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 Objections
Claim 21 is objected to because of the following informalities: “wherein the solid material is any one or more of a carbonaceous material: a biomass, a fossil fuel and municipal solid waste” should read “wherein the solid material is any one or more of a carbonaceous material consisting of a biomass, a fossil fuel and municipal solid waste”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1: “an outer vessel containing a heat exchange medium in between the inner vessel and the outer vessel”
Claim 17: “wherein the apparatus is provided with a grinding medium comprising a plurality of freely moving elements to grind and crush solid material within the inner vessel”
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.
With regards to the heat exchange medium of claims 1, 5, 11, 23-24, 27, the corresponding structure described later in claim 1 is that of “a liquid or a pressurized fluid”.
With regards to the grinding medium of claim 17, the corresponding structure described in [0058] of the specification is that of “balls”.
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.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 5, the claim comprises a single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method seps of using the apparatus. The claim recites “The apparatus according to claim 1” as an apparatus and “wherein an amount of the heat exchange medium contained in the outer vessel is controlled…” as a positively recited method. To overcome the rejection, claim 5 may be amended to state “wherein an amount of the heat exchange medium contained in the outer vessel is configured to be controlled” or “wherein an amount of the heat exchange medium contained in the outer vessel is controllable”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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) 1, 6-7,14, 21, and 23-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Legg (GB859359A).
Regarding claim 1, Legg teaches
an apparatus for thermally processing a solid material to produce thermally processed products (fig. 1; “The invention provides a flowable solids heat exchanger wherein a high percentage of the solids passing through the exchanger is exposed to direct contact with heat transfer surface” [page 1 lines 10-14]), the apparatus comprising:
an inner vessel (drum 14) comprising an inlet for providing the solid material into an interior space defined by walls of the inner vessel (chute 46), an outlet for removing the thermally processed products produced within the inner vessel (discharge end section 30), the interior space defining a first pathway between the inlet and the outlet of the inner vessel (fig. 1); and
an outer vessel (tank 10) containing a heat exchange medium in between the inner vessel and the outer vessel (cooling liquid 16), the outer vessel comprising an inlet for providing the heat exchange medium into the outer vessel (valved conduit 12) and an outlet for removing the heat exchange medium from within the outer vessel (“Depending upon the particular cooling operation, liquid may be supplied from the conduit 12 either continuously or intermittently to replace liquid evolved through the vent 42 in the form of vapor or steam. In some instances, it may prove desirable to provide a continuous flow of cooling fluid through the tank 10 in a direction countercurrent to the flow of material through the drum 14, and in such an instance an overflow or drain opening, not shown, may be provided at the end of the tank 10 adjacent the feed end of the drum 14”) [page 3 lines 25-37], a second pathway being defined by the walls of the inner vessel and walls of the outer vessel between the inlet and the outlet of the outer vessel (fig. 1), the inner vessel being configured for at least partial immersion in the heat exchange medium (“A hollow cylindrical drum, designated generally 14, is supported for rotation about a horizontal axis with the drum partially submerged in the body of cooling liquid 16 maintained within the tank 10”) [page 2 liens 4-9], the first pathway and the second pathway being in heat transfer proximity with each other for heat transfer across the walls of the inner vessel (interior of drum 14 adjacent cooling liquid 16, fig. 1),
wherein the inner vessel is configured for rotation about an axis to enhance the relative movement between the walls of the inner vessel and the heat exchange medium (“A hollow cylindrical drum, designated generally 14, is supported for rotation about a horizontal axis with the drum partially submerged in the body of cooling liquid 16 maintained within the tank 10”) [page 2 liens 4-9], to enhance the movement of solid particles relative to each other within the inner vessel and relative to the walls of the inner vessel and to pass the solid material and the thermally processed products along the first pathway towards the outlet of the inner vessel (intended use limitation; inner vessel of Legg is configured for rotation about an axis and passes the solid material and the thermally processed products along the first pathway towards the outlet, thus reading on the claim),
