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 with traverse of Group I, claims 1-13, in the reply filed on 5/15/2026 is acknowledged.
The traversal is on the ground(s) that the search and examination of the entire application could allegedly be made without serious burden. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Given the disparate embodiments disclosed in the specification and recited in the claims (e.g. the embodiment of claims 3 and 4 require a cooling portion that is part of the reactor vessel, whereas the embodiment of claim 5 and 7 require a cooling vessel which is separate from the reactor vessel), there is already a serious burden in search and examination of the apparatus claims (group I) alone.
Regardless, the present application is filed under 371 and thus, is restricted under unity of invention practice. Search and examination burden is not taken into account when restricting under unity of invention practice (see pages 3-4 of the 1/15/2026 Restriction for details regarding restriction under unity of invention practice). Thus, Applicant’s argument is moot.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 14-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 5/15/2026.
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 1-13 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.
Claim 1 recites “a pressurised heating circuit including a circulation fan and a heating arrangement adapted for heating pressurised working gas, the pressurised heating circuit being adapted for moving the pressurised heated working gas between the reactor vessel, a circulation fan and a heating arrangement” in lines 7-10 (emphasis added).
The second instance of “a circulation fan and a heating arrangement”, i.e. that bridging lines 9 and 10, should be amended to recite --the circulation fan and the heating arrangement--, in order to clarify that said fan and heating arrangement are the same as those recited earlier in the limitation, i.e. in line 7.
Claims 2-13 are rejected due to their dependency on indefinite claim 1.
Claim 3 recites “wherein the cooling portion includes at least one or more cooling inlet arrangements” in lines 2-3. In this limitation, “at least one or more” should be replaced with --at least one-- or --one or more--.
Claim 3 recites “wherein the reactor vessel includes a cooling portion in which organic matter is cooled, wherein the cooling portion includes at least one or more cooling inlet arrangements for feeding cooling gas from the cooling portion into the reactor vessel,” (emphasis added).
This limitation is unclear as it requires that the cooling portion be part of the reactor vessel while simultaneously requiring that the system be arranged to feed cooling gas from the cooling portion into the reactor vessel. It does not appear possible to fulfil such a requirement, as cooling gas in the cooling portion is necessarily already in the reactor vessel. At the very least, it is not clear how a system would have to be arranged to satisfy such a requirement.
Furthermore, the limitation requires that the cooling portion comprise cooling gas inlets for feeding cooling gas from the cooling portion to the reactor vessel. It seems that such cooling gas inlets, if provided in the cooling portion, should actually provide cooling gas into the cooling portion rather than from the cooling portion.
For the purposes of examination, claim 3 has been treated as requiring that the reactor vessel further comprises a cooling portion in which organic matter is cooled, wherein the cooling portion includes one or more cooling inlet arrangements for feeding cooling gas to the cooling portion of the reactor vessel. Applicant should amend claim 3 to clarify the scope thereof as appropriate.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the cooling portion" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites “wherein the reactor vessel includes an intermediate portion located between the heating portion and the cooling portion in which carbonisation is allowed to occur.”
So that it is clear that the intermediate portion is where carbonization is allowed to occur, Applicant should amend claim 4 to recite -- wherein the reactor vessel includes an intermediate portion located between the heating portion and the cooling portion and in which carbonisation is allowed to occur.-- Alternatively, Applicant may amend claim 4 to recite -- wherein the reactor vessel includes an intermediate portion in which carbonisation is allowed to occur, said intermediate portion located between the heating portion and the cooling portion.--
Claim 7 recites “wherein the cooling vessel includes at least one or more cooling inlet arrangements” in lines 3-4.
In this limitation, “at least one or more” should be replaced with --at least one-- or --one or more--.
Claim 7 recites “wherein the cooling vessel includes at least one or more cooling inlet arrangements for feeding cooling gas from the cooling circuit into the reactor vessel,” in lines 3-4.
This limitation requires that the cooling vessel comprise cooling gas inlets for feeding cooling gas to the reactor vessel, which is separate from the cooling vessel in the embodiment of claim 7. Thus, It seems that such cooling gas inlets, if provided in the cooling vessel, should actually provide cooling gas into the cooling vessel rather than the reactor vessel.
Claim 11 recites “at least one or more sensors” in line 4.
In this limitation, “at least one or more” should be replaced with --at least one-- or --one or more--.
Claim 11 recites “allowing the controller for monitoring factors” in line 5.
This limitation should be amended to recite -- allowing the controller to monitor factors--.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the pressure of the heating working gas" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
To overcome this rejection, " the pressure of the heating working gas" should be replaced with -- a pressure of the heated working gas --.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the heating working gas" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
To overcome this rejection, "the heating working gas" should be replaced with --the heated working gas--.
Claims 12 and 13 are rejected due to their dependency on indefinite claim 11.
Claim 12 recites “a pressure of 3 bar (300 kPa) and 12 bar (1200 kPa)”.
This limitation should be amended to recite --a pressure between 3 bar (300 kPa) and 12 bar (1200 kPa)--.
Claim 13 recites “detecting a temperature increase in the reactor vessel due an exothermic reaction of carbonisation of the organic matter, and adjusting the factors affecting the carbonisation reaction accordingly.”
It is unclear what “adjusting accordingly” entails.
Applicant should amend claim 13 to clarify as appropriate.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/35 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 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.
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, 8, and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Lorenz et al. (US 4,115,202).
With regard to claims 1-3, 6, 8, and 10: Lorenz teaches an organic carbonization system (OCS) for carbonizing of organic matter (abstract, Figure 1, Column 4), the organic carbonization system comprising:
A pressurizable (see abstract, Column 3 Lines 5-12) reactor vessel (vertical oven block plant) 1, the reactor vessel 1 being configured for receiving organic matter in use via an inlet and for heating received organic matter by heat transfer from heated working gas under pressure while feeding the received organic matter along a substantially hollow uninterrupted heating portion to an outlet, wherein the heating portion is comprised of preheating section A, drying section B, and/or carbonization section C (Abstract, Figure 1, Column 4, Column 3 Lines 5-12).
A pressurized heating circuit including a circulation fan (blower) 2, 3, and/or 14 and a heating arrangement (combustion chamber) 5, 6, and/or 7 adapted for heating pressurized working gas, the pressurized heating circuit being adapted for moving the pressurized heated working gas between the reactor vessel, the circulation fan, and the heating arrangement (Abstract, Figure 1, Column 4, Column 3 Lines 5-12). Note: The working gas is understood to be pressurized because: 1) the circulation fan 14 will necessarily pressurize the working gas to some extent, 2) because the reactor vessel is pressurized, i.e. to a pressure greater than atmospheric pressure (see abstract, Column 3 Lines 5-12), the working gas must also be pressurized to be able to enter the reactor vessel as desired, and 3) it is explicitly taught that “the pressure in the hot gas circuits is maintained at a level slightly higher than atmospheric pressure,” (abstract).
