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 .
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 Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 11-15, 19-25, 43, 45, 47 and 48 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walker et al (US 11,691,929) in view of Shearer et al (US 2015/0128672), for the reasons given in the last Office Action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s argument, that mounting a conveyor above a torrefier so as to recover waste heat does not teach or suggest that the conveyed material is itself pyrolyzed by that waste heat, and the examiner points to no disclosure in Walker et al that the recovered waste heat is sufficient to pyrolyze-as opposed to merely warm or dry-the conveyed biomass, is not convincing. Walker et al disclose a torrefying temperature as high as about 350 C at col. 11, lines 4-9. The waste heat would be sufficient to cause at least some pyrolysis of the biomass in the screw conveyor, since Shearer et al suggest in Paragraph [0058] that pyrolysis can occur at temperatures as low as 300 C. In any event, Walker et al disclose at col. 11, lines 22-28 that the torrefier includes a pre-heating screw whereby waste heat from the main burner heats the material prior to thew main screw, and a main screw, which has a bank of burners firing underneath it. It would have been obvious to provide a temperature of 300-350 C in the pre-heating screw to achieve a heating temperature of about 350 C in the main screw. Accordingly it would have been obvious to provide a temperature of at least 300 C in the screw conveyor mounted above the torrefier in the process of Walker et al so as to pre-heat the biomass. Applicant’s argument, that the cited passages of walker et al disclose no staged addition of raw biomass between distinct pyrolysis heating temperatures, is not convincing, since Walker et al teach at col. 11, lines 12-15 that wet biosolids can be introduced in a continuous fashion through the inlet port of the torrefier.
Applicant’s argument with respect to claim 43, that the product of Shearer et al would not include any of the recited compounds since the process of Shearer et al is not substantially identical to the process recited in claim 43, is not convincing, since Shearer et al teach in Paragraph [0060] that the amount of heat applied can be low and then high. There is no evidence on record that the addition of raw biomass between the heating stages would result in different properties of the biochar product. Moreover, Shearer et al disclose in Paragraph [0060] that volatile organics recondense in the pyrolysis reactor. Some of these volatile organics would be present in the biochar product.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-4 and 8-10 are allowed.
Mennell et al (US 12,655,061) is made of record for disclosing at col. 68, lines 16-22 that the boundary between a preheating zone and pyrolysis zone can be somewhat arbitrary, with some pyrolysis taking place in the preheating zone and some preheating continuing to take place in the pyrolysis zone.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WAYNE A LANGEL whose telephone number is (571) 272-1353. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday from 8:15 am to 4:15 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Anthony Zimmer can be reached at 571-270-3591. 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.
/WAYNE A LANGEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1736
Prosecution Insights