyscale Regarding claim 12. Markus teaches the device according to claim 11, wherein the conveyor comprises at least one feeding screw extending between the feeding end and the discharge end of the reactor (screw conveyor 3). Regarding claim 13. Markus teaches the device according to claim 12, wherein the at least one feeding screw is configured as a heating element that is heated by electrical energy (p. 4 para. 6, “Advantageously, it is provided that the conveyor is electrically heated, in particular inductive, conductive or capacitive. With such heating, the atmosphere in the first section of the reaction chamber can be kept reliably anoxic.”). Regarding claim 20. Markus teaches the device according to claim 11,wherein the radiative heating elements contribute at least 60% of the thermal energy needed for heating the solids during conveying (the coil 6 is the only heating means of the reactor 1 and therefore supplies 100% of the thermal energy during conveying through the reactor 1). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Markus as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of US 6375345 B1 to Lepez. Regarding claim 21. Markus teaches the device according to claim 13, But fails to teach wherein the electrical energy provides resistance heating to heat the at least one feeding screw. Lepez teaches electrical energy provides resistance heating to heat the at least one feeding screw (abstract, “At least the helical portion (4) of the transfer member (2) is made in its bulk of an electrically conductive material, and the transfer member (2) has means (11) for connecting it to an electricity power supply so as to constitute heater means.”). PNG media_image2.png 352 522 media_image2.png Greyscale It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the device of Markus to implement a suitable resistance heating means as taught by Lepez. This would provide the predictable result and benefit of suitably heating the screw conveyor, and therefore the material, of Markus, as suggested by Lepez in col. 3 l. 60 – col. 4 l. 10. Claim Interpretation: The inductive heating of Markus is being interpreted as distinct from the claimed resistance heating. In particular, although induction heating relies on a material’s electrical resistance to eddy currents to convert electrical energy into heat, one of ordinary skill in the art would not have considered it as resistance heating, see attached NPL to Induction Technology Solutions, What Is Induction Heating And How Does it Work?, accessed on 9/16/26 (not relied on as prior art). See in particular the first paragraph where induction heating is compared to resistance heating. Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Markus as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of GB 2493069 A to Stamp. Regarding claim 17. Markus teaches the device according to claim 11, But fails to teach further comprising a preheater for preheating the solids before feeding the solids into the reactor. Stamp teaches a preheater for preheating the solids before feeding the solids into the reactor (pp. 8-9, “A pre-heater 29 is connected to the inlet duct 17 and is arranged to heat limestone prior to introduction into the vessel 11. The pre-heater 29 is connected to the fluid-to-air heat exchanger 28 by pipes 30 so that the hot liquid from the heat exchanger 28 is used to pie-heat the limestone before introduction to the vessel 11.”). PNG media_image3.png 544 763 media_image3.png Greyscale It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the device of Markus to implement a suitable preheater, as taught by Stamp. This would provide the predictable result and benefit of heating the material prior to being introduced into the reactor, as suggested by Stamp in the portion cited above. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 14-15, 18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Regarding claim 14. Markus, applied to claim 11, represents the closest prior art of record to the claimed invention. The prior art fails to teach, “wherein the conveyor comprises a walking floor conveyor”, in addition to the rest of the claim. Instead, Markus teaches a screw conveyor, where the screw conveyor is heated inductively. Furthermore, it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a walking floor conveyor, as claimed, because it would change the principle operation of Markus. It is known in the art from DE 102004009689 A1 to Morgenroth to provide a walking floor conveyor (fig. 8, copied below, where walking floor 8 conveys the material, as noted in the abstract, “'walking floor' (8) on which solid fuel is carried through the reactor”). Note: Reference is made to the attached translation of Morgenroth. PNG media_image4.png 836 675 media_image4.png Greyscale However, Morgenroth fails to read on the claimed invention because the walking floor does not mobilize the material bed during the conveying step in order to renew the surface of the material bed that is exposed to radiative heating, see claim interpretation section above, as claimed, in addition to failing to teach radiant heater elements that are operated by electrical energy only or by a mixture of electrical energy and another source of energy. Regarding claim 15. Markus, applied to claim 11, represents the closest prior art of record to the claimed invention. The prior art fails to teach, “wherein the conveyor comprises a gas inlet for introducing a fluidizing gas that fluidizes the material to transport it.”, in addition to the rest of the claim. Instead, as noted above with respect to claim 14, Markus teaches a screw conveyor for moving the material through the reactor, where the screw conveyor is heated inductively. Furthermore, it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to replace the screw conveyor of Markus with a fluidizing gas, as claimed, since Markus would no longer be able to achieve the desired heating of the material via the inductively heated screw conveyor. Regarding claim 18. Markus, applied to claim 11, represents the closest prior art of record to the claimed invention. Markus teaches the device according to claim 11 (see rejection to claim 11). The prior art fails to teach, “providing the device according to claim 11 to produce a concentrated CO2 stream from calcined material, where the CO2 content in the stream is at least 80 vol.-%”, in addition to the rest of the claim. Instead, Markus teaches subjecting waste materials to pyrolysis to produce a syngas, where the syngas is comprised of CO, and not CO2. Furthermore, it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to produce a concentrated CO2 stream, as claimed, since this would go against the principle operation of Markus; see p. 6 para. 2 which suggests a reduced amount of CO2 when operated at the desired temperature range. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: US 3432397 A to Berg, teaches a device in which material is conveyed past heaters, see fig. 3. PNG media_image5.png 460 796 media_image5.png Greyscale Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kurt J Wolford whose telephone number is (571)272-9945. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 AM - 4:00 PM. 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, Michael G Hoang can be reached at (571)272-6460. 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. /KURT J WOLFORD/Examiner, Art Unit 3762 /STEVEN S ANDERSON II/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762