An inlet feed valve (charge lock) 54 configured for feeding organic matter into the reactor vessel 1 via the inlet (Figure 1, Column 4).
Because said inlet valve is described as a “charge lock” (Figure 1, Column 4), it is understood that it is capable of function as an airlock, which allows for feeding of organic matter to the reactor vessel 1 via the inlet while the reactor vessel is under pressure and while maintaining pressure in the reactor vessel.
In the unlikely alternative, the fact that said inlet valve is described as a “charge lock” would, to a person having ordinary skill in the art would suggest that said inlet valve should be an airlock of some sort. Airlock valves are notoriously well-known, as is their use in the pyrolysis art for preventing the escape of gaseous reaction products and ingress air. Lorenz clearly desires to prevent the intrusion of oxygen into the reactor (Column 3 Lines 5-12).
Thus, in the unlikely event that the inlet valve is not implicitly capable of function as an airlock, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Lorenz by replacing the inlet valve (charge lock) 54 with a valve which functions as an airlock allowing for feeding of organic matter to the reactor vessel 1 via the inlet while the reactor vessel is under pressure and while maintaining pressure in the reactor vessel, in order to prevent escape of gaseous reaction products and ingress air.
An outlet feeder valve (discharge lock) 55 configured for feeding carbonized organic matter from the reactor vessel 1 via the outlet while the reactor vessel is under pressure, while maintaining pressure in the reactor vessel (Figure 1, Column 4).
Because said outlet valve is described as a “discharge lock” (Figure 1, Column 4), it is understood that it is capable of function as an airlock, which allows for feeding carbonized organic matter from the reactor vessel 1 via the outlet while the reactor vessel is under pressure, while maintaining pressure in the reactor vessel.
In the unlikely alternative, the fact that said outlet valve is described as a “discharge lock” would, to a person having ordinary skill in the art would suggest that said outlet valve should be an airlock of some sort. Airlock valves are notoriously well-known, as is their use in the pyrolysis art for preventing the escape of gaseous reaction products and ingress air. Lorenz clearly desires to prevent the intrusion of oxygen into the reactor (Column 3 Lines 5-12).
Thus, in the unlikely event that the outlet valve is not implicitly capable of function as an airlock, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Lorenz by replacing the outlet valve (discharge lock) 55 with a valve which functions as an airlock allowing for feeding carbonized organic matter from the reactor vessel 1 via the outlet while the reactor vessel is under pressure, while maintaining pressure in the reactor vessel, in order to prevent escape of gaseous reaction products and ingress air.
Wherein the reactor vessel is configured for heating the organic matter in the heating portion under pressure using an uninterrupted packed bed arrangement (abstract, Figure 1, Column 3 Lines 5-12, Column 4).
Wherein the reactor vessel 1 is configured for feeding heated working gas into the reactor vessel 1 at a bottom end of the heating portion at a heating inlet arrangement (gas inlet slots) 22a, 27b, or 31c (Figures 1 and 2, Column 4).
Wherein the reactor vessel 1 includes a cooling portion (cooling section) D in which organic matter is cooled, wherein the cooling portion D includes one or more cooling inlet arrangements (gas inlet slots) 34d for feeding cooling gas to the cooling portion D of the reactor vessel 1 (Figures 1 and 2, Column 4).
Wherein the OCS includes a cooling circuit comprised of a blower 4 and a second heat transfer arrangement (cooler) 17 for removing heat from the cooling circuit (Figure 1, Column 4).
It is understood that the cooling circuit is pressurizable by virtue of blower 4 therein (Figure 1, Column 4). To elaborate, the action of the blower 4 will necessarily pressurize the cooling gas in the cooling circuit to some extent. Even if arguendo the blower 4 does not necessarily pressurize the cooling gas, it is understood that said blower is at least capable of pressurizing said cooling gas and thereby the cooling circuit.
With regard to claims 1-4, 6, 8, and 10: Lorenz teaches an organic carbonization system (OCS) for carbonizing of organic matter (abstract, Figure 1, Column 4), the organic carbonization system comprising:
A pressurizable (see abstract, Column 3 Lines 5-12) reactor vessel (vertical oven block plant) 1, the reactor vessel 1 being configured for receiving organic matter in use via an inlet and for heating received organic matter by heat transfer from heated working gas under pressure while feeding the received organic matter along a substantially hollow uninterrupted heating portion to an outlet, wherein the heating portion is comprised of preheating section A and/or drying section B (Abstract, Figure 1, Column 4, Column 3 Lines 5-12).
A pressurized heating circuit including a circulation fan (blower) 2, 3, and/or 14 and a heating arrangement (combustion chamber) 5 and/or 6 adapted for heating pressurized working gas, the pressurized heating circuit being adapted for moving the pressurized heated working gas between the reactor vessel, the circulation fan, and the heating arrangement (Abstract, Figure 1, Column 4, Column 3 Lines 5-12). Note: The working gas is understood to be pressurized because: 1) the circulation fan 14 will necessarily pressurize the working gas to some extent, 2) because the reactor vessel is pressurized, i.e. to a pressure greater than atmospheric pressure (see abstract, Column 3 Lines 5-12), the working gas must also be pressurized to be able to enter the reactor vessel as desired, and 3) it is explicitly taught that “the pressure in the hot gas circuits is maintained at a level slightly higher than atmospheric pressure,” (abstract).
An inlet feed valve (charge lock) 54 configured for feeding organic matter into the reactor vessel 1 via the inlet (Figure 1, Column 4).
Because said inlet valve is described as a “charge lock” (Figure 1, Column 4), it is understood that it is capable of function as an airlock, which allows for feeding of organic matter to the reactor vessel 1 via the inlet while the reactor vessel is under pressure and while maintaining pressure in the reactor vessel.
In the unlikely alternative, the fact that said inlet valve is described as a “charge lock” would, to a person having ordinary skill in the art would suggest that said inlet valve should be an airlock of some sort. Airlock valves are notoriously well-known, as is their use in the pyrolysis art for preventing the escape of gaseous reaction products and ingress air. Lorenz clearly desires to prevent the intrusion of oxygen into the reactor (Column 3 Lines 5-12).