wherein the shortest distance from the walls of the inner vessel perpendicularly to the axis about which the inner vessel is rotated changes along a length of the axis to increase surface areas for heat transfer across the walls of the inner vessel (via construction of flights 54, fig. 1) and
wherein the heat exchange medium comprises a liquid that exerts buoyant forces on the inner vessel (since all liquids exert a buoyant force and as shown on fig. 1, drum 14 immersed in cooling liquid 16, the cooling liquid 16 thus exerts a buoyant force on drum 14)
Regarding claim 6, Legg teaches the apparatus according to claim 1,
wherein the walls of the inner vessel are arranged such that the shortest distance from the walls of the inner vessel to the axis about which the inner vessel is rotated changes periodically along a length of the axis about which the inner vessel is rotated (via construction of flights 54, fig. 1)
Regarding claim 7, Legg teaches the apparatus according to claim 1,
wherein the walls of the inner vessel comprise a plurality of inwardly projecting formations that divide the interior space of the inner vessel into a series of interconnected chambers (flights 54, fig. 1), the projecting formations being spaced apart at intervals from one another along a length of the inner vessel (as shown on fig. 1)
Regarding claim 14, Legg teaches the apparatus according to claim 1,
wherein the inlet and the outlet of the inner vessel are disposed at opposite ends of the inner vessel (fig. 1)
Regarding claim 21, Legg teaches the apparatus according to claim 1,
wherein the solid material is any one or more of a carbonaceous material: a biomass, a fossil fuel and municipal solid waste (“The structure disclosed in the drawings is especially adapted to function as a cooling device for handling flowable solids, such as soybean meal”) [page 1 lines 71-74]
Regarding claims 23 and 24, claims 23 and 24 are rejected in view of Legg for substantially the same reason as rejected claim 1.
Regarding claim 25, claim 25 is rejected in view of Legg for substantially the same reason as rejected claim 7.
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.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Legg (GB859359A).
Regarding claim 13, Legg teaches the apparatus according to claim 1,
further including one or more rollers and/or bearings to support the inner vessel for rotation relative to the outer vessel (“The rotary support for the drum 14 includes two concentric hardened steel tires, one near each end of the drum as at 18 and 20. Each drum tire is rotatably supported by a pair of rollers, not shown, one on each side of the vertical plane on which the sectional view of Fig. 1 is taken”) [page 2 lines 9-15]
While Legg teaches a one or more rollers positioned outside the inner vessel, Legg does not explicitly teach one or more rollers positioned between the inner vessel and the outer vessel (as shown on fig. 1, outer wall of seal means 44 of tank 10 terminates prior to tire 18; therefore, the roller assembly is outside drum 14 but not inside tank 10). However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure Legg to be positioned between the inner vessel and the outer vessel as claimed (wherein the outer wall of seal means 44 does not terminate prior to tire 18), as these changes in configuration are a matter of design when the particular configuration result in no change in system performance. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant; applicant has not cited mechanical significance of the recited configuration to perform differently than the prior art device in the disclosure (see [0019] of applicant’s 03/28/2024 specification). Therefore, the claim is given no distinguishable patentability.
Claim(s) 2, 17-18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Legg (GB859359A) in view of Pehota (US20140110242A1).
Regarding claim 2, Legg does not teach the apparatus according to claim 1,
wherein the apparatus is positioned such that in use the axis about which the inner vessel is rotated is inclined at an angle of inclination with respect to a ground plane to adjust a rate at which the solid material being thermally processed within the inner vessel is transferred along the first pathway
Pehota teaches
wherein the apparatus is positioned such that in use the axis about which the inner vessel is rotated is inclined at an angle of inclination with respect to a ground plane to adjust a rate at which the solid material being thermally processed within the inner vessel is transferred along the first pathway (“Reactor tube 70 is inclined at a descending angle so that biomass which enters through flap valve 50 is carried down through reactor tube 70 by the action of gravity”) [0057]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to angle the system of fig. 1 of Legg as taught in Pehota, in order to utilize gravity in the processing of solids through the drum 14.
