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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-20, in the reply filed on 2/4/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 21-24 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 2/4/2026.
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: the “conveying unit” in claim 1, the “heating unit” in claim 1, the “discharge unit” in claim 1, and the “dedusting unit” in claim 2.
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 Objections
Claim(s) 1 and 7 is/are objected to because it contains/they contain informalities.
With regard to claim 1: Insert “and” at the end of element v), after the semicolon.
With regard to claim 7: In line 3, replace “this biphasic” with --said biphasic--.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-19 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the median particle diameter D50 of the biomass in piece form" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the bottom " in lines 9-10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the top" in line 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the upper region of the reactor space" in line 15. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the pyrolysis coke obtained" in line 24. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites “i) removing the pyrolysis gas.” Step i) is redundant in view of step “f) removing the pyrolysis gases from the reactor”.
Step i) is broader in scope than step f), thus any step satisfying step f) will also necessarily satisfy step i). Therefore, inclusion of step i) does nothing to limit the claim.
If it is argued that step i) is not redundant on the basis that it is a separate step having a separate identifying letter, then step i) is indefinite because it is unclear how the actions performed during step i) are materially distinguishable from those performed in step h).
Furthermore, it is noted that step i) recites “the pyrolysis gas”, whereas the other claim steps recite “pyrolysis gases”. Thus, there is not sufficient antecedent basis in the claim for “the pyrolysis gas”.
To overcome this rejection, Applicant should either:
1) delete step i); or
2) amend step i) such that is clearly and materially distinct from step h) (i.e. at least by specifying from what element the pyrolysis gases are removed in step i), said element being something other than the reactor), and such that step i) recites “the pyrolysis gases” in place of “the pyrolysis gas”.
Claims 2-20 are rejected due to their dependency on indefinite claim 1.
Claim 5 recites “The process as claimed in claim 1, wherein the process further comprises: i) providing pyrolysis oil by partial condensation of the pyrolysis gas removed.”
Claim 1 already includes a step i). Therefore, Applicant should either amend claim 1 to remove the step i) recited therein, or amend claim 5 to use a different identifying letter (e.g. j) for the step recited therein. Considering that step i) of claim 1 is presently redundant, examiner suggests the former option.
Claim 5 recites “the pyrolysis gas removed” in line 3. In the interest of consistency, “the pyrolysis gas removed” should be amended to recite --the pyrolysis gases removed--.
Claim 7 recites “the pyrolysis gas removed” in line 2. In the interest of consistency, “the pyrolysis gas removed” should be amended to recite --the pyrolysis gases removed--.
Claim 11 recites “wherein the feeding of the biomass in piece form from the bottom upward through the reactor space is effected with a conveying screw, preferably at 0.5 to 20 revolutions per minute.”
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 11 recites the broad recitation “wherein the feeding of the biomass in piece form from the bottom upward through the reactor space is effected with a conveying screw”, and the claim also recites “preferably at 0.5 to 20 revolutions per minute” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the screw pitch of the conveying screw" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the lower region of the reactor space" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the bed height in the reactor space" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 17 recites “wherein the conveying unit is configured such that the bed of biomass is partly mixed from the top downward, preferably in that the bed of biomass can move vertically downward close to the shell surface, most preferably close to the shell surface and under gravity.”
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 17 recites the broad recitation “wherein the conveying unit is configured such that the bed of biomass is partly mixed from the top downward”, and the claim also recites “preferably in that the bed of biomass can move vertically downward close to the shell surface” which is a narrower statement of the range/limitation, as well as “most preferably close to the shell surface and under gravity” which is a still narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6, 9-11, and 13-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Greene et al. (US 1,723,932), hereafter referred to as Greene, in view of Strezov et al. (US 8,888,962), hereafter referred to as Strezov, and Stafford (US 1,380,262).