Thus, in the unlikely event that the inlet valve is not implicitly capable of function as an airlock, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Lorenz by replacing the inlet valve (charge lock) 54 with a valve which functions as an airlock allowing for feeding of organic matter to the reactor vessel 1 via the inlet while the reactor vessel is under pressure and while maintaining pressure in the reactor vessel, in order to prevent escape of gaseous reaction products and ingress air.
An outlet feeder valve (discharge lock) 55 configured for feeding carbonized organic matter from the reactor vessel 1 via the outlet while the reactor vessel is under pressure, while maintaining pressure in the reactor vessel (Figure 1, Column 4).
Because said outlet valve is described as a “discharge lock” (Figure 1, Column 4), it is understood that it is capable of function as an airlock, which allows for feeding carbonized organic matter from the reactor vessel 1 via the outlet while the reactor vessel is under pressure, while maintaining pressure in the reactor vessel.
In the unlikely alternative, the fact that said outlet valve is described as a “discharge lock” would, to a person having ordinary skill in the art would suggest that said outlet valve should be an airlock of some sort. Airlock valves are notoriously well-known, as is their use in the pyrolysis art for preventing the escape of gaseous reaction products and ingress air. Lorenz clearly desires to prevent the intrusion of oxygen into the reactor (Column 3 Lines 5-12).
Thus, in the unlikely event that the outlet valve is not implicitly capable of function as an airlock, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Lorenz by replacing the outlet valve (discharge lock) 55 with a valve which functions as an airlock allowing for feeding carbonized organic matter from the reactor vessel 1 via the outlet while the reactor vessel is under pressure, while maintaining pressure in the reactor vessel, in order to prevent escape of gaseous reaction products and ingress air.
Wherein the reactor vessel is configured for heating the organic matter in the heating portion under pressure using an uninterrupted packed bed arrangement (abstract, Figure 1, Column 3 Lines 5-12, Column 4).
Wherein the reactor vessel 1 is configured for feeding heated working gas into the reactor vessel 1 at a bottom end of the heating portion at a heating inlet arrangement (gas inlet slots) 22a or 27b (Figures 1 and 2, Column 4).
Wherein the reactor vessel 1 includes a cooling portion (cooling section) D in which organic matter is cooled, wherein the cooling portion D includes one or more cooling inlet arrangements (gas inlet slots) 34d for feeding cooling gas to the cooling portion D of the reactor vessel 1 (Figures 1 and 2, Column 4).
Wherein the reactor vessel includes an intermediate portion (carbonization section) C located between the heating portion A and/or B and the cooling portion, wherein carbonization is allowed to occur in the intermediate portion (Figure 1, Column 4).
Wherein the OCS includes a cooling circuit comprised of a blower 4 and a second heat transfer arrangement (cooler) 17 for removing heat from the cooling circuit (Figure 1, Column 4).
It is understood that the cooling circuit is pressurizable by virtue of blower 4 therein (Figure 1, Column 4). To elaborate, the action of the blower 4 will necessarily pressurize the cooling gas in the cooling circuit to some extent. Even if arguendo the blower 4 does not necessarily pressurize the cooling gas, it is understood that said blower is at least capable of pressurizing said cooling gas and thereby the cooling circuit.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 5-8, 10, and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lorenz in view of Danner et al. (US 12,281,261), hereafter referred to as Danner.
With regard to claims 1, 2, 5-8, and 10: Lorenz teaches an organic carbonization system (OCS) for carbonizing of organic matter (abstract, Figure 1, Column 4), the organic carbonization system comprising:
A pressurizable (see abstract, Column 3 Lines 5-12) reactor vessel (carbonizing chamber) C, the reactor vessel C being configured for receiving organic matter in use via an inlet (narrow connecting zone) b and for heating received organic matter by heat transfer from heated working gas under pressure while feeding the received organic matter along a substantially hollow uninterrupted heating portion to an outlet (narrow connecting zone) c (Abstract, Figure 1, Column 4, Column 3 Lines 5-12).
A pressurized heating circuit including a circulation fan (blower) 14 and a heating arrangement (combustion chamber) 7 adapted for heating pressurized working gas, the pressurized heating circuit being adapted for moving the pressurized heated working gas between the reactor vessel, the circulation fan, and the heating arrangement (Abstract, Figure 1, Column 4, Column 3 Lines 5-12). Note: The working gas is understood to be pressurized because: 1) the circulation fan 14 will necessarily pressurize the working gas to some extent, 2) because the reactor vessel is pressurized, i.e. to a pressure greater than atmospheric pressure (see abstract, Column 3 Lines 5-12), the working gas must also be pressurized to be able to enter the reactor vessel as desired, and 3) it is explicitly taught that “the pressure in the hot gas circuits is maintained at a level slightly higher than atmospheric pressure,” (abstract).
Wherein the reactor vessel C is configured for heating the organic matter in the heating portion under pressure using an uninterrupted packed bed arrangement (abstract, Figure 1, Column 3 Lines 5-12, Column 4).
Wherein the reactor vessel C is configured for feeding heated working gas into the reactor vessel 1 at a bottom end of the heating portion at a heating inlet arrangement (gas inlet slots) 31c (Figures 1 and 2, Column 4).
Wherein the OCS includes a cooling vessel (cooling section) D, and wherein the outlet c of the reactor vessel feeds into an inlet of the cooling vessel D (Figure 1, Column 4)
Wherein the OCS includes a cooling circuit comprised of a blower 4 and a second heat transfer arrangement (cooler) 17 for removing heat from the cooling circuit (Figure 1, Column 4).
Wherein the cooling vessel D includes at least one cooling inlet arrangement (gas inlet slot) 34d for feeding cooling gas from the cooling circuit into the cooling vessel D (Figures 1 and 2, Column 4).
It is understood that the cooling circuit is pressurizable by virtue of blower 4 therein (Figure 1, Column 4). To elaborate, the action of the blower 4 will necessarily pressurize the cooling gas in the cooling circuit to some extent. Even if arguendo the blower 4does not necessarily pressurize the cooling gas, it is understood that said blower is at least capable of pressurizing said cooling gas and thereby the cooling circuit.
Though it is not explicitly taught, it is understood that the inlet b is configured for feeding of organic matter to the reactor vessel C while the reactor vessel is under pressure and while maintaining pressure in the reactor vessel, as is evident from the teaching that the reactor is operated above atmospheric pressure (abstract, Column 3 Lines 5-12).
Likewise, it is understood that the outlet c is configured for feeding carbonized organic matter from the reactor vessel C via the outlet while the reactor vessel is under pressure and while maintaining pressure in the reactor vessel, as is evident from the teaching that the reactor is operated above atmospheric pressure (abstract, Column 3 Lines 5-12).
