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 as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description:
condenser outlet 240 in paragraph [0054] of the specification as filed;
electric cylinder 518 in paragraph [0076] of the specification as filed.
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. 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.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: reference character 270 on the outlet side of the condenser 228 in Figure 2. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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. 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.
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 hatch in claim 48 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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
paragraph [0072] – “the rack 512” in line 2 should be “the rack 508”;
paragraph [0074] & [0075] – reference character 516 has been used to refer to a bottom edge 516, floor surface 516 and rails 516 – only one reference character should be used to designate a part; and
paragraph [0076] – “door 520” in line 4 should be “door 514”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 37 is objected to because of the following informalities: the recitation “flattening apparatus for flatting” should be corrected such that it recites “flattening apparatus for flattening” to overcome a minor spelling error. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 52 is objected to because of the following informalities: the recitation “during Heating” should be corrected such that it recites “during heating” in order to be consistent with the guidance “Each claim begins with a capital letter and ends with a period” found in the MPEP § 608.01(m). 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:
“distributed heat source for heating” in claim 36 – see paragraphs [0013]-[0014], [0034]-[0035], [0048]-[0050] of the specification as filed for the corresponding structure for performing the claimed function;
“flattening apparatus for flattening” in claim 37 – see paragraphs [0082]-[0085] & Figures 7A-7B of the specification as filed for the corresponding structure for performing the claimed function;
“vacuum control mechanism for controlling the low oxygen environment” in claim 42 – see paragraphs [0037] and [0051] of the specification as filed for the corresponding structure for performing the claimed function; and
“temperature control mechanism for controlling temperature” in claim 43 – see paragraphs [0059] and [0066] of the specification as filed for the corresponding structure for performing the claimed function.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
[AltContent: rect]
Claim 48 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 48: there is insufficient antecedent basis for the recitation "… the weak link in the event of an explosion…" in line 2. Claim 48 depends from claim 36, which does not include a weak link in an event of an explosion; therefore, and the claim contains no earlier recitation or limitation of a a weak link in an event of an explosion making it unclear as to what element the limitation is making reference. See MPEP § 2173.05(e).
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
[AltContent: rect]
Claims 36 and 39-41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pickering et al. (“Recycling technologies for thermoset composite materials-current status”, Composites Part A, Elsevier, vol. 37, no. 8, August 2006, pages 1206-1215; made of record in the IDS filed 06/04/2024; made of record in the IDS filed 06/04/2024, citations taken from the copy filed 06/04/2024).
As to claim 36: Pickering discloses the claimed system for reclaiming glass fibers from a stock material (i.e., pyrolysis involves the system of Fig. 4 to heat a combustible material in the absence of oxygen to break it down into lower molecular weight organic substances, liquids and gases, and there is also a solid carbon char product; there is potential value in the solid products if the glass fibres can be recovered in good condition) (Pickering at page 1210, paragraph 1 & paragraph 3; Fig. 4), the system comprising:
a chamber for holding the stock material in a low oxygen environment (i.e., reactor vessel receiving the composite scrap feed; combustible material is heated in the absence of oxygen in the reaction vessel) (Pickering at page 1210, paragraph 1 & paragraph 3; Fig. 4); and
a pyrolyzer having a distributed heat source for heating the stock material (i.e., pyrolysis allows for recovering material from the polymer in a scrap composite by heating the scrap composite in the absence of oxygen to 400oC – 1,000oC; pyrolisation chamber) (Pickering at page 1210, paragraphs 1-2 & paragraph 3; Fig. 4);
wherein the distributed heat source uniformly heats the stock material to reduce the stock material to the glass fibers (i.e., pyrolysis involves the system of Fig. 4 to heat a combustible material in the absence of oxygen to 400oC – 1,000oC to break it down into lower molecular weight organic substances, liquids and gases, and there is also a solid carbon char product; there is potential value in the solid products if the glass fibres can be recovered in good condition) (Pickering at page 1210, paragraph 1 & paragraph 3; Fig. 4).
As to claim 39: Pickering discloses the system of claim 36. Pickering further discloses the claimed system further comprising a reclaimer for collecting gas that is released when the stock material is heated (i.e., pyrolysis produced some hot gases which is collected and processed for further use in the process) (Pickering at page 1210, paragraph 2; page 1211, paragraph 2 & paragraph 4; Fig. 4).