Regarding claim 17, Legg does not teach the apparatus according to claim 1,
wherein the apparatus is provided with a grinding medium comprising a plurality of freely moving elements to grind and crush solid material within the inner vessel
Pehota teaches
wherein the apparatus is provided with a grinding medium comprising a plurality of freely moving elements to grind and crush solid material within the inner vessel (“a grinder is provided at the output of reactor tube 70 . The grinder may grind chunks of charcoal produced by the pyrolisis of biomass in reactor tube 70 into smaller granular particles”) [0068]
Legg teaches “While the construction and operation of the apparatus disclosed in the drawings will be described in its application to cooling operations, it will become apparent from the description that the device is equally adaptable for use in heating operations” [page 1 lines 75-81]. Pehota, in fig. 6, teaches a similar system to that of Legg, wherein “Biomass such as straw, other crop residues, wood chips, and the like are readily available. It is often a problem to dispose of biomass. Various agricultural operations can produce significant amounts of biomass as byproducts. Biomass can be reduced to char by heating the biomass in a reduced-oxygen atmosphere” [0003]. Therefore, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the grinder of Pehota to Legg, when operating in a heating operation, in order to mechanically break down biomass to further process the material within the system.
Regarding claim 18, Legg does not teach the apparatus according to claim 1,
wherein the apparatus is configured such that peak temperature within the inner vessel is controllable in a range suitable for drying the solid material
Pehota teaches
wherein the apparatus is configured such that peak temperature within the inner vessel is controllable in a range suitable for drying the solid material (“Reactor 18 heats the biomass in an oxygen-reduced atmosphere to reduce the biomass to char” [0033]; thus, drying the biomass by reducing it to char; “In some preferred embodiments, the temperature in the reactor tube 70 may maintained in excess of 400° C. For example, the temperature in reactor tube 70 may be maintained in the range of 450 to 500° C. The operating pressure in reactor tube 70 may, for example, be approximately 35 to 50 kPa. The reactor temperature may be controlled by a temperature controller that is connected to a sensor monitoring the temperature of gases inside or exiting reactor tube 70” [0056]; therefore, this range is suitable for reducing the biomass to char)
Legg teaches “While the construction and operation of the apparatus disclosed in the drawings will be described in its application to cooling operations, it will become apparent from the description that the device is equally adaptable for use in heating operations” [page 1 lines 75-81]. Pehota, in fig. 6, teaches a similar system to that of Legg, wherein “Biomass such as straw, other crop residues, wood chips, and the like are readily available. It is often a problem to dispose of biomass. Various agricultural operations can produce significant amounts of biomass as byproducts. Biomass can be reduced to char by heating the biomass in a reduced-oxygen atmosphere” [0003]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the temperature control of Pehota to Legg, when operating in a heating operation, in order to ensure the system is operating in an ideal temperature environment for performing the solid processing.
Regarding claim 20, Legg does not teach the apparatus according to claim 1,
wherein the apparatus is configured such that peak temperature within the inner vessel is controllable in a range suitable for pyrolysing the solid material
Pehota teaches
wherein the apparatus is configured such that peak temperature within the inner vessel is controllable in a range suitable for pyrolysing the solid material (“In some embodiments, a grinder is provided at the output of reactor tube 70 . The grinder may grind chunks of charcoal produced by the pyrolisis of biomass in reactor tube 70 into smaller granular particles” [0068]; “In some preferred embodiments, the temperature in the reactor tube 70 may maintained in excess of 400° C. For example, the temperature in reactor tube 70 may be maintained in the range of 450 to 500° C. The operating pressure in reactor tube 70 may, for example, be approximately 35 to 50 kPa. The reactor temperature may be controlled by a temperature controller that is connected to a sensor monitoring the temperature of gases inside or exiting reactor tube 70” [0056]; therefore, this range is suitable for pyrolysis of the biomass)
Legg teaches “While the construction and operation of the apparatus disclosed in the drawings will be described in its application to cooling operations, it will become apparent from the description that the device is equally adaptable for use in heating operations” [page 1 lines 75-81]. Pehota, in fig. 6, teaches a similar system to that of Legg, wherein “Biomass such as straw, other crop residues, wood chips, and the like are readily available. It is often a problem to dispose of biomass. Various agricultural operations can produce significant amounts of biomass as byproducts. Biomass can be reduced to char by heating the biomass in a reduced-oxygen atmosphere” [0003]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the temperature control of Pehota to Legg, when operating in a heating operation, in order to ensure the system is operating in an ideal temperature environment for performing the solid processing.