With regard to claim 1: Green teaches a pyrolysis (carbonization) process for the production of pyrolysis gas and pyrolysis coke (Figures 1 and 2, page 1 left column), the method comprising:
a) coal in piece form (Figures 1 and 2, page 1 Left Column, page 2 Right column).
b) providing a pyrolysis apparatus (Figures 1 and 2, Page 1 Line 40-Page 2 line 85), the apparatus comprising:
i) a reactor space (retort) 14 in an essentially vertical arrangement, where the reactor space is essentially cylindrical and/or essentially conical (Figures 1 and 2, Page 1 Line 40-Page 2 line 85; note page 2 Lines 5-25 in particular);
ii) a conveying unit (rotor) 20 for transporting the coal in piece form from the bottom upward through the reactor space (Figures 1 and 2, Page 1 Line 40-Page 2 line 85);
iii) a heating unit (furnace) 17 for the reactor space (Figures 1 and 2, Page 1 Line 40-Page 2 line 85);
iv) a feed (combustion chambers) 18 for a heating medium into the heating unit from the top and a drain for the heating medium, such that the heating medium is conducted counter currently relative to the coal (Figures 1 and 2, Page 1 Line 40-Page 2 line 85);
v) an outlet (conduit) 30 for the pyrolysis gases in the upper region of the reactor space (Figures 1 and 2, Page 1 Line 40-Page 2 line 85); and
vi) a discharge unit (dust box) 29 for pyrolysis coke and separated dust particles (Figures 1 and 2, Page 1 Line 40-Page 2 line 85).
c) feeding the coal in piece form from the bottom upward through the reactor space 14, such that there is a bed within the reactor space (Figures 1 and 2, Page 2 Line 85-Page 3 Line 100).
d) heating the coal in piece form at a heating rate (Figures 1 and 2, Page 2 Line 85-Page 3 Line 100).
e) pyrolyzing the coal in piece from at a temperature of 400-450 °C for some period of time (Figures 1 and 2, Page 2 Line 85-Page 3 Line 100, Especially page 3 Lines 69-90).
f) removing pyrolysis gases from the reactor 14 space via line 30 (Figures 1 and 2, page 2 Lines 50-61, page 2 Line 129-page 3 line 16).
h) removing the pyrolysis coke obtained (Figures 1 and 2, page 2 Lines 50-100).
i) removing pyrolysis gases from the reactor 14 space via line 30 (Figures 1 and 2, page 2 Lines 50-61, page 2 Line 129-page 3 line 16).
Greene is silent to the feed material being a biomass (Greene teaches coal).
However, a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that pyrolysis processes can be easily adapted to pyrolyze a variety of carbonaceous materials. Indeed, Greene provides indication that their method can be applied to the pyrolysis of other carbonaceous materials besides coal (Page 3 Lines 84-87). It is understood that biomass is a type of carbonaceous material.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method of Greene by adapting said method to pyrolyze biomass rather than coal, in order to obtain a predictably functional method which yields biomass pyrolysis products.
Greene is silent to the feed material having a water content below 30 wt%.
However, it is notoriously well understood that water content a result effective variable in pyrolysis processes. More specifically, a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that, in the context of pyrolysis, a higher water content in the feed is disadvantageous, as water will take energy to evaporate, thereby requiring the kiln provide additional heat energy to achieve the desired pyrolysis. "[When] the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation," (see MPEP 2144.05 II A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Greene by configuring the biomass feed material to comprise less than 30 wt% water, in order to reduce the amount of heat energy the reactor is required to supply to achieve pyrolysis.
Greene is silent to the feed material having a median particle diameter between 2.0 mm and 60 mm, determined to ASTM E112.
However, Greene teaches that the feed material is desirably supplied in the form of particles under 1 inch in size (page 1 Lines 46-48). This teaching by Greene serves as clear indication that particle size, and thus diameter, is a result effective in Greene. Indeed, a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the feed material would need to be supplied at a size appropriate to be conveyed through the interior of the reactor by the conveying unit 20. "[When] the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation," (see MPEP 2144.05 II A).
Furthermore, Greene’s teaching implicitly suggests feed particles with a median diameter less than 1 inch (25.4 mm). The suggested particle diameter range overlaps the claimed particle diameter range. “In the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists,” (MPEP 2144.05 I).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Greene by configuring the biomass feed material to be in the form of particles having a median diameter between 2 mm and 60 mm, in order to obtain a process wherein the feed material is supplied at a size appropriate to be conveyed through the interior of the reactor by the conveying unit 20.
Modified Greene silent to pyrolyzing the biomass at a temperature of 400-750 °C.