As to claim 40: Pickering discloses the system of claim 39. Pickering further discloses the claimed system further comprising a condenser (i.e., condenser) for recovering oil from the gas (i.e., the pyrolysis produced hot gases and liquid oil) (Pickering at page 1210, paragraph 2; page 1211, paragraph 2 & paragraph 4; Fig. 4).
As to claim 41: Pickering discloses the system of claim 39. Pickering further discloses the claimed system further comprising a power system fueled by the gas, wherein the power system powers the pyrolyzer (i.e., the pyrolysis process produces hot fuel gases which are collected and processed so as to be used to provide heating for the pyrolisation chamber) (Pickering at page 1210, paragraph 2; Fig. 4).
[AltContent: rect]
Claims 50 and 53 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pickering et al. (“Recycling technologies for thermoset composite materials-current status”, Composites Part A, Elsevier, vol. 37, no. 8, August 2006, pages 1206-1215; made of record in the IDS filed 06/04/2024, citations taken from the copy filed 06/04/2024).
As to claim 50: Pickering discloses the claimed method for reclaiming glass fibers a stock material (i.e., a pyrolysis process involves the system of Fig. 4 to heat a combustible material in the absence of oxygen to break it down into lower molecular weight organic substances, liquids and gases, and there is also a solid carbon char product; there is potential value in the solid products if the glass fibres can be recovered in good condition) (Pickering at page 1210, paragraph 1 & paragraph 3; Fig. 4), the method comprising:
holding the stock material in a low oxygen environment (i.e., reactor vessel receiving the composite scrap feed; combustible material is heated in the absence of oxygen in the reaction vessel) (Pickering at page 1210, paragraph 1 & paragraph 3; Fig. 4);
uniformly heating the stock material in the low oxygen environment (i.e., pyrolysis involves the system of Fig. 4 to heat a combustible material in the absence of oxygen to 400oC – 1,000oC within the reactor vessel to break it down into lower molecular weight organic substances, liquids and gases, and there is also a solid carbon char product; there is potential value in the solid products if the glass fibres can be recovered in good condition) (Pickering at page 1210, paragraph 1 & paragraph 3; Fig. 4); and
reducing the stock material to the glass fibers (i.e., pyrolysis involves the system of Fig. 4 to heat a combustible material in the absence of oxygen to 400oC – 1,000oC within the reactor vessel to break it down into lower molecular weight organic substances, liquids and gases, and there is also a solid carbon char product; there is potential value in the solid products if the glass fibres can be recovered in good condition) (Pickering at page 1210, paragraph 1 & paragraph 3; Fig. 4).
As to claim 53: Pickering discloses the method of claim 50. Pickering further discloses the claimed method further comprising heating the glass fibers in an atmosphere environment and removing a carbon coating from the glass fibers (i.e., a gasification process has also been developed for carbon fiber composites, where the scrap material is further heated in a controlled flow of oxygen at temperatures of 600oC – this process removing 90% of the char residue from the polymer on the fiber) (Pickering at page 1212, paragraph 3).
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.
[AltContent: rect]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.
Claims 37-38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pickering as applied to claim 36 above, and further in view of Bissell (US 6,623,602; of record).
As to claim 37: Pickering discloses the system of claim 36. Pickering fails to disclose the claimed wherein the chamber further comprises a stock material flattening apparatus for flattening the stock material during heating.
However, Bissell teaches a method and apparatus for reclaiming volatile products and non-volatile residue through the pyrolysis of a polymeric material, comprising placing the polymeric material in a reactor and establishing an oxygen deficient atmosphere in the reactor the reactor and simultaneously compressing and heating to a temperature sufficient to pyrolyze the polymeric material (Bissell at column 3, lines 4-11). Bissell further teaches the polymeric material including a composite material containing rubber compounds reinforced with carbon black, synthetic fibers, or steel wire (Bissell at column 1, lines 25-31).
