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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant has amended claims 1-11, 13, and 14 and canceled claims 12 and 15. Claims 1-11, 13, and 14 are pending.
The amendments have overcome the claim objections of record.
The amendments to the claims have overcome the 112(b) rejections of record.
The amendments to the claims have overcome the 112(d) rejections of record.
The amendments to the claims have necessitated new 103 rejections over the prior art previously relied upon. See 103 rejections below for details.
The amendments to the claims have overcome the double patenting rejections of record.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 6-7 of Remarks, filed 4/15/2026, with respect to the claim objections have been fully considered and are persuasive.
Specifically, Applicant has argued that the amendments to the claims have overcome the claim objections of record. Therefore, the claim objections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 7-8 of Remarks, filed 4/15/2026, with respect to the 112(b) rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive.
Specifically, Applicant has argued that the amendments to the claims have overcome the 112(b) rejections of record. Therefore, the 112(b) rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 8 of Remarks, filed 4/15/2026, with respect to the 112(d) rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive.
Specifically, Applicant has argued that the amendments to the claims have overcome the 112(d) rejections of record. Therefore, the 112(d) rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 8-18 of Remarks, filed 4/15/2026, with respect to the 103 rejections have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
Applicant has argued that independent claim 1 is allowable over the prior art of record with because said prior art fails to teach or suggest the claimed, first, second, and third circular joints, each of which is “configured to support a connection, between respective components forming each said joint, in which a directional orientation of one of the respective components is selectably variable relative to the other one of the respective components, and wherein, in combination, the first joint, the second joint, and the third joint support a plurality of different assembled configurations of the pyrolysis reactor, each assembled configuration having a different three-dimensional structural arrangement.” Applicant’s argument places particular emphasis on the fact that said joints allow for the claimed system to be assembled in different three-dimensional structural arrangements, which Applicant characterizes as an unexpected advantage not contemplated by the prior art. Examiner finds this argument unpersuasive.
As discussed in detail in the 103 rejections below, the system of primary reference Cui (CN 112680239 A) includes first a first circular joint between the upper vessel and the lower vessel, a second circular joint between the lower vessel and the ash/char discharge unit, and third circular joint between the ash/char discharge unit and the feeding unit.
The second and third joints, being joints comprising at least one circular flange, are necessarily configured such directional orientations of the respective components in each of said joints are selectively variable relative one another. In other words, because the second and third joints are circular, one or both of the respective components thereof could be rotated relative the other so as to be joinable in different orientations. Because the directional orientations of the respective components in the second and third joints are selectively variable relative one another, said second and third joints allow for a plurality of different assembled configurations having different three-dimensional structural arrangments. See 103 rejections below for further details.
Functional langauge does not distinguish a claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus which posesses the claimed functionality (MPEP 2114). Therfore, the notion that Applicant has allegedly discovered an advantagous function associated with the second and third joints is not sufficient to distinguish the claimed apparatus from that of Cui on the basis of the scond or third joints.
As for the first joint, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Cui in view of Fallon (US 2,506,782) by configuring the upper and lower vessels to be detachably coupled, i.e. at the first joint, in order to obtain a reactor which is easier to assemble and disassemble and which is congruent with that which is suggested by Figure 2 of Cui (see 103 rejections below for further details/explanation).
As discussed in the 103 rejections below, because the upper and lower vessels are to be detachably coupled at the first joint in modified Cui, and because the first joint is circular, it is understood that the directional orientations of the respective components in said first joint are selectively variable relative one another. In other words, because the first joint is circular, one or both of the respective components could be rotated relative the other so as to be joinable in different orientations. Therefore, in modified Cui, because the directional orientations of the respective components in the first joint are selectively variable relative one another, said first joint allow for a plurality of different assembled configurations having different three-dimensional structural arrangments.
The fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
Applicant has argued that the secondary reference Yue II, relied upon in the rejections of claim 2, does not teach or suggest a circulating water channel for circulating cooling water is formed in a housing wall of the lower vessel. More specifically, Applicant alleges the following:
Applicant respectfully submits that the Office has misinterpreted the drawing and the translated text of the Yue II reference. Yue II's Chinese term… does not expressly describe coolant circulation, coolant inlet/outlet, or other features indicating a circulating cooling-water channel in the lower-vessel wall. Yue Il only explicitly refers to "upper shell cooling jacket insulating layer 5." Yue II further states that "Upper shell cooling jacket insulating layer 5, upper casing are [sic] fixed on the inner wall of upper shell 3." This is not even suggestive of the claimed "circulating water channel (121) for circulating cooling water is formed in a housing wall of the lower vessel." Rather, as best understood based on what is actually shown in the drawings and described in the text of the Yue II citation, the "upper shell cooling jacket insulating layer 5" is a standard insulation layer formed of multiple layers of refractory materials, including (typically) an inner layer of a hard material with poor insulation properties, a lower density middle layer with better insulation properties, and finally an outer layer (e.g., adjacent to and fixed on the inner wall of upper shell 3 in Yue II) formed of a low density and highly effective insulating material. The choice of wording in Yue II supports the interpretation that the multi-layer insulating layer 5 prevents reaction heat from escaping (insulating) and thereby maintaining a lower temperature of the wall of the upper shell ("cooling").
Remarks page 17 (emphasis is Applicant’).
Examiner finds this argument unpersuasive.
The term “upper shell cooling jacket insulating layer” is understood to refer to, or otherwise imply the presence of, a cooling jacket in the upper shell. It is understood that a cooling jacket necessarily comprises a circulation channel for a cooling fluid, such as water. It is noted that the “upper shell Accordingly, Examiner maintains that Yue II teaches or at least suggests a circulating water channel (i.e. a cooling jacket) for circulating cooling water in a housing wall of the lower vessel.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 19 of Remarks, filed 4/15/2026, with respect to the double patenting rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive.
Applicant has argued that the amendments to the claims have overcome the double patenting rejections of record. Accordingly, the double patenting rejections have been withdrawn.
The following are new rejections necessitated by amendment.
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 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, 3, 4, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cui et al. (CN 112680239 A), hereafter referred to as Cui, in view of Fallon (US 2,506,782), Cui et al. (CN 204138602 U), hereafter referred to as Cui II, and Cui et al. (US 9,790,443), hereafter referred to as Cui III.
With regard to claim 1: Cui teaches pyrolysis reactor (Figures 1 and 2, paragraphs [n0024]-[n0050] of Espacenet translation), the reactor comprising:
A reactor vessel (shell) 6 comprising an upper vessel and a lower vessel (Figures 1 and 2, paragraphs [n0024]-[n0050] of Espacenet translation, see annotated Figure 2 below).
A feeding unit comprised of hopper 81, horizontal screw feeder 8, and vertical screw feeder 9 provided at the lower vessel (Figures 1 and 2, paragraphs [n0024]-[n0050] of Espacenet translation, see annotated Figure 2 below).
An integrated grate (disc body/tray body) 1 integrated with the feeding unit (the vertical screw feeder 9 thereof) and a discharge gate unit (ash outlet; formed between the bottom of the integrated grate and the vessel 6) (Figures 1 and 2, paragraphs [n0018] and [n0024]-[n0050] of Espacenet translation).
The integrated grate 1 rotatably provided inside the lower vessel, and fitted on a feeding pipe (the vertical screw feeder) 9 of the feeding unit (Figures 1 and 2, paragraphs [n0024]-[n0050] of Espacenet translation).
A cooling stirring pipe 2 fixedly connected to the reactor vessel 6 being provided above a material moving surface (feeding surface) 12 of the integrated grate 1 (Figures 1 and 2, paragraphs [n0024]-[n0050] of Espacenet translation).