However, it is notoriously well understood that pyrolysis temperature is a result effective variable in pyrolysis processes. Indeed, Green confirms this by their teaching of heating at a specific temperature (page 3 Lines 69-90). To elaborate, a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that, in the context of pyrolysis, including biomass pyrolysis, if the temperature of the reactor is too low, the desired pyrolysis will not be attained. On the other hand, if temperature is too high, energy will be wasted and the pyrolysis reaction may proceed to a greater extent than desired. "[When] the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation," (see MPEP 2144.05 II A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Greene by pyrolyzing the biomass feed at temperature in the range of 400-750 °C, in order to obtain a desired biomass pyrolysis without wasting energy.
Modified Greene does not explicitly teach maintaining the feed material at the pyrolysis temperature for 5-60 minutes.
However, it is notoriously well understood that reaction time is a result effective variable in pyrolysis processes. To elaborate, a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that, in the context of pyrolysis, including biomass pyrolysis, if the reaction time is too low, the desired degree of pyrolysis will not be attained. On the other hand, if reaction time is too long, time and energy will be wasted and the pyrolysis reaction may proceed to a greater extent than desired. "[When] the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation," (see MPEP 2144.05 II A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Greene by maintaining the biomass feed at the pyrolysis temperature for 5-60 minutes, in order to obtain a desired biomass pyrolysis without wasting time and/or energy.
Modified Greene does not explicitly teach heating the biomass feed at a rate of 0.3to 5 K/s.
However, it is notoriously well understood that heating rate is a result effective variable in pyrolysis processes. To elaborate, heating rate in pyrolysis is understood to affect the nature of the pyrolysis reaction. Specifically, slow pyrolysis is characterized by relatively slower heating rates than fast/flash pyrolysis, said heating rates typically being less than 10 °C/s (10 K/s), as evidenced by Strezov (Column 2 Lines 3-8). It is understood that slow pyrolysis favors the production of char (coke) products (Strezov: Column 1 Lines 35-68). "[When] the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation," (see MPEP 2144.05 II A).
It is noted that the claimed range of 0.3-5 K/s falls well within range of heating rates (less than 10 °C/s) disclosed in the prior art.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Greene in view of Strezov by heating the biomass feed at a rate of 0.3to 5 K/s, in order to obtain a slow pyrolysis which favors the production of char (coke) products.
Modified Greene does not explicitly teach that the pyrolysis is carried out essentially in the absence of oxygen.
However, it is notoriously well known to carry out pyrolysis reactions substantially in the absence of oxygen. For example, Stafford teaches pyrolyzing biomass (wood) essentially in the absence of oxygen/air (page 1 Lines 1-30, page 3 Lines 50-60). A person having ordinary skill in the art would understood that pyrolysis should be carried out in an environment wherein oxygen absent, or at least scarce, as the presence of oxygen at pyrolysis temperatures will cause combustion of carbonaceous feed (e.g. biomass) and/or any pyrolysis products formed.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Greene in view of Stafford by carrying out the pyrolysis essentially in the absence of air, in order to avoid combustion of the feed material and/or the pyrolysis products.
With regard to claims 2 and 3: In modified Greene:
the pyrolysis apparatus further comprises a dedusting unit, i.e. some “preferred means” (not shown) for diverting dust from vapor outlet 30 (Greene: Figure 1, Page 2 Lines 50-61); and
step h) further comprises feeding the pyrolysis gases to said dedusting unit (Greene: Figure 1, Page 2 Lines 50-61).
With regard to claims 2, 4, and 9: In modified Greene:
the pyrolysis apparatus further comprises a dedusting unit, i.e. some “preferred means” (not shown) for diverting dust from vapor outlet 30 (Greene: Figure 1, Page 2 Lines 50-61); and
the process further comprises g) separating off and removing dust particles in said dedusting unit (Greene: Figure 1, Page 2 Lines 50-61);
and step h) further comprises removing the pyrolysis coke together with separated dust particles (Greene: Figure 1, Page 2 Lines 50-100).
With regard to claim 6: As discussed in the rejection of claim 1 above, step e) in modified Greene consists of pyrolyzing the biomass in piece form essentially in the absence of oxygen at a temperature of 400 to 750°C, for 5 to 60 minutes.
Modified Greene silent to pyrolyzing the biomass at a temperature of 400-750 °C.