Lorenz is silent to: i) an inlet feed valve configured for feeding organic matter into the reactor vessel C via the inlet b, and ii) an outlet feed valve configured for feeding organic matter out of the reactor vessel C via the outlet c.
However, the disclosure of Lorenz at least suggests that it is desired for the system to allow passage of solid material between the various vessels A, B, C, and D making up the system while limiting the passage of gas between said vessels (Column 5 Lines 1-5, Column 1 Line 68-Column 2 Line 4).
Danner teaches a system having a reactor vessel (pyrolysis/carbonization zone/chamber) and a cooling vessel (cooling sleeve/collection hopper), an inlet valve (airlock) located at the inlet of the reactor vessel, and an outlet valve (airlock) located at the outlet of the reactor vessel and at the inlet of the cooling vessel (Figure 1, Column 7 Lines 44-65, Column 8 Lines 10-65, Column 13 Line 28-Column 14 Line 15, Column 15 Lines 20-30). Danner teaches that carbonized material in the cooling vessel may be cooled directly by circulating air (Column 14 Lines 4-7), thereby at least suggesting that the cooling vessel is connected with a cooling circuit.
Danner teaches that the valves (airlocks) separating the system vessels (zones/chambers) “facilitate the passage of solid organic waste pieces from one zone and/or chamber of the system to another zone and/or chamber of the system while simultaneously limiting the passage of vapours (including external air/oxygen) between the zones and/or chambers,” (Column 16 Lines 50-55). A person having ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that such valves (airlocks) as taught by Danner will limit passage of gas between vessels to a greater extent than is achievable in the absence of such valves.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Lorenz in view of Danner by adding: i) an inlet feed valve configured for feeding organic matter into the reactor vessel C via the inlet b, ii) an outlet feed valve configured for feeding organic matter out of the reactor vessel C via the outlet c, and iii) a further feed valve configured for feeding organic material through narrow section c between vessels A and B; in order to obtain a system wherein passage of gases between the vessels A, B, C, and D is limited to a greater extent than it was prior to the introduction of said feed valves.
With regard to claim 11: Lorenz is silent to a controller including a processor operationally connected to digital storage media configured for storing data and/or software instructions, and at least one or more sensors operationally connected to the controller, the sensors allowing the controller for monitoring factors affecting the carbonization reaction in the reactor vessel including one or more selected from: a temperature of the heating working gas; a pressure of the heating working gas; a heating effect of the heating arrangement; a flow speed of the heated working gas in the heating circuit; a flow speed of the cooling gas in the cooling circuit; a feed rate of the inlet feed valve to the reactor vessel; and a feed rate of the outlet feeder valve from the reactor vessel.
Danner teaches a carbonization system comprising a controller, i.e. a programable logic controller, (Column 11 Lines 30-55, Column 15 Lines 36-45, Column 16 Lines 4-18). It is understood that a programable logic controller necessarily comprises a processor operationally connected to digital storage media configured for storing data and/or software instructions.
The system of Danner further comprises one or more sensors operationally connected to the controller, the sensors allowing the controller to monitor factors affecting a carbonization reaction in the reactor vessel (Column 11 Lines 30-55, Column 15 Lines 36-45, Column 16 Lines 4-18), said factors including at least: temperature of the heating working gas (Column 16 Lines 11-13), a pressure of the heated working gas (Column 16 Lines 11-18), and a heating effect of the heating arrangement (Column 16 Lines 11-13).
Danner teaches that said controller is capable of monitoring and controlling process variables (11 Lines 30-Column 12 Line 10, Column 15 Lines 36-45, Column 16 Lines 4-18). A person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that an advantage of such a controller is automated control.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Lorenz in view of Danner by adding a controller including a processor operationally connected to digital storage media configured for storing data and/or software instructions, and at least one or more sensors operationally connected to the controller, the sensors allowing the controller for monitoring factors affecting the carbonization reaction in the reactor vessel including one or more selected from: a temperature of the heating working gas; a pressure of the heating working gas; and a heating effect of the heating arrangement, in order to obtain a system having a controller for automating operation of said system.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lorenz in view of Danner as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Kellens et al. (US 9,562,194), hereafter referred to as Kellens.
With regard to claim 9: Modified Lorenz is silent to the system including a heat transfer arrangement for transferring heat from the cooling circuit to the heating circuit.
Kellens teaches a pyrolysis (torrefaction) system comprising a reactor vessel (torrefaction section) 300 and a cooling vessel (cooling section) 400, and an outlet valve (airlock) 314 positioned between the reactor vessel and the cooling vessel (abstract, Figure 1, Column 4 Line 60-Column 5 Line 2, Column 6 Lines 44-61, Column 9 Lines 45-61). In an embodiment, the cooling section is cooled by a cooling fluid (cooling purge gas) introduced via a cooling circuit (Column 3 Lines 23-35). Said cooling fluid can be supplied to the reactor vessel (torrefaction section) to transfer heat thereto, thereby transferring heat from a cooling circuit to a heating circuit via a heat transfer arrangement (Column 3 Lines 23-35). A person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that transferring waste heat from a cooling circuit to a heating circuit is advantageous, as it uses waste heat to provide necessary heating, thereby reducing energy consumption.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Lorenz in view of Kellens by adding a heat transfer arrangement for transferring heat from the cooling circuit to the heating circuit, in order to recycle waste heat contained in the cooling circuit, thereby reducing the energy consumption of the system.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 5-8, and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Danner or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Danner in view of Lorenz.
With regard to claims 1, 2, 5-8, 11: Danner teaches an organic carbonization system (OCS) for carbonizing of organic matter (abstract, Figures 1 and 2, Columns 7, 8, and 13-16), the organic carbonization system comprising:
A pressurizable reactor vessel (carbonization chamber) 20, the reactor vessel being configured for receiving organic matter in use via an inlet and for heating received organic matter by heat transfer from heated working gas under pressure while feeding the received organic matter along a substantially hollow uninterrupted heating portion to an outlet (Figures 1 and 2, Columns 7, 8, 10, and 13-16). Note: For disclosures showing that the reactor vessel is pressurizable, see Column 10 lines 22-25 and 33-43 and Column 16 Lines 13-18.
A pressurized heating circuit including a heating arrangement (circulation heater) 34 adapted for heating pressurized working gas, the pressurized heating circuit being adapted for moving the pressurized heated working gas between the reactor vessel (carbonization chamber) 20 and the heating arrangement (circulation heater) (Figures 1 and 2, Columns 3, 10 and 14-16, especially Column 10 Lines 26-43 and column 15 Line 60-Column 16 Line 27). Note: The heating circuit is understood to be pressurized at least because it is capable of pumping recirculated fluid into the reactor vessel an creating a pressure differential therein (Column 10 Lines 25-43).