Moreover, the compressing and heating to a temperature sufficient to pyrolyze the polymeric material in Bissell is carried out via heated compression assembly 115 (Bissell at column 7, lines 40-44) which includes a first fixed platen 116 having a first non-movable compression and heating surface 117 for simultaneously applying pressure and heat to the rubber tire 14, such that the movement of movable platen 120 in a first direction moves the first side 121 of movable platen 120 into proximity of the first non-movable compression and heated surface 117 of the first fixed platen 116 to simultaneously apply mechanical pressure and heat to a rubber tire 14 (i.e., wherein the chamber further comprises a stock material flattening apparatus for flattening the stock material during heating) (Bissell at column 7, lines 45-67). The simultaneous compressing and heating during the reduction of the volume of the rubber tire 14 through continuous pyrolysis thereof results in the production of volatile products 42 and non-volatile residue 44 (Bissell at column 5, lines 57-65).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the heated compression assembly as such is known in the art of reclaiming volatile products and non-volatile residue from the pyrolysis of polymeric materials given the discussion of Bissell above presenting a reasonable expectation of success; and doing so is combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, with the added benefit of doing so allowing for compression of pyrolysis residue to be achieved and thereby maintaining constant contact with the organic material remaining (as recognized by Bissell at column 2, lines 17-22).
As to claim 38: Pickering and Bissell teach the system of claim 37. Bissell further discloses the claimed wherein the stock material flattening apparatus includes the distributed heat source (i.e., heated compression assembly 115), and wherein the distributed heat source moves with the stock material flattening apparatus (i.e., first fixed platen 116 having a first non-movable compression and heating surface 117 for simultaneously applying pressure and heat to the rubber tire 14, such that the movement of movable platen 120 in a first direction moves the first side 121 of movable platen 120 into proximity of the first non-movable compression and heated surface 117 of the first fixed platen 116 to simultaneously apply mechanical pressure and heat to a rubber tire 14) (Bissell at column 7, lines 45-67; FIG. 5), for similar motivation discussed in the rejection of claim 37.
[AltContent: rect]
Claims 42-47 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pickering as applied to claim 36 above, and further in view of Hideto et al. (JP 6764225 B1; made of record in the IDS filed 12/24/2024, citations taken from the translated copy filed on 12/24/2024).
As to claim 42: Pickering discloses the system of claim 36. Pickering fails to disclose the claimed system further comprising: a plurality of chambers for pyrolyzing a plurality of stock materials; and a vacuum control mechanism for controlling the low oxygen environment in one or more of the chambers independent of the low oxygen environment in another of the plurality of chambers.
However, Hideto teaches a method and apparatus 200 for uniformly pyrolyzing a resin contained in a three dimensionally shaped carbon fiber-reinforced plastic (Hideto at [0007], [0016], Fig. 1). Hideto further teaches placing a carbon fiber-reinforced plastic in a carbonization chamber 102 of a carbonization furnace 201 and heating (Hideto at [0009], [0017]), where it is preferred that the section of the carbonization chamber 102 is defined by a shelf 111 that accommodates the carbon fiber-reinforced plastic (Hideto at [0010]). The shelf 111 that accommodates the carbon fiber-reinforced plastic (CFRP) taught by Hideto is formed in a rectangular shape by four columns 116, a plurality of horizontal members 117 connecting the columns 116 to each other, and an auxiliary member 118 connecting a pair of opposed horizontal members 117; the horizontal member 117 and the auxiliary member 118 defining a plurality of surfaces capable of dividing the inside of the carbonation chamber 102 into three or more in the height direction (i.e., system further comprising: a plurality of chambers for pyrolyzing a plurality of stock materials) (Hideto at [0021], Fig. 2).
Additionally, Hideto teaches the carbonization furnace 201 being provided with a hot air discharge duct 108 communicating with heating chamber 215 and a damper 109 being provided in each passage between the heating chamber 215 and combustion chamber 203; such that, using sensor data, the temperature of the carbonization chamber 102 is controlled by opening and closing the damper 109 (i.e., vacuum control mechanism for controlling the low oxygen environment in one or more of the chambers independent of the low oxygen environment in another of the plurality of chambers) (Hideto at [0019], Fig. 1)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to utilize a plurality of chambers for pyrolyzing a plurality of stock materials and a vacuum control mechanism for controlling the low oxygen environment in one or more of the chambers independent of the low oxygen environment in another of the plurality of chambers as such is known in the art pyrolysis of a carbon fiber reinforced plastic material given the discussion of Hideto above presenting a reasonable expectation of success; and doing so is the use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way.