However, it is notoriously well understood that pyrolysis temperature is a result effective variable in pyrolysis processes. Indeed, Green confirms this by their teaching of heating at a specific temperature (page 3 Lines 69-90). To elaborate, a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that, in the context of pyrolysis, including biomass pyrolysis, if the temperature of the reactor is too low, the desired pyrolysis will not be attained. On the other hand, if temperature is too high, energy will be wasted and the pyrolysis reaction may proceed to a greater extent than desired. "[When] the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation," (see MPEP 2144.05 II A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Greene by pyrolyzing the biomass feed at temperature in the range of 450-650 °C, in order to obtain a desired biomass pyrolysis without wasting energy.
With regard to claim 9: In modified Greene, the coke is discharged under gravity (Greene: Figure 1, Page 2 Lines 50-100).
With regard to claim 10: In modified Greene, the separated dust particles are removed together with the pyrolysis coke (Greene: Figure 1, Page 2 Lines 50-100).
With regard to claim 11: In modified Greene, the feeding of the biomass in piece from the bottom upward through the reactor is effected with a conveying screw, i.e. with rotor 20 (Greene: Figure 1, Page 2).
With regard to claim 13: The pyrolysis gases are necessarily repurified to some extent by contact with the bed of feed material, in that as the produced pyrolysis gases flow up the reactor in contact with the bed of feed material therein, at least a portion of small particulates which would have otherwise become entrained in said pyrolysis gases will be trapped by the bed of feed material.
With regard to claim 14: The bed of feed material in the upper region of the reactor space necessarily has a lower bulk density than in a lower region of the reactor space because the feed material in the upper region will be further pyrolyzed than the feed material in the lower region (Greene: Figure 1, page 2) and thus, will have had a greater mass driven off as pyrolysis gases relative to the feed material in the lower regions.
With regard to claim 15: Modified Green does not explicitly teach that a dwell time of the feed material within the reactor is 5-60 minutes.
However, it is understood that dwell time is a result effective variable in pyrolysis in much the same way reaction time is. To elaborate, a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that, in the context of pyrolysis, the reaction time is at least roughly equivalent to the dwell time of the feed material within the pyrolysis reactor. Thus, a person having ordinary skill in the art would understand that, if dwell time is too short, the desired degree of pyrolysis will not be attained. On the other hand, if dwell time is too long, time and energy will be wasted and the pyrolysis reaction may proceed to a greater extent than desired. "[When] the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation," (see MPEP 2144.05 II A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Greene by maintaining the biomass feed in the pyrolysis reactor space for a dwell time of 5-60 minutes, in order to obtain a desired biomass pyrolysis without wasting time and/or energy.
It is understood that, in a method using a reactor like that of Greene, the bed height in the reactor space plays an intrinsic roll on the dwell time of the feed material within the reactor space, as the bed height corresponds to the amount of distance the feed material must travel to reach the outlet of the reactor space. In other words, if a reactor like that of Greene is to be operated with a particular dwell time, the height of said reactor, and the material bed within it must allow for said dwell time to be attained. Thus, the method of modified Greene, modified so as to achieve the dwell time 5-60 minutes, can be fairly characterized as including a bed height in the reactor space that is chosen to achieve the dwell time of 5-60 minutes.
With regard to claim 16: Continuous mixing of the feed material is effected by means of the conveying unit for transport of the feed material in piece form from the bottom upward through the reactor (page 3 Lines 25-54).
With regard to claim 17: The conveying unit is configured such that the bed of feed material is partly mixed from the top downward (page 3 Lines 28-40).
Claim(s) 5 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Greene in view of Strezov and Stafford as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Garcia-Perez et al. (US 2010/0223839), hereafter referred to as Garcia-Perez
With regard to claim 5: Modified Green does not explicitly teach a step of j) providing pyrolysis oil by partial condensation of the pyrolysis gases removed.
However, it is notoriously well-known in the pyrolysis art to condense a portion of produced pyrolysis gases by partial condensation after said gases have been removed from the reactor. For example, Garcia-Perez teaches a pyrolysis process wherein a portion of pyrolysis gases produced by reactor 106 are condensed in by partial condensation in condenser (first condenser) 108 to provide a pyrolysis oil (bio-oil) 9 (Figure 1, paragraphs [0018] and [0029]). Garcia-Perez teaches that this pyrolysis oil (bio-oil) can be converted into fuels (abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Greene in view of Garcia-Perez by adding a step of j) providing pyrolysis oil by partial condensation of the pyrolysis gases removed, in order to obtain a process which yields an oil product which can be used as, or otherwise converted into, fuel.