The cooling stirring pipe 2 is provided with a flow channel for coolant, e.g. water, said flow channel having a water inlet nozzle (i.e. an inlet) a water outlet (paragraphs [n0021], [n0034]-[n0035], and [n0039]-[n0041] of Espacenet translation). Said cooling stirring pipe 2 is fixedly connected to the reactor vessel 6 (Figures 1 and 2, paragraphs [n0024]-[n0050] of Espacenet translation). Therefore, it is understood that the flow channel of said cooling stirring pipe 2, and thus the water inlet nozzle and water outlet thereof, are fixed to the reactor vessel 6.
An ash/char discharge unit (ash outlet device) 7 fixedly connected to the lower vessel, provided at the bottom of the integrated grate 1, and integrated with the feeding unit 81/8/9 and the integrated grate (Figures 1 and 2, paragraphs [n0024]-[n0050] of Espacenet translation, see annotated Figure 2 below).
Wherein the discharge gate unit (ash outlet) is provided between the integrated grate 1 and the ash/char discharge unit so that ash/char, having reacted completely and being present on the material moving surface 12 of the integrated grate 1 enters an ash/char discharge hopper of the ash/char discharge unit 7 after passing through the discharge gate unit (Figures 1 and 2, paragraphs [n0018] and [n0024]-[n0050] of Espacenet translation).
Wherein, when the pyrolysis reactor is in the assembled condition, a first joint between the upper vessel and the lower vessel is a circular ring-shaped joint, i.e. an element which appears to be a flange illustrated in Figure 2, which is configured to support a connection between respective components forming each joint (Figure 2; see annotated Figure 2 below).
Wherein, when the pyrolysis reactor is in the assembled condition, a second joint between the lower vessel and the ash/char discharge unit is a circular ring-shaped joint, i.e. a circular flange joint, which is configured to support a connection between respective components forming each joint (Figure 2; see annotated Figure 2 below). Because the second joint is a circular flange joint, it is understood that the directional orientations of the respective components are selectively variable relative one another. In other words, because the second joint is circular, one or both of the respective components could be rotated relative the other so as to be joinable in different orientations.
And wherein, when the pyrolysis reactor is in the assembled condition, a third joint between the lower vessel and the ash/char discharge unit is a circular ring-shaped joint, i.e. a joint comprising a circular flange 33, which is configured to support a connection between respective components forming each joint (Figure 1). Because the third joint comprises a circular flange, it is understood that the directional orientations of the respective components are selectively variable relative one another. In other words, because the third joint is circular, one or both of the respective components could be rotated relative the other so as to be joinable in different orientations.
Because the directional orientations of the respective components in the second and third joints are selectively variable relative one another, said second and third joints allow for a plurality of different assembled configurations having different three-dimensional structural arrangments.
PNG
media_image1.png
616
494
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Cui does not explicitly teach that the upper and lower vessels being detachably coupled to one another.
However, the illustration of the reactor vessel 6 in Figure 2 (see annotated Figure 2 above) suggests: i) the lower vessel is detachable from that which is below it (i.e. by illustration of a flange joint at the bottom of lower vessel), and ii) the upper and lower vessels are detachable from one another (i.e. by the upper and lower vessels being illustrated as seemingly distinct elements and/or by the illustration of what appears to be a flange between the upper and lower vessels).
Furthermore, it is well-known in the art to construct pyrolysis reactors from several vessels that are detachably connected to one another. For example, Fallon teaches a pyrolysis (gasification) reactor comprised of several vessels which are detachably connected to one another (Figure 1, Column 1 Line 30-Column 3 Line 40, especially Column 3 Lines 35-38). It is noted that while Fallon does not explicitly state that each of said vessels are detachably connected, because said vessels are bolted together, as is clearly illustrated in Figure 1, they are understood to be detachably connected to one another.
Note: Gasification includes an aspect of pyrolysis. Thus, the gasifier of Fallon is fairly characterized as a pyrolysis reactor.