As to claim 43: Pickering discloses the system of claim 36. Pickering fails to disclose the claimed system further comprising: a plurality of chambers for pyrolyzing a plurality of stock materials; and a temperature control mechanism for controlling the temperature in one or more of the chambers independent of the temperature in another of the plurality of chambers.
However, Hideto remains as introduced and applied in the rejection of claim 42, and Hideto further teaches the claimed system further comprising: a plurality of chambers for pyrolyzing a plurality of stock materials (i.e., the horizontal member 117 and the auxiliary member 118 defining a plurality of surfaces capable of dividing the inside of the carbonation chamber 102 into three or more in the height direction; CFRP 230 is mounted on a porous tray 231, and the porous tray 231 is mounted on the horizontal member 117 and auxiliary member 118 of the shelf 111) (Hideto at [0021], [0026], Fig. 2, Fig. 3); and a temperature control mechanism for controlling the temperature in one or more of the chambers independent of the temperature in another of the plurality of chambers (i.e., temperature sensors 143 and 144 are used to control the temperature of the carbonization chamber 102 and therefore the horizontal members 117 and auxiliary member 118 within) (Hideto at [0019], Fig. 1, Fig. 3), for similar motivation discussed in the rejection of claim 42.
As to claim 44: Pickering discloses the system of claim 36. Pickering fails to disclose the claimed system further comprising a rack system configured to load and unload the stock materials into and out of the pyrolyzer.
However, Hideto remains as introduced and applied in the rejection of claim 42, and Hideto further teaches the claimed system further comprising a rack system configured to load and unload the stock materials into and out of the pyrolyzer (i.e., porous trays 231; carbonization chamber 102 is divided into three or more sections in the height direction by the shelf 111 and CFRP 230 is accommodated and heated in each section) (Hideto at [0025], [0026], Fig. 1, Fig. 2 Fig. 3), for similar motivation discussed in the rejection of claim 42.
As to claim 45: Pickering and Hideto teach the system of claim 44 above. Hideto further teaches the claimed wherein the rack system includes a plurality of racks (i.e., porous trays 231; carbonization chamber 102 is divided into three or more sections in the height direction by the shelf 111 and CFRP 230 is accommodated and heated in each section) (Hideto at [0025], [0026], Fig. 1, Fig. 2 Fig. 3), for similar motivation discussed in the rejection of claim 42.
As to claim 46: Pickering and Hideto teach the system of claim 44 above. Hideto further teaches the claimed wherein the rack system further comprises a rack frame configured to support at least one rack and wherein the rack is detachable from the rack frame (i.e., carbonization chamber 102 is divided into three or more sections in the height direction by the shelf 111 and CFRP 230 is accommodated and heated in each section, each of the CFRP 230 being mounted on porous tray 231) (Hideto at [0025], [0026], Fig. 1, Fig. 2 Fig. 3), for similar motivation discussed in the rejection of claim 42.
As to claim 47: Pickering and Hideto teach the system of claim 44 above. Hideto further teaches the claimed wherein the pyrolyzer further comprises at least one door and wherein the rack system is at least partially supported by an internal surface of the door during one or more of loading and unloading (i.e., carbonization chamber 102 is formed inside main body 205 of carbonization furnace 201; the opening of the main body 205 and the opening of the carbonization chamber 102 can be sealed at the same time by closing one sealing door) (Hideto at [0017], Fig. 1), for similar motivation discussed in the rejection of claim 42.
[AltContent: rect]
Claim 48 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pickering as applied to claim 36 above, and further in view of Freze (US 4,268,247).
As to claim 48: Pickering discloses the system of claim 36. Pickering fails to disclose the claimed wherein the pyrolyzer further comprises an explosion hatch wherein the explosion hatch is configured to be the weak link in the event of an explosion.