With regard to claim 7: Modified Green does not explicitly teach steps of partially condensing the pyrolysis gases to obtain a biphasic mixture of pyrolysis oil and water and separating said biphasic mixture.
However, it is notoriously well-known in the pyrolysis art to: i) condense a portion of produced pyrolysis gases by partial condensation to obtain a biphasic mixture of pyrolysis oil and water, and ii) separate said biphasic mixture. For example, Garcia-Perez teaches a pyrolysis process wherein: i) a portion of pyrolysis gases produced by reactor 106 are condensed in by partial condensation in condenser (first condenser) 108 to provide a pyrolysis oil (bio-oil) 9, wherein said pyrolysis oil 9 is in the form of a biphasic mixture which is subsequently separated into a phenolic fraction and an aqueous fraction (Figures 1 and 2, paragraphs [0018], [0029], [0034]). Garcia-Perez teaches that this pyrolysis oil (bio-oil), and the phenolic fraction obtained therefrom, can be converted into fuels (abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Greene in view of Garcia-Perez by adding steps of partially condensing the pyrolysis gases to obtain a biphasic mixture of pyrolysis oil and water and separating said biphasic mixture, in order to obtain a process which yields an oil product which can be used as, or otherwise converted into, fuel.
Claim(s) 5, 7, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Greene in view of Strezov and Stafford as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Michelman (US 1,820,921).
With regard to claim 5: Modified Green does not explicitly teach a step of j) providing pyrolysis oil by partial condensation of the pyrolysis gases removed.
However, it is notoriously well-known in the pyrolysis art to condense a portion of produced pyrolysis gases by partial condensation after said gases have been removed from the reactor. For example, Michelman teaches a pyrolysis process wherein a portion of pyrolysis gases produced by a reactor (retort) 1 are condensed in by partial condensation in condenser 3 to provide a biphasic mixture of pyrolysis oil and water, which is subsequently separated in collecting tank 6 (Figure 1, page 1 line 45-page 2 Line 3, Page 2 Lines 50-120).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Greene in view of Michelman by adding a step of j) providing pyrolysis oil by partial condensation of the pyrolysis gases removed, in order to obtain a process which recovers pyrolysis oil from the pyrolysis gases.
With regard to claim 7: Modified Green does not explicitly teach steps of partially condensing the pyrolysis gases to obtain a biphasic mixture of pyrolysis oil and water and separating said biphasic mixture.
However, it is notoriously well-known in the pyrolysis art to: i) condense a portion of produced pyrolysis gases by partial condensation to obtain a biphasic mixture of pyrolysis oil and water, and ii) separate said biphasic mixture. For example, Michelman teaches a pyrolysis process wherein a portion of pyrolysis gases produced by a reactor (retort) 1 are condensed in by partial condensation in condenser 3 to provide a biphasic mixture of pyrolysis oil and water, which is subsequently separated in collecting tank 6 (Figure 1, page 1 line 45-page 2 Line 3, Page 2 Lines 50-120).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Greene in view of Michelman by adding steps of partially condensing the pyrolysis gases to obtain a biphasic mixture of pyrolysis oil and water and separating said biphasic mixture, in order to obtain a process which recovers pyrolysis oil from the pyrolysis gases.
With regard to claim 19: Modified Greene is silent to the water being additionally introduced.
However, it is notoriously well-known to introduce water into a pyrolysis process as a medium for condensing pyrolysis vapors and/or cleaning pyrolysis gases via direct contact with said water. For example, Michelman teaches a pyrolysis process comprising: i) condensing a portion of pyrolysis gases produced by a reactor (retort) 1 in condenser 3, wherein condensation in the condenser 3 may be effected by introducing water as a spray into the interior of said condenser (Figure 1, page 1 line 45-page 2 Line 3, Page 2 Lines 50-120); and ii) condensing and/or cleaning further portions of the pyrolysis gases in scrubbing tower 4 by directed contact with a spray of water introduced into the interior of said scrubbing tower 4 (Figure 1, page 1 line 45-page 2 Line 3, Page 2 Lines 50-120).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Greene in view of Michelman by introducing water in a condenser and/or a scrubber to condense and/or clean one or more portions of the pyrolysis gases, in order to obtain a process which recovers condensed products from the pyrolysis gases and/or produces a cleaned (scrubbed) pyrolysis gas product.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Greene in view of Strezov and Stafford as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Collette (US 7,807,048).