An inlet feed valve (airlock) configured for feeding organic matter into the reactor vessel (carbonization chamber) 20 via the inlet while the reactor vessel is under pressure, while maintaining pressure in the reactor vessel (Figures 1 and 2, Columns 7, 8, 10, and 13-16).
An outlet feed valve (airlock) configured for feeding carbonized organic matter from the reactor vessel (carbonization chamber) 20 via the outlet while the reactor vessel is under pressure (Figures 1 and 2, Columns 7, 8, 10, and 13-16).
Wherein the reactor vessel (carbonization chamber) 20 is configured for heating the organic matter in the heating portion under pressure using an uninterrupted packed bed arrangement (Figures 1 and 2, Columns 7, 8, 10, and 13-16).
Wherein the reactor vessel (carbonization chamber) 20 is configured for feeding heated working gas into the reactor vessel at a bottom end of the heating portion at a heating inlet arrangement (perforated pipe) 36 (Figures 1 and 2, Columns 7, 8, 10, and 13-16, especially column 15 Line 62-Column 16 Line 3).
Wherein the system includes a cooling vessel (cooling sleeve/collection hopper) 40, wherein the outlet of the reactor vessel (carbonizing chamber) 20 feeds into an inlet of the cooling vessel (Figures 1 and 2, Columns 13-16, especially column 14 Lines 4-15).
And wherein the system includes a cooling circuit (Figures 1 and 2, Columns 13-16, especially column 14 Lines 4-15).
The cooling vessel (cooling sleeve/collection hopper) 40 receives a cooling fluid (which may be a cooling gas (air) that cools said cooling vessel (Figures 1 and 2, column 14 Lines 4-15). Thus, it is understood that the cooling vessel (cooling sleeve/collection hopper) 40 necessarily contains at least one cooling inlet arrangement for feeding cooling fluid (which may be cooling gas) from the cooling circuit to the cooling vessel.
The cooling circuit is necessarily pressurizable, as it is understood that said cooling circuit must be pressurized in order to cause the fluid in the cooling circuit to enter the cooling vessel as intended.
The system of Danner further comprises a controller, i.e. a programable logic controller, (Column 11 Lines 30-55, Column 15 Lines 36-45, Column 16 Lines 4-18). It is understood that a programable logic controller necessarily comprises a processor operationally connected to digital storage media configured for storing data and/or software instructions.
The system of Danner further comprises one or more sensors operationally connected to the controller, the sensors allowing the controller to monitor factors affecting a carbonization reaction in the reactor vessel (Column 11 Lines 30-55, Column 15 Lines 36-45, Column 16 Lines 4-18), said factors including at least: temperature of the heating working gas (Column 16 Lines 11-13), a pressure of the heated working gas (Column 16 Lines 11-18), and a heating effect of the heating arrangement (Column 16 Lines 11-13).
Though it is not explicitly taught, it is understood that the pressurized heating circuit comprises a circulation fan (pump) because the said heating circuit is taught to pump heated gas and vapors back into the reactor vessel (Column 10 Lines 25-43). The fact that the heating circuit is capable of pumping gas and vapors back into the reactor chamber implies the presence of a pump adapted to induce the flow of gaseous substances. Such a pump amounts to a circulation fan.
In the alternative, Danner’s teaching to the heating circuit pumping heated gases and vapors back into the reactor vessel would at least suggest that said heating circuit should comprise a pump in the form of a circulation fan for reintroducing heating gases and vapors into the reactor vessel. Indeed, a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that gases and vapors would not circulate through the heating circuit on their own, at least not effectively. Furthermore, the use of circulation fans for circulating gases through heating circuits like that of Danner is known in the art. For example, Lorenz teaches a carbonization system comprising reactor vessel (carbonizing chamber) C and a heating circuit including a circulation fan (blower) 14 and a heating arrangement (combustion chamber) 7 adapted for heating pressurized working gas, the pressurized heating circuit being adapted for moving the pressurized heated working gas between the reactor vessel, the circulation fan, and the heating arrangement (Abstract, Figure 1, Column 4, Column 3 Lines 5-12).
In the event that a circulation fan is not implicitly present in the heating circuit of Danner, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Danner in view of Lorenz by adding such a circulation fan to the heating circuit, in order to obtain a system having a heating circuit which is capable of inducing a circulation of heating fluid (gases and vapors) therethrough.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Danner in view of Kellens, or in the alternative, over Danner in view of Lorenz and Kellens.
With regard to claim 9: Danner teaches an organic carbonization system (OCS) for carbonizing of organic matter (abstract, Figures 1 and 2, Columns 7, 8, and 13-16), the organic carbonization system comprising:
A pressurizable reactor vessel (carbonization chamber) 20, the reactor vessel being configured for receiving organic matter in use via an inlet and for heating received organic matter by heat transfer from heated working gas under pressure while feeding the received organic matter along a substantially hollow uninterrupted heating portion to an outlet (Figures 1 and 2, Columns 7, 8, 10, and 13-16). Note: For disclosures showing that the reactor vessel is pressurizable, see Column 10 lines 22-25 and 33-43 and Column 16 Lines 13-18.
A pressurized heating circuit including a heating arrangement (circulation heater) 34 adapted for heating pressurized working gas, the pressurized heating circuit being adapted for moving the pressurized heated working gas between the reactor vessel (carbonization chamber) 20 and the heating arrangement (circulation heater) (Figures 1 and 2, Columns 3, 10 and 14-16, especially Column 10 Lines 26-43 and column 15 Line 60-Column 16 Line 27). Note: The heating circuit is understood to be pressurized at least because it is capable of pumping recirculated fluid into the reactor vessel an creating a pressure differential therein (Column 10 Lines 25-43).
An inlet feed valve (airlock) configured for feeding organic matter into the reactor vessel (carbonization chamber) 20 via the inlet while the reactor vessel is under pressure, while maintaining pressure in the reactor vessel (Figures 1 and 2, Columns 7, 8, 10, and 13-16).
An outlet feed valve (airlock) configured for feeding carbonized organic matter from the reactor vessel (carbonization chamber) 20 via the outlet while the reactor vessel is under pressure (Figures 1 and 2, Columns 7, 8, 10, and 13-16).
Wherein the reactor vessel (carbonization chamber) 20 is configured for heating the organic matter in the heating portion under pressure using an uninterrupted packed bed arrangement (Figures 1 and 2, Columns 7, 8, 10, and 13-16).