As would be clear to one of ordinary skill in the art, forming a reactor from several detachable vessels brings several advantages. Namely, a reactor formed from several detachable vessels is easier to assemble and disassemble, e.g. for the purposes of repair or relocation.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Cui in view of Fallon by configuring the upper and lower vessels to be detachably coupled, i.e. at the first joint, in order to obtain a reactor which is easier to assemble and disassemble and which is congruent with that which is suggested by Figure 2 of Cui.
As discussed above, the first joint in Cui is is a circular ring-shaped joint, i.e. an element which appears to be a flange illustrated in Figure 2 (Figure 2; see annotated Figure above). Because the upper and lower vessels are to be detachably coupled at the first joint in modified Cui, and because the first joint is circular, it is understood that the directional orientations of the respective components in said first joint are selectively variable relative one another. In other words, because the first joint is circular, one or both of the respective components could be rotated relative the other so as to be joinable in different orientations.
In modified Cui, Because the directional orientations of the respective components in the first joint are selectively variable relative one another, said first joint allow for a plurality of different assembled configurations having different three-dimensional structural arrangments.
Modified Cui is silent to an air intake unit being integrated with the integrated gate and the integrated grate being connected to the air intake unit.
However, it is well known in the art to provide reactors like that of Cui with air intake units for supplying air. For example, Cui II, teaches a pyrolysis reactor similar in construction to that of Cui, said reactor of Cui II comprising a rotary furnace grate (furnace plate) 1 which is similar in construction to that of Cui, wherein said furnace grate is integrated with and connected to an air intake unit comprising a plurality of air holes 5 (Figures 1 and 2, paragraphs [0011]-[0013] and [0021]-[0024] of Espacenet translation).
Notably, Cui and Cui II have the same first listed inventor.
Of further note is the illustration of integrated grate 1 in Figure 1 of Cui, which depicts what appear to be holes on the surface of said integrated grate (see annotated Figure 1 below).
Given that Cui and Cui II both disclose furnace grates of similar construction and are both to the same first listed inventor, the fact that the integrated grate 1 in Cui appears to have holes on its surface suggests that an air intake unit comprised of said holes is or should be present in Cui, especially when Cui is considered in combination with Cui II.
PNG
media_image2.png
790
682
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Furthermore, Cui III, teaches yet another a pyrolysis reactor similar in construction to that of Cui, said reactor of Cui III comprising a rotating grate 6 which is similar in construction to that of Cui, wherein said furnace grate 6 is integrated with and connected to an air intake unit comprising an air inlet 10 and air holes or gaps in the furnace grate (Figures 1-3, Column 2 Line 57-Column 3 Line 37, Claim 16).
Notably, Cui and Cui III have the same first listed inventor, and Cui III and II are by the same inventive entity.
The disclosure of Cui III reveals that the reaction temperature in the pyrolysis reactor can be controlled by controlling the volume and/or temperature of air supplied into the reactor via air inlet 10 (Column 3 Lines 30-37). The disclosure of Cui III further reveals that the air supplied via the air inlet can be hot air (Column 3 Lines 10-15). These teachings of Cui III indicate that an air inlet can be provided to a pyrolysis reactor for the purpose of providing heat and/or controlling temperature to the interior of the pyrolysis reaction. Indeed, a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that supplying air to the interior of a pyrolysis reactor will lead to a partial combustion of the feed material in said reactor, which would generate heat and result in heating of the remaining unburned feed material.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Cui in view of Cui II and Cui III by providing the reactor of Cui with an air intake unit comprised of an air inlet and air holes distributed on the surface of the integrated grate, in order to obtain a system which: i) is congruent with what the disclosure of Cui suggests when considered in combination with Cui II, and ii) comprises of a means of heating the pyrolysis reactor and controlling the temperature therein (i.e. through the introduction of air).
Note: Because said air intake unit in modified Cui is comprised of air holes distributed on the surface of the integrated grate, said air intake unit is integrated with the integrated gate and the integrated grate is connected to the air intake unit.