However, Freze teaches a method and apparatus for drying fabrics (Freze at column 2, lines 67-68), the fabrics including flexible materials which can retain moisture including synthetic and natural textiles, fibers, filaments, yarns and the like (Freze at column 3, lines 1-4). Freze further teaches the housing 80 of the heated drying apparatus including explosion hatch door 71 (Freze at column 3, lines 1-4) in the event there is an explosive concentration of gas developing in the dryer if the burner fails to ignite (Freze at column 4, lines 34-35; column 6, lines 22-23; FIG. 5).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate an explosion hatch as such is known in the art of pressurized and heated fabric drying apparatuses given the discussion of Freze above presenting a reasonable expectation of success; and doing so is applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
[AltContent: rect]
Claim 49 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pickering as applied to claim 36 above, and further in view of Parker Sr. (US 5,167,772; made of record in the IDS filed 06/04/2024).
As to claim 49: Pickering discloses the system of claim 36. Pickering fails to disclose the claimed system further comprising a control system cabinet configured to provide a radio control based on at least one information from at least one sensor of the pyrolyzer.
However, Parker Sr. teaches a method and apparatus for pyrolyzing materials in a completely controlled environment (Parker Sr. at column 1, lines 6-10; FIG. 10). Parker Sr. further teaches control panel 140 controlling system 100 automatically using various sensors to provide feedback to the controller (i.e., system further comprising a control system cabinet configured to provide a radio control based on at least one information from at least one sensor of the pyrolyzer) (Parker Sr. at column 4, lines 16-22; column 5, lines 30-31; column 6, lines 47-55; column 8, lines 58-61; FIG. 10).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to utilize the control system cabinet configured to provide a radio control based on at least one information from at least one sensor of the pyrolyzer as such is known in the art of pyrolysis given the discussion of Parker Sr. above presenting a reasonable expectation of success; and doing so is combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
[AltContent: rect]Claims 51 and 54-55 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pickering as applied to claim 50 above, and further in view of Hideto et al. (JP 6764225 B1; made of record in the IDS filed 12/24/2024, citations taken from the translated copy filed on 12/24/2024).
As to claim 51: Pickering discloses the method of claim 50. Pickering fails to disclose the claimed method comprising: loading a rack system with the stock material; providing the stock material to the low oxygen environment with the rack system by moving at least part of the rack system into the low oxygen environment of a pyrolyzer; removing the stock material from the low oxygen environment with the rack system by removing at least part of the rack system from the low oxygen environment of the pyrolyzer.
However, Hideto teaches a method and apparatus 200 for uniformly pyrolyzing a resin contained in a three dimensionally shaped carbon fiber-reinforced plastic (Hideto at [0007], [0016], Fig. 1). Hideto further teaches placing a carbon fiber-reinforced plastic in a carbonization chamber 102 of a carbonization furnace 201 and heating (Hideto at [0009], [0017]), where it is preferred that the section of the carbonization chamber 102 is defined by a shelf 111 that accommodates the carbon fiber-reinforced plastic (Hideto at [0010]). The shelf 111 that accommodates the carbon fiber-reinforced plastic (CFRP) taught by Hideto is formed in a rectangular shape by four columns 116, a plurality of horizontal members 117 connecting the columns 116 to each other, and an auxiliary member 118 connecting a pair of opposed horizontal members 117; the horizontal member 117 and the auxiliary member 118 defining a plurality of surfaces capable of dividing the inside of the carbonation chamber 102 into three or more in the height direction (i.e., system further comprising: a plurality of chambers for pyrolyzing a plurality of stock materials) (Hideto at [0021], Fig. 2).
Hideto teaches carbonization chamber 102 is divided into three or more sections in the height direction by the shelf 111 and CFRP 230 is accommodated and heated in each section (Hideto at [0025], [0026], Fig. 1, Fig. 2 Fig. 3); and the horizontal member 117 and the auxiliary member 118 defining a plurality of surfaces capable of dividing the inside of the carbonation chamber 102 into three or more in the height direction; CFRP 230 is mounted on a porous tray 231 (i.e., loading a rack system with the stock material), and the porous tray 231 is then mounted on the horizontal member 117 and auxiliary member 118 of the shelf 111 (i.e., providing the stock material to the low oxygen environment with the rack system by moving at least part of the rack system into the low oxygen environment of a pyrolyzer; removing the stock material from the low oxygen environment with the rack system by removing at least part of the rack system from the low oxygen environment of the pyrolyzer) (Hideto at [0021], [0026], Fig. 2, Fig. 3).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to utilize a method comprising: loading a rack system with the stock material; providing the stock material to the low oxygen environment with the rack system by moving at least part of the rack system into the low oxygen environment of a pyrolyzer; removing the stock material from the low oxygen environment with the rack system by removing at least part of the rack system from the low oxygen environment of the pyrolyzer as such is known in the art pyrolysis of a carbon fiber reinforced plastic material given the discussion of Hideto above presenting a reasonable expectation of success; and doing so is the use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way.
