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 .
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 explosion-proof isolation device 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 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 2, 3, and 5 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 single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. See MPEP 2173.05(p) II. Claim 2 recites “steam generated by reaction….” In lines 5-7. Claim 3 recites “flue gas generated by reaction….” In lines 5-7. Claim 5 recites that the temperature of the gasifier “is controlled” to be within a set range. These are all considered process limitations since they state what is happening without specific structures associated with performing them as functions.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee (US 2017/0175016 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Lee discloses an apparatus comprising: a circulating fluidized bed gasifier 300 and a waste incineration assembly (combustor) 100 (paragraph 23). Lee discloses a carbon pipeline (the pipe upstream of element 310) and an injection port (the pipe downstream of element 310). Lee discloses that solids can be transferred from the gasifier 300 to the combustor 100 via 310 (paragraph 25). It is the Office’s position that whether or not activated carbon is generated in the reaction and harmful substances are captured in the combustor is dependent on reaction conditions such as composition of the feedstock, the oxidants of the gasifier, and the temperatures in the reactors. See MPEP 2114 II. No feedstock or materials are positively recited.
Regarding claim 2, Lee discloses a riser 210 that connects an outlet 101 of the combustor 100 to an inlet 430 of the gasifier 300 (see Figure 1). The riser is capable of transferring gases such a steam (paragraphs 103 & 104). Neither steam nor water are positively recited. See MPEP 2114 II.
Regarding claim 3, Lee discloses a riser 210 that connects an outlet 101 of the combustor 100 to an inlet 430 of the gasifier 300 (see Figure 1). The riser is capable of transferring gases such flue gas for heat (paragraphs 103 & 104). Flue gas is not positively recited. See MPEP 2114 II.
Regarding claim 5, the temperature is a matter of intended use when not clearly positively recited. Lee an operate at temperatures less than 1,000 °C (paragraph 34). See MPEP 2114 II.
Regarding claim 8, the biomass is not positively recited. Lee can utilize biomass/waste/coal (paragraph 1). See MPEP 2114 II.
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.
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 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Mennell (US 2022/0228082 A1).
Lee does not disclose a pneumatic conveying device. Mennell—in an invention appropriate for waste incinerators and gasifiers (paragraph 621)—discloses the use of pneumatic conveying means so that activated carbon can be injected as a powder to downstream processes (paragraph 583) to control contaminant emissions in gas streams from waste incinerators and gasifiers (paragraph 621). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to add pneumatic conveying means to the effluent pipelines of the gasifier and incinerator to controllably move activated carbon between the reactors to decrease contaminants as suggested by Mennell.
Claims 6, 7, 9, 10, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee as applied to claims 1-3 and 5 above, and further in view of Tsangaris (US 2014/0332724 A1).
Lee does not disclose an explosion-proof isolation device or leakage detector. Tsangaris—in an invention for a gasification system for burners—discloses the use of sealed box between the gasifier and burners to prevent formation of an explosive gas mixture within the box (paragraph 334) with advanced leak detections systems to monitor leakers (paragraph 418). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to add a leak detection and mitigation means to Lee so as to prevent unwanted explosions as suggested by Tsangaris.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee and Mennell as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Tsangaris.
Neither Lee nor Mennell discloses an explosion-proof isolation device or leakage detector. Tsangaris—in an invention for a gasification system for burners—discloses the use of sealed box between the gasifier and burners to prevent formation of an explosive gas mixture within the box (paragraph 334) with advanced leak detections systems to monitor leakers (paragraph 418). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to add a leak detection and mitigation means to Lee and Mennell so as to prevent unwanted explosions as suggested by Tsangaris.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IMRAN AKRAM whose telephone number is (571)270-3241. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9a-5p.
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, Basia Ridley can be reached at 571-272-1453. 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.
/IMRAN AKRAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725
Prosecution Insights