Claim(s) 5 and 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Legg (GB859359A) in view of Whitehead (US3983931A).
Regarding claim 5, Legg teaches the apparatus according to claim 1,
wherein an amount of the heat exchange medium contained in the outer vessel is controlled such that the buoyant forces exerted by the heat exchange medium on the inner vessel is no bigger than a total weight of the inner vessel and the solid material contained therein
Whitehead teaches
wherein an amount of the heat exchange medium contained in the outer vessel is controlled such that the buoyant forces exerted by the heat exchange medium on the inner vessel is no bigger than a total weight of the inner vessel and the solid material contained therein (“A vessel for receiving material to be treated is provided and this is in the form of a hollow buoyant cylindrical contactor 21. Contactor 21 rests upon and is floatingly supported by bed 18, when the bed is fluidised, this occurring because of the buoyancy of the contactor. When the bed is defluidised the bed contracts, as is well known, and the vessel remains only partially immersed on the bed surface but remains, nevertheless, uniformly supported over its length. Refluidisation restores buoyancy to the system to refloat the contactor. Walls 19 support the contactor when the bed is removed completely and can also support the contactor during construction thereof”) [col. 3 lines 24-36]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the construction of the fluidised bed structure 12 including the vertical walls 19 of Whitehead to Legg, since “heat can be removed from the bed by evaporation of a fluid” [col. 4 lines 23-24 of Whitehead]; thus, since the system of Whitehead allows the contactor 21 to be supported by walls 19 if the sum of the buoyant forces is no bigger than total weight of the inner vessel and the solid material contained therein, the system allows for a smaller amount of fluidised bed 18 which increases the lower operable temperature range of the system.
Regarding claim 27, Legg does not explicitly teach the method according to claim 24,
wherein an amount of the heat exchange medium is adjusted so that a sum of the buoyant forces is no bigger than total weight of the inner vessel and the solid material contained therein
Whitehead teaches
wherein an amount of the heat exchange medium is adjusted so that a sum of the buoyant forces is no bigger than total weight of the inner vessel and the solid material contained therein (“A vessel for receiving material to be treated is provided and this is in the form of a hollow buoyant cylindrical contactor 21. Contactor 21 rests upon and is floatingly supported by bed 18, when the bed is fluidised, this occurring because of the buoyancy of the contactor. When the bed is defluidised the bed contracts, as is well known, and the vessel remains only partially immersed on the bed surface but remains, nevertheless, uniformly supported over its length. Refluidisation restores buoyancy to the system to refloat the contactor. Walls 19 support the contactor when the bed is removed completely and can also support the contactor during construction thereof”) [col. 3 lines 24-36]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the construction of the fluidised bed structure 12 including the vertical walls 19 of Whitehead to Legg, since “heat can be removed from the bed by evaporation of a fluid” [col. 4 lines 23-24 of Whitehead]; thus, since the system of Whitehead allows the contactor 21 to be supported by walls 19 if the sum of the buoyant forces is no bigger than total weight of the inner vessel and the solid material contained therein, the system allows for a smaller amount of fluidised bed 18 which increases the lower operable temperature range of the system.
Claim(s) 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Legg (GB859359A) in view of Li (CN207276551U), referring to the English translation dated 07/17/2026, and Parkinson (CN109340802A), referring to the English translation dated 07/17/2026.
Regarding claim 8, Legg teaches the apparatus according to claim 7,
wherein each projecting formation extends radially inwardly and includes a first annular wall surface and a second annular wall surface (flights 54 comprising parallel side plates 56, reading on first and second annular wall surface), the first and second wall surfaces converging to define an inner radius of the inner vessel (converging at edge plate 58 as shown on fig. 1 to define inner radius)
Legg does not teach
a first annular wall surface and a second annular wall surface at an acute angle relative to one another
Li teaches
a first annular wall surface and a second annular wall surface at an acute angle relative to one another (as shown on figs. 1-3, groove plate 5 comprises two walls forming an acute angle with one another)
Li teaches a similar system to that of Legg however teaches the grooves of feed tube 1 to comprise an acute triangular cross section. Therefore, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the triangular groove shape taught in Li to the rectangular flights 54 of Legg, in order to effectively allow the flights to extend further into the drum 14 without reducing the internal volume of drum 14, thus allowing for the heat exchange liquid to reach closer to the center axis of drum 14 during operation (this configuration is further shown by Parkinson, fig. 1, wherein triangular groove 7 extends further into kiln body 2 than rectangular groove 5).