With regard to claim 3: Modified Cui is silent to the water inlet nozzle of the cooling stirring pipe being provided on the lower vessel and the water outlet of the cooling stirring pipe being provided on the upper vessel.
However, Cui teaches that the cooling stirring pipe 2 can be connected with a cooling system to form a circulating water cooling system (paragraph [n0040] of Espacenet translation). It is understood that such a water cooling system would be outside the walls of the reactor vessel, as the inside of the reactor will be hot and therefore an unsuitable location for cooling the cooling water. Accordingly, in such embodiments, it is understood that, the inlets and outlets of the cooling stirring pipe 2 must be arranged so as to pass through the walls of the reactor vessel to reach the water cooling system. Yet Cui does not provide any specific teachings as to the manner in which the inlet and outlet of the cooling stirring pipe pass through the walls of the reactor vessel. Thus, a person having ordinary skill in the art would be required to select some specific manner in which the inlet and outlet of the cooling stirring pipe penetrate the walls of the reactor vessel.
The particular manner in which the inlet and outlet of the cooling stirring pipe penetrate the walls of the reactor vessel is merely a matter of design choice, and would not be expected to greatly impact the functionality of said reactor.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Cui by arranging the water inlet nozzle of the cooling stirring pipe on the lower vessel and the water outlet of the cooling stirring pipe on the upper vessel, in order to obtain a device wherein the inlet and outlet of the water cooling stirring pipe pass through the walls of the reactor in a particular manner.
With regard to claim 4: In modified Cui, a join between the top of the lower vessel and the upper vessel (i.e. a portion of the reactor where the upper vessel meets the top of the lower vessel) is configured to be gradually narrowing (Cui: Figure 2). Furthermore, given the shape of said join it is understood that inner surface of said join necessarily forms an arch protrusion part protruding into the reactor vessel (i.e. relative to the wider portion of the lower vessel), wherein said arch protrusion part is formed in a tapered position narrowed gradually.
With regard to claim 13: Modified Cui does not explicitly teach that the pyrolysis reactor fits onto or into a road vehicle when assembled.
However, whether or not the pyrolysis reactor fits onto or into a road vehicle when assembled is a matter which is determined merely by the size/scale of said reactor. Limitations relating merely to size/scale are not sufficient patentably distinguish a device from the prior art (MPEP 2144.04(IV)A). The reactor of modified Cui could be successfully scaled down (if necessary) to fit onto or into a road vehicle without materially altering said reactor’s functionality.
Furthermore, smaller scale devices capable of being transported in an assembled state have clear advantages which would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. Namely, it would be clear to one of ordinary skill in the art that such smaller scale devices would be advantageously easier to relocate than analogous larger scale devices.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Cui by scaling down the reactor (if necessary) such that it were able to fit onto or into a road vehicle, in order to obtain a predictably functional smaller scale device which is easy (or at least easier) to relocate.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cui in view of Fallon, Cui II, and Cui III, as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Yue et al. (CN 207581621 U), hereafter referred to as Yue II.
With regard to claim 2: Modified Cui is silent to a circulating water channel for circulating cooling water being formed in a housing wall of the lower vessel.
However, Yue II teaches a pyrolysis reactor having a lower vessel (lower part of upper shell 3), with an integrated rotary grate 8 disposed within said lower vessel and a circulating water channel (cooling jacket insulation layer) 5 for circulating cooling water formed in a housing wall of said lower vessel (Figure 1, paragraph [0029] of Espacenet translation). A person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that said circulating water channel 5 beneficially protects the wall of the lower vessel from overheating.
It is notable that the Yue II has an inventor (Zhu Lin-jun) in common with Cui II and Cui III. All of Cui, Cui II, and Cui III have at least one inventor in common. Thus, there is a clear link between the inventive entities in Yue II and Cui.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Cui in view of Yue II by adding a circulating water channel formed in a housing wall of the lower vessel for circulating cooling water, in order to provide the reactor with a means of protecting the lower vessel from overheating.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cui in view of Fallon, Cui II, and Cui III, as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Jefferies (US 1,153,623).