With regard to claim 1: Modified Greene does not explicitly teach that the dust particles are separated off by cyclone and/or hot gas filter.
However, in Greene, the dust particles are separated off by “any preferred means” (Greene: page 2 lines 59-61). Use of hot gas filters and/or cyclones to separate dust particles from pyrolysis gas is notoriously well-known in the art. For example, Collette teaches a pyrolysis system which separates dust from a pyrolysis gas stream (exhaust gas) 35 using a cyclone 36 and/or a hot gas filter (baghouse) 27 (abstract, Figure 2B, Column 5 Line 45-Column 6 Line 15). Given the widespread usage of cyclones and hot gas filters for removing dust from pyrolysis gas, a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize filters and cyclones as suitable means for separating dust particles in Green.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Greene in view of Collette by selecting a cyclone and/or a hot gas filter for use as the “preferred means” for separating dust particles in Greene, in order to obtain a system that is predictably capable of separating off dust particles from the pyrolysis gases, as is desired by Greene.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Greene in view of Strezov and Stafford as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Greene et al. (GB 211,667), hereafter referred to as Greene II.
With regard to claim 12: Modified Greene does not explicitly teach that the pitch of the screw decreases from the top to the top downward.
However, Greene II teaches a pyrolysis reactor which, like the reactor of primary reference Greene, has a screw conveyor 3 which transports material from the bottom of the reactor to the top, wherein the pitch of said screw conveyor decreases from the top downwards, i.e. the pitch becomes gradually coarser from the bottom upwards (Figure 1, Page 2 line 105-Page 3 Line 85, especially page 3 Lines 4-15). The disclosure of Greene II indicates or at least suggests that a pitch which increases from the bottom up (i.e. decreases from the top down) will at advantageously afford increasing space to the feed material conveyed by the screw (page 2 Line 120-page 3 Line 15). Indeed, an increase in screw pitch is understood to afford additional space in the channels between threads.
Notably, Green II is to the same inventors as the primary reference Greene.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Greene in view of Green II by configuring the pitch of the screw conveyor to increase from the bottom upwards (and thus decrease from the top downwards), in order to afford the feed material increasing space as it travels upwards through the retort.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Greene in view of Strezov and Stafford as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Reed et al. (US 4,255,129), hereafter referred to as Reed.
With regard to claim 18: Modified Greene does not explicitly teach that hydrogen is obtained from the pyrolysis gases. However, it is understood that pyrolysis gases obtained from a pyrolysis processes will necessarily contain hydrogen in some amount. Thus, the method of modified Greene necessarily comprises obtaining hydrogen from the pyrolysis gas, i.e. by obtaining a pyrolysis gas comprising hydrogen.
In the alternative, it is at least well-understood that pyrolysis processes can be leveraged to produce pyrolysis gas comprising some amount of hydrogen. For example, Reed teaches a pyrolysis process similar to that of the claimed invention (abstract, Figures 1-3), wherein the generated pyrolysis gases contain hydrogen, in addition to other components (Column 5 Lines 55-68). A person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that hydrogen is a useful substance, both as a clean burning fuel, and as a reactant in various chemical processes.
In the event that hydrogen is not necessarily obtained from the pyrolysis gases in Greene, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Greene in view of Reed by configuring Greene to yield a pyrolysis gas containing hydrogen, in order to obtain a process which advantageously produces hydrogen gas.
Citation of Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Laucks (US 1,713,840) teaches a method similar to that of the claims and to that of the Greene patent relied upon in the prior art rejections above.
Greene (US 1,717,923) teaches a method similar to that of the claims and to that of the Greene patent relied upon in the prior art rejections above.
Greene et al. (US 1,730,570) teaches a method similar to that of the claims and to that of the Greene patent relied upon in the prior art rejections above.
Greene et al. (US 1,771,999) teaches a method similar to that of the claims and to that of the Greene patent relied upon in the prior art rejections above.
Hertel (US 1,783,190) teaches a method similar to that of the claims and to that of the Greene patent relied upon in the prior art rejections above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN "LUKE" PILCHER whose telephone number is (571)272-2691. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, In Suk Bullock can be reached at 5712725954. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JONATHAN LUKE PILCHER/ Examiner, Art Unit 1772
Prosecution Insights