As to claim 54: Pickering and Hideto teach the method of claim 51 above. Hideto further teaches the claimed wherein the rack system further comprises a rack frame (i.e., horizontal members 117 and auxiliary member 118 of the shelf 111) configured to support at least one rack (i.e., porous tray 231) and wherein the rack is detachable from the rack frame and wherein loading the rack system further comprises loading the rack with stock material and attaching the rack to the rack frame (i.e., carbonization chamber 102 is divided into three or more sections in the height direction by the shelf 111 and CFRP 230 is accommodated and heated in each section; and the horizontal member 117 and the auxiliary member 118 defining a plurality of surfaces capable of dividing the inside of the carbonation chamber 102 into three or more in the height direction; CFRP 230 is mounted on a porous tray 231, and the porous tray 231 is then mounted on the horizontal member 117 and auxiliary member 118 of the shelf 111) (Hideto at [0025], [0026], Fig. 1, Fig. 2 Fig. 3), for similar motivation discussed in the rejection of claim 51.
As to claim 55: Pickering and Hideto teach the method of claim 54 above. Hideto further teaches the claimed wherein the rack is one or more of charged and discharged outside the low oxygen environment (CFRP 230 is mounted on a porous tray 231, and the porous tray 231 is then mounted on the horizontal member 117 and auxiliary member 118 of the shelf 111) (Hideto at [0025], [0026], Fig. 1, Fig. 2 Fig. 3), for similar motivation discussed in the rejection of claim 51.
[AltContent: rect]
Claim 52 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pickering as applied to claim 50 above, and further in view of Bissell (US 6,623,602; of record).
As to claim 52: Pickering discloses the method of claim 50. Pickering fails to disclose the claimed method further comprising flattening the stock material during heating.
However, Bissell teaches a method and apparatus for reclaiming volatile products and non-volatile residue through the pyrolysis of a polymeric material, comprising placing the polymeric material in a reactor and establishing an oxygen deficient atmosphere in the reactor the reactor and simultaneously compressing and heating to a temperature sufficient to pyrolyze the polymeric material (Bissell at column 3, lines 4-11). Bissell further teaches the polymeric material including a composite material containing rubber compounds reinforced with carbon black, synthetic fibers, or steel wire (Bissell at column 1, lines 25-31).
Moreover, the compressing and heating to a temperature sufficient to pyrolyze the polymeric material in Bissell is carried out via heated compression assembly 115 (Bissell at column 7, lines 40-44) which includes a first fixed platen 116 having a first non-movable compression and heating surface 117 for simultaneously applying pressure and heat to the rubber tire 14, such that the movement of movable platen 120 in a first direction moves the first side 121 of movable platen 120 into proximity of the first non-movable compression and heated surface 117 of the first fixed platen 116 to simultaneously apply mechanical pressure and heat to a rubber tire 14 (i.e., flattening the stock material during heating) (Bissell at column 7, lines 45-67). The simultaneous compressing and heating during the reduction of the volume of the rubber tire 14 through continuous pyrolysis thereof results in the production of volatile products 42 and non-volatile residue 44 (Bissell at column 5, lines 57-65).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the heated compression assembly as such is known in the art of reclaiming volatile products and non-volatile residue from the pyrolysis of polymeric materials given the discussion of Bissell above presenting a reasonable expectation of success; and doing so is combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, with the added benefit of doing so allowing for compression of pyrolysis residue to be achieved and thereby maintaining constant contact with the organic material remaining (as recognized by Bissell at column 2, lines 17-22).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BAILEIGH K. DARNELL whose telephone number is (469)295-9287. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9am-5pm, MST.
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, Galen H. Hauth can be reached at (571)270-5516. 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.
/BAILEIGH KATE DARNELL/Examiner, Art Unit 1743