Regarding claim 9, Legg does not teach the apparatus according to claim 8,
wherein the acute angle is between about 1 and 20 degrees
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the acute angle of Legg, as modified, to fall within the claimed range as an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art. There is no evidence of record that establishes that changing the degree of the angle of the flights 54 of Legg, as modified, would result in a difference in function of the device. Further, a person having ordinary skill in the art, being faced with modifying the flights 54 of Legg, would have a reasonable expectation of success in making such a modification and it appears the device would function as intended being given the claimed angle. Lastly, applicant has not disclosed that the claimed range solves any stated problem (see [0015] and [0047] of applicant’s 03/28/2024 specification), and therefore there appears to be no criticality placed on the range as claimed such that it produces an unexpected result.
Regarding claim 10, Legg teaches the apparatus according to claim 8,
wherein a series of annular gaps which narrow radially inwardly are provided on an exterior of the inner vessel by the acute angle of the first and second annular wall surfaces of the projecting formations (flights 54 on an exterior of the drum 14 of Legg comprising an acute triangular cross section as modified by Li, would thus narrow radially inwardly)
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Legg (GB859359A) in view of Li (CN207276551U), referring to the English translation dated 07/17/2026, and Parkinson (CN109340802A), referring to the English translation dated 07/17/2026, in further view of Pehota (US20140110242A1).
Regarding claim 11, Legg does not teach the apparatus according to claim 10,
wherein a plurality of baffles are attached to the outer vessel which project towards the inner vessel, at least some of the baffles being positioned to align with the annular gaps on the exterior of the inner vessel, the baffles being configured to direct flow of the heat exchange medium into the gaps
Pehota teaches
wherein a plurality of baffles are attached to the outer vessel which project towards the inner vessel (baffles 77, fig. 6), at least some of the baffles being positioned to align with the annular gaps on the exterior of the inner vessel (as shown on fig. 6, baffles 77 align adjacent to and between openings 80), the baffles being configured to direct flow of the heat exchange medium into the gaps (“Baffles 77 in upper compartment 76 cause hot gases from burner compartment 74 to make intimate contact with reactor tube 70” [0056]; increasing contact with reactor tube 70 would thus increase contact with adjacent openings 80)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the arrangement of baffles 77 of Pehota to fig. 1 of Legg, in order to increase the contact of liquid 16 with the drum 14, thus improving the efficiency of the heat exchange of the system.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Legg (GB859359A) in view of Choi (KR20190044223A), referring to the English translation dated 07/17/2026.
Regarding claim 12, Legg does not teach the apparatus according to claim 1,
wherein the outer vessel has a lower section in the shape of a half cylinder and an upper section in the shape of a rectangular cuboid
Choi teaches
wherein the outer vessel has a lower section in the shape of a half cylinder and an upper section in the shape of a rectangular cuboid (housing 10 as shown on fig. 3)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the housing 10 configuration of Choi to the tank 10 of Legg, in order to reduce the amount of cooling liquid 16 needed to cover the same amount of drum 14 (as shown on fig. 2 of Legg, the bottom corners of tank 10 of Legg comprise unneccesary extra cooling liquid 16 when compared with a tank comprising a cylindrical bottom; reduced necessary cooling liquid is shown in the shaded portions on annotated fig. 2 of Legg below)
PNG
media_image1.png
358
281
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated fig. 2 of Legg
Conclusion
The prior art of record not relied upon includes:
Wang (CN207379207U), which teaches a similar apparatus for thermally processing a solid material to that claimed
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRETT P. MALLON whose telephone number is (571)272-4749. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday from 8am to 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, MICHAEL 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.
/BRETT P. MALLON/Examiner, Art Unit 3762 /MICHAEL G HOANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3762
Prosecution Insights