Wherein the reactor vessel (carbonization chamber) 20 is configured for feeding heated working gas into the reactor vessel at a bottom end of the heating portion at a heating inlet arrangement (perforated pipe) 36 (Figures 1 and 2, Columns 7, 8, 10, and 13-16, especially column 15 Line 62-Column 16 Line 3).
Wherein the system includes a cooling vessel (cooling sleeve/collection hopper) 40, wherein the outlet of the reactor vessel (carbonizing chamber) 20 feeds into an inlet of the cooling vessel (Figures 1 and 2, Columns 13-16, especially column 14 Lines 4-15).
And wherein the system includes a cooling circuit (Figures 1 and 2, Columns 13-16, especially column 14 Lines 4-15).
The cooling vessel (cooling sleeve/collection hopper) 40 receives a cooling fluid (which may be a cooling gas (air) that cools said cooling vessel (Figures 1 and 2, column 14 Lines 4-15). Thus, it is understood that the cooling vessel (cooling sleeve/collection hopper) 40 necessarily contains at least one cooling inlet arrangement for feeding cooling fluid (which may be cooling gas) from the cooling circuit to the cooling vessel.
The cooling circuit is necessarily pressurizable, as it is understood that said cooling circuit must be pressurized in order to cause the fluid in the cooling circuit to enter the cooling vessel as intended.
Though it is not explicitly taught, it is understood that the pressurized heating circuit comprises a circulation fan (pump) because the said heating circuit is taught to pump heated gas and vapors back into the reactor vessel (Column 10 Lines 25-43). The fact that the heating circuit is capable of pumping gas and vapors back into the reactor chamber implies the presence of a pump adapted to induce the flow of gaseous substances. Such a pump amounts to a circulation fan.
In the alternative, Danner’s teaching to the heating circuit pumping heated gases and vapors back into the reactor vessel would at least suggest that said heating circuit should comprise a pump in the form of a circulation fan for reintroducing heating gases and vapors into the reactor vessel. Indeed, a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that gases and vapors would not circulate through the heating circuit on their own, at least not effectively. Furthermore, the use of circulation fans for circulating gases through heating circuits like that of Danner is known in the art. For example, Lorenz teaches a carbonization system comprising reactor vessel (carbonizing chamber) C and a heating circuit including a circulation fan (blower) 14 and a heating arrangement (combustion chamber) 7 adapted for heating pressurized working gas, the pressurized heating circuit being adapted for moving the pressurized heated working gas between the reactor vessel, the circulation fan, and the heating arrangement (Abstract, Figure 1, Column 4, Column 3 Lines 5-12).
In the event that a circulation fan is not implicitly present in the heating circuit of Danner, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Danner in view of Lorenz by adding such a circulation fan to the heating circuit, in order to obtain a system having a heating circuit which is capable of inducing a circulation of heating fluid (gases and vapors) therethrough.
Danner is silent to the system including a heat transfer arrangement for transferring heat from the cooling circuit to the heating circuit.
Kellens teaches a pyrolysis (torrefaction) system comprising a reactor vessel (torrefaction section) 300 and a cooling vessel (cooling section) 400, and an outlet valve (airlock) 314 positioned between the reactor vessel and the cooling vessel (abstract, Figure 1, Column 4 Line 60-Column 5 Line 2, Column 6 Lines 44-61, Column 9 Lines 45-61). In an embodiment, the cooling section is cooled by a cooling fluid (cooling purge gas) introduced via a cooling circuit (Column 3 Lines 23-35). Said cooling fluid can be supplied to the reactor vessel (torrefaction section) to transfer heat thereto, thereby transferring heat from a cooling circuit to a heating circuit via a heat transfer arrangement (Column 3 Lines 23-35). A person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that transferring waste heat from a cooling circuit to a heating circuit is advantageous, as it uses waste heat to provide necessary heating, thereby reducing energy consumption.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Danner in view of Kellens by adding a heat transfer arrangement for transferring heat from the cooling circuit to the heating circuit, in order to recycle waste heat contained in the cooling circuit, thereby reducing the energy consumption of the system.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Danner or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Danner in view of Lorenz.
With regard to claim 10: Danner teaches an organic carbonization system (OCS) for carbonizing of organic matter (abstract, Figures 1 and 2, Columns 7, 8, and 13-16), the organic carbonization system comprising:
A pressurizable reactor vessel (carbonization chamber) 20, the reactor vessel being configured for receiving organic matter in use via an inlet and for heating received organic matter by heat transfer from heated working gas under pressure while feeding the received organic matter along a substantially hollow uninterrupted heating portion to an outlet (Figures 1 and 2, Columns 7, 8, 10, and 13-16). Note: For disclosures showing that the reactor vessel is pressurizable, see Column 10 lines 22-25 and 33-43 and Column 16 Lines 13-18.
A pressurized heating circuit including a heating arrangement (circulation heater) 34 adapted for heating pressurized working gas, the pressurized heating circuit being adapted for moving the pressurized heated working gas between the reactor vessel (carbonization chamber) 20 and the heating arrangement (circulation heater) (Figures 1 and 2, Columns 3, 10 and 14-16, especially Column 10 Lines 26-43 and column 15 Line 60-Column 16 Line 27). Note: The heating circuit is understood to be pressurized at least because it is capable of pumping recirculated fluid into the reactor vessel an creating a pressure differential therein (Column 10 Lines 25-43).
An inlet feed valve (airlock) configured for feeding organic matter into the reactor vessel (carbonization chamber) 20 via the inlet while the reactor vessel is under pressure, while maintaining pressure in the reactor vessel (Figures 1 and 2, Columns 7, 8, 10, and 13-16).
An outlet feed valve (airlock) configured for feeding carbonized organic matter from the reactor vessel (carbonization chamber) 20 via the outlet while the reactor vessel is under pressure (Figures 1 and 2, Columns 7, 8, 10, and 13-16).
Wherein the reactor vessel (carbonization chamber) 20 is configured for heating the organic matter in the heating portion under pressure using an uninterrupted packed bed arrangement (Figures 1 and 2, Columns 7, 8, 10, and 13-16).
Wherein the reactor vessel (carbonization chamber) 20 is configured for feeding heated working gas into the reactor vessel at a bottom end of the heating portion at a heating inlet arrangement (perforated pipe) 36 (Figures 1 and 2, Columns 7, 8, 10, and 13-16, especially column 15 Line 62-Column 16 Line 3).
Wherein the system includes a cooling vessel (cooling sleeve/collection hopper) 40, wherein the outlet of the reactor vessel (carbonizing chamber) 20 feeds into an inlet of the cooling vessel (Figures 1 and 2, Columns 13-16, especially column 14 Lines 4-15).