With regard to claim 9: Modified Cui further comprises a frame body 5 for being arranged at a work site to support the reactor vessel 6, wherein the frame body 5 comprises a plurality of support legs, and wherein the frame body 5 is capable of being integrated with the lower vessel, the feeding unit 81/8/9/3, the integrated grate 1, the ash/char discharge unit 7, and the discharge gate unit to achieve modular assembly (Cui: Figures 1 and 2, paragraphs [n0024]-[n0050] of Espacenet translation, see annotated Figure 2 below).
Modified Cui does not explicitly teach that the support leg of the frame is formed “by connecting segments”, i.e. that the support leg is formed from a plurality of segments that are joined together.
However, support legs formed from a plurality of joined segments are known in the art. For example, Jefferies teaches a pyrolysis reactor (gas producer) having a plurality of support legs (posts) 3 that are formed from a plurality of joined segments (Figures 1 and 3, page 1 lines 1-20 and 50-75, especially Figure 1). A person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that forming support legs from a plurality of joined segments as in Jefferies comes with several advantages including: i) increased modularity enabling easier transport and repair of the legs, ii) decreased weight compared to non-segmented legs of the same overall dimensions, and iii) potentially increased resiliency as a failure or weakness in a single segment is less likely to compromise the entire leg in comparison to a single failure or weakness in a non-segmented leg.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Cui in view of Jefferies by forming the support leg of the frame from a plurality of segments that are joined together, in order to obtain the above-discussed advantages of a segmented support.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cui in view of Fallon, Cui II, and Cui III, as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Zhu et al. (CN 203395194 U), hereafter referred to as Zhu.
With regard to claim 10: In Modified Cui, the upper vessel comprises a gas outlet pipe (biomass gas outlet) 61 (Cui: Figures 1 and 2, paragraphs [n0024]-[n0050] of Espacenet translation).
Cui is silent to a shut-off valve being provided on said gas outlet pipe, said shut-off valve comprising: a valve core, a sealing portion of the valve core facing an outlet of the gas outlet pipe of the upper vessel; and a valve stem for pushing the valve core to move away from or approach the outlet of the gas outlet pipe of the upper vessel.
However, Zhu teaches a shut-off valve identical to that which is claimed (Figure 1, paragraphs [0021]-[0024] of Espacenet translation). Zhu expressly teaches that said valve is a pyrolysis gas shut-off valve (paragraph [0002] of Espacenet translation). Zhu teaches that valves are required in the delivery of pyrolysis gas to pipelines to open and close gas supply (paragraph [0004]). Zhu’s disclosure indicates that the taught valve is advantageously resistant to high temperatures and does not deform when exposed to such temperatures (paragraphs [0006]-[0007] and [0018] of Espacenet translation).
It is notable that the Zhu has an inventor (Mao-pei Cui) in common with Cui.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Cui in view of Zhu by adding a shut-off valve identical to that of the claims, said shut-off valve being provided on said gas outlet pipe 61, in order to obtain a system having a valve for opening and closing gas supply from said outlet, as is taught by Zhu to be necessary, wherein said valve is advantageously resistant to high temperatures and not deform when exposed to such temperatures.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cui in view of Fallon, Cui II, and Cui III, as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Galusha (US 2,816,823).
With regard to claim 11: In Modified Cui a top of the reactor vessel is provided with a vent unit (biomass gas outlet) 61 (Cui: Figures 1 and 2, paragraphs [n0024]-[n0050] of Espacenet translation).
Modified Cui is silent to the vent unit being connected to a scrubbing tank.