And wherein the system includes a cooling circuit (Figures 1 and 2, Columns 13-16, especially column 14 Lines 4-15).
The cooling vessel (cooling sleeve/collection hopper) 40 receives a cooling fluid (which may be a cooling gas (air) that cools said cooling vessel (Figures 1 and 2, column 14 Lines 4-15). Thus, it is understood that the cooling vessel (cooling sleeve/collection hopper) 40 necessarily contains at least one cooling inlet arrangement for feeding cooling fluid (which may be cooling gas) from the cooling circuit to the cooling vessel.
The cooling circuit is necessarily pressurizable, as it is understood that said cooling circuit must be pressurized in order to cause the fluid in the cooling circuit to enter the cooling vessel as intended.
The system of Danner further comprises a controller, i.e. a programable logic controller, (Column 11 Lines 30-55, Column 15 Lines 36-45, Column 16 Lines 4-18). It is understood that a programable logic controller necessarily comprises a processor operationally connected to digital storage media configured for storing data and/or software instructions.
The system of Danner further comprises one or more sensors operationally connected to the controller, the sensors allowing the controller to monitor factors affecting a carbonization reaction in the reactor vessel (Column 11 Lines 30-55, Column 15 Lines 36-45, Column 16 Lines 4-18), said factors including at least: temperature of the heating working gas (Column 16 Lines 11-13), a pressure of the heated working gas (Column 16 Lines 11-18), and a heating effect of the heating arrangement (Column 16 Lines 11-13).
Though it is not explicitly taught, it is understood that the pressurized heating circuit comprises a circulation fan (pump) because the said heating circuit is taught to pump heated gas and vapors back into the reactor vessel (Column 10 Lines 25-43). The fact that the heating circuit is capable of pumping gas and vapors back into the reactor chamber implies the presence of a pump adapted to induce the flow of gaseous substances. Such a pump amounts to a circulation fan.
In the alternative, Danner’s teaching to the heating circuit pumping heated gases and vapors back into the reactor vessel would at least suggest that said heating circuit should comprise a pump in the form of a circulation fan for reintroducing heating gases and vapors into the reactor vessel. Indeed, a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that gases and vapors would not circulate through the heating circuit on their own, at least not effectively. Furthermore, the use of circulation fans for circulating gases through heating circuits like that of Danner is known in the art. For example, Lorenz teaches a carbonization system comprising reactor vessel (carbonizing chamber) C and a heating circuit including a circulation fan (blower) 14 and a heating arrangement (combustion chamber) 7 adapted for heating pressurized working gas, the pressurized heating circuit being adapted for moving the pressurized heated working gas between the reactor vessel, the circulation fan, and the heating arrangement (Abstract, Figure 1, Column 4, Column 3 Lines 5-12).
In the event that a circulation fan is not implicitly present in the heating circuit of Danner, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Danner in view of Lorenz by adding such a circulation fan to the heating circuit, in order to obtain a system having a heating circuit which is capable of inducing a circulation of heating fluid (gases and vapors) therethrough.
Danner is silent to the cooling circuit including a second heat transfer arrangement for removing heat from the cooling circuit.
However, it is well known in the art to provide such second heat transfer arrangements for removing heat from a cooling circuit in order to recirculate the cooling fluid therein, i.e. by readying it for further cooling. For example, the OCS of Lorenz includes a cooling circuit comprising a second heat transfer arrangement (cooler) 17 for removing heat from the cooling circuit for the purpose recirculating the cooling fluid therein. (Figure 1, Column 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Danner in view of Lorenz by adding a second heat transfer arrangement for removing heat from the cooling circuit, in order to obtain a cooling circuit wherein the cooling fluid therein can be cooled so that it can be recirculated for further cooling.
Claim(s) 12 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Danner, or in the alternative, over Danner in view of Lorenz.
With regard to claims 12: Danner teaches an organic carbonization system (OCS) for carbonizing of organic matter (abstract, Figures 1 and 2, Columns 7, 8, and 13-16), the organic carbonization system comprising:
A pressurizable reactor vessel (carbonization chamber) 20, the reactor vessel being configured for receiving organic matter in use via an inlet and for heating received organic matter by heat transfer from heated working gas under pressure while feeding the received organic matter along a substantially hollow uninterrupted heating portion to an outlet (Figures 1 and 2, Columns 7, 8, 10, and 13-16). Note: For disclosures showing that the reactor vessel is pressurizable, see Column 10 lines 22-25 and 33-43 and Column 16 Lines 13-18.
A pressurized heating circuit including a heating arrangement (circulation heater) 34 adapted for heating pressurized working gas, the pressurized heating circuit being adapted for moving the pressurized heated working gas between the reactor vessel (carbonization chamber) 20 and the heating arrangement (circulation heater) (Figures 1 and 2, Columns 3, 10 and 14-16, especially Column 10 Lines 26-43 and column 15 Line 60-Column 16 Line 27). Note: The heating circuit is understood to be pressurized at least because it is capable of pumping recirculated fluid into the reactor vessel an creating a pressure differential therein (Column 10 Lines 25-43).
An inlet feed valve (airlock) configured for feeding organic matter into the reactor vessel (carbonization chamber) 20 via the inlet while the reactor vessel is under pressure, while maintaining pressure in the reactor vessel (Figures 1 and 2, Columns 7, 8, 10, and 13-16).
An outlet feed valve (airlock) configured for feeding carbonized organic matter from the reactor vessel (carbonization chamber) 20 via the outlet while the reactor vessel is under pressure (Figures 1 and 2, Columns 7, 8, 10, and 13-16).
Wherein the reactor vessel (carbonization chamber) 20 is configured for heating the organic matter in the heating portion under pressure using an uninterrupted packed bed arrangement (Figures 1 and 2, Columns 7, 8, 10, and 13-16).
Wherein the reactor vessel (carbonization chamber) 20 is configured for feeding heated working gas into the reactor vessel at a bottom end of the heating portion at a heating inlet arrangement (perforated pipe) 36 (Figures 1 and 2, Columns 7, 8, 10, and 13-16, especially column 15 Line 62-Column 16 Line 3).
Wherein the system includes a cooling vessel (cooling sleeve/collection hopper) 40, wherein the outlet of the reactor vessel (carbonizing chamber) 20 feeds into an inlet of the cooling vessel (Figures 1 and 2, Columns 13-16, especially column 14 Lines 4-15).
And wherein the system includes a cooling circuit (Figures 1 and 2, Columns 13-16, especially column 14 Lines 4-15).
The cooling vessel (cooling sleeve/collection hopper) 40 receives a cooling fluid (which may be a cooling gas (air) that cools said cooling vessel (Figures 1 and 2, column 14 Lines 4-15). Thus, it is understood that the cooling vessel (cooling sleeve/collection hopper) 40 necessarily contains at least one cooling inlet arrangement for feeding cooling fluid (which may be cooling gas) from the cooling circuit to the cooling vessel.
The cooling circuit is necessarily pressurizable, as it is understood that said cooling circuit must be pressurized in order to cause the fluid in the cooling circuit to enter the cooling vessel as intended..
Though it is not explicitly taught, it is understood that the pressurized heating circuit comprises a circulation fan (pump) because the said heating circuit is taught to pump heated gas and vapors back into the reactor vessel (Column 10 Lines 25-43). The fact that the heating circuit is capable of pumping gas and vapors back into the reactor chamber implies the presence of a pump adapted to induce the flow of gaseous substances. Such a pump amounts to a circulation fan.
In the alternative, Danner’s teaching to the heating circuit pumping heated gases and vapors back into the reactor vessel would at least suggest that said heating circuit should comprise a pump in the form of a circulation fan for reintroducing heating gases and vapors into the reactor vessel. Indeed, a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that gases and vapors would not circulate through the heating circuit on their own, at least not effectively. Furthermore, the use of circulation fans for circulating gases through heating circuits like that of Danner is known in the art. For example, Lorenz teaches a carbonization system comprising reactor vessel (carbonizing chamber) C and a heating circuit including a circulation fan (blower) 14 and a heating arrangement (combustion chamber) 7 adapted for heating pressurized working gas, the pressurized heating circuit being adapted for moving the pressurized heated working gas between the reactor vessel, the circulation fan, and the heating arrangement (Abstract, Figure 1, Column 4, Column 3 Lines 5-12).
In the event that a circulation fan is not implicitly present in the heating circuit of Danner, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Danner in view of Lorenz by adding such a circulation fan to the heating circuit, in order to obtain a system having a heating circuit which is capable of inducing a circulation of heating fluid (gases and vapors) therethrough.
The system of Danner further comprises a controller, i.e. a programable logic controller, (Column 11 Lines 30-55, Column 15 Lines 36-45, Column 16 Lines 4-18). It is understood that a programable logic controller necessarily comprises a processor operationally connected to digital storage media configured for storing data and/or software instructions.
The system of Danner further comprises one or more sensors operationally connected to the controller, the sensors allowing the controller to monitor factors affecting a carbonization reaction in the reactor vessel (Column 11 Lines 30-55, Column 15 Lines 36-45, Column 16 Lines 4-18), said factors including at least: temperature of the heating working gas (Column 16 Lines 11-13), a pressure of the heated working gas (Column 16 Lines 11-18), and a heating effect of the heating arrangement (Column 16 Lines 11-13).
The disclosure of Danner at least suggests that the controller is configured for controlling any of said factors to ensure that the organic matter is subjected to carbonization in an oxygen-reduced environment at a particular pressure and, temperatures in a range of 320°C - 800°C (Column 7 Line 55-Column 8 Line 45, Column 10 Lines 25-43, Column 11 Lines 30-Column 12 Line 10, Column 15 Lines 36-45, Column 16 Lines 4-18, especially Column 16 Lines 11-18).
Danner does not explicitly teach that the controller is configured to maintain the carbonization pressure at a level between 3 and 12 bar.
However, Danner at least suggests that the controller is configured to control the carbonization pressure at some level (Column 10 Lines 25-43, Column 16 Lines 11-18).
Furthermore, a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that pressure is a result effective variable in carbonization processes. In particular, a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that pressure will affect the evolution of volatile products during carbonization. "[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 modify Danner by configuring the controller to maintain the carbonization pressure at a particular level, e.g. at a level between 3 and 12 bar, in order to obtain a predictably functional carbonization system.
Danner does not explicitly teach that the controller is configured to maintain the carbonization temperature in a range of 300-500 °C.
However, as discussed above, the disclosure of Danner at least suggests that controller is configured to maintain the carbonization temperatures in a range of 320°C - 800°C (Column 11 Lines 30-Column 12 Line 10, Column 15 Lines 36-45, Column 16 Lines 4-18).
Furthermore, a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that temperature is a result effective variable in carbonization processes. Indeed, Danner provides clear indication that temperature is a result effective variable (Column 8 Lines 36-43, Column 9 Lines 35-40). "[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).
Further still, the taught temperature range overlaps the temperature range claimed by Applicant. “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 modify Danner by configuring the controller to maintain the carbonization temperature in a range of 320°C - 500°, in order to obtain a predictably functional carbonization apparatus configured to operate at temperatures congruent with the teachings of Danner.
Danner does not explicitly teach that the controller is configured to expose the organic matter to the carbonization conditions for a time of 15-20 minutes.
However, Danner teaches that “The residence time of the organic waste and the temperature of the carbonization processes within the respective heating zones may be variable, based on operator preferences, that is, based on desired outcomes,” (column 8 Lines 36-40). This teaching would at least suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art that residence time should be controlled by an operator. When said teaching is considered in combination with the teachings to the controller (see Column 11 Lines 30-55), it would at least suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art that the controller could be used to control residence time.
Furthermore, a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that residence time, i.e. the period of time for which raw material is exposed to carbonizing conditions, is a result effective variable in carbonization processes. Indeed, Danner provides clear indication that residence time is a result effective variable (Column 8 Lines 36-43, Column 9 Lines 35-40). "[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 modify Danner by configuring the controller to control the residence time of the organic matter, such that said organic matter is subjected to the carbonization conditions for a time of 15-20 minutes, in order to obtain a predictably functional carbonization apparatus configured to achieve a desired carbonization outcome.
With regard to claim 13: As discussed in the rejection of claim 12 above, the controller in modified Danner is configured to maintain the carbonization temperature in the range of 320-500 °C. Thus, said controller is necessarily configured to detect a temperature increase in the reactor vessel, including but not limited to a temperature increase stemming from an exothermic reaction of carbonization of the organic matter, and adjust the factors affecting the carbonization reaction accordingly.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1-13 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, 5-7, and 11-17 of copending Application No. 18/005,597 (reference application).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the ‘597 Application anticipate or otherwise render obvious the claims of the present Application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. However, it is noted that a Notice of Allowance has been issued in the ‘597 Application. Upon publication of a patent corresponding to the ‘597 Application, this rejection will transition to a non-provisional double patenting rejection. Said transition will not amount to a rejection on new grounds.
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