However, it is known in the art to connect vent units of reactors like that of Cui to a scrubbing tank. For example, Galusha teaches a pyrolysis reactor (gas producer/retort) 3 comprising a, said reactor comprising a vent unit (hot gas off-take pipe) 61 at a top of the reactor 3, wherein said vent unit is connected to a scrubbing tank (scrubber) 62 (Figure 4, Columns 5 and 6). The scrubber 62 serves the purpose of removing condensable vapors from the gas products produced by the reactor (Column 6 Lines 43-71).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Cui in view of Galusha by connecting the vent unit to a scrubbing tank (scrubber), in order to provide a means of condensing condensable vapors contained in the gaseous products produced by the pyrolysis reactor.
Cui does not explicitly teach that said vent unit 61 is an “emergency” vent unit. However, it is nevertheless possible to make use of said vent unit 61 to vent the reactor in some manner of emergency. Accordingly, said vent unit 61 qualifies as an emergency vent unit (see MPEP 2114 for guidance).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cui in view of Fallon, Cui II, and Cui III, as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Cui (CN 208312361 U), hereafter referred to as Cui IV.
With regard to claim 14: A pyrolysis reactor necessarily produces, or is at least necessarily capable of producing, multiple products, i.e. at least pyrolysis gas and/or vapor and char and/or ash. This fact is confirmed by the disclosure of Cui (Paragraphs [n0002]-[n0003] and [n0024] of Espacenet translation. Therefore, the reactor of modified Cui necessarily amounts to a multi-product co-generation system comprising said pyrolysis reactor.
Modified Cui is silent to the system comprising a combustion chamber a plurality of the pyrolysis reactor.
Cui IV teaches a combustion chamber configured to be used combination with a plurality of biomass pyrolyzers (gasifiers), such that the combustion chamber receives pyrolysis gas from the plurality of pyrolyzers and uses said pyrolysis gas as fuel (Figures 1-4, Espacenet Abstract, paragraphs [0011]-[0013] and [0035]-[0037] of Espacenet translation). Note: Gasifiers can be fairly characterized as pyrolysis reactors, as is evident from Cui IV’s disclosure, which describes the use of “multiple gasifiers to pyrolyze various biomass raw materials” (see paragraph [0011]).
Cui IV indicates that a system comprising multiple pyrolysis reactors (gasifiers) in connection a combustion chamber advantageously allows for the combustion chamber to operate efficiently while using multiple biomass fuels, i.e. by pyrolyzing each fuel in a respective one of the pyrolysis reactors (gasifiers) to produce pyrolysis gas and combusting said pyrolysis gas in the combustion chamber ((paragraphs [0011]-[0012], see paragraphs [0006]-[0009] for further context.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Cui in view of Cui IV by: i) adding a combustor and additional instances of the pyrolysis reactor, such that the system comprises a plurality of said pyrolysis reactor, and ii) configuring the combustor to receive pyrolysis gas produced in each of the pyrolysis reactors, in order to obtain a system which can simultaneously utilize multiple biomass feeds as a combustion fuel.
As for one or two of the plurality of pyrolysis reactors being standbys, and the remaining pyrolysis reactors being operated normally at the same time, this is merely a matter regarding the intended use and/or manner of operating the reactors. Statements of intended use and/or manner of operating do not distinguish apparatus claims from a prior art system which is capable of use/operation in the claimed manner (MPEP 2114). The system of modified Cui, having a plurality of pyrolysis reactors, is capable of use/operation such that one or two of the plurality of pyrolysis reactors are standbys, and the remaining pyrolysis reactors are operated normally at the same time. Accordingly, modified Cui satisfies the claim language regarding one or two of the plurality of pyrolysis reactors being standbys, and the remaining pyrolysis reactors operating normally at the same time (See MPEP 2114 for guidance).
Claim(s) 1, 3-8, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cui et al. (CN 112680239 A), hereafter referred to as Cui, in view of Fallon (US 2,506,782), Cui et al. (CN 204138602 U), hereafter referred to as Cui II, Cui et al. (US 9,790,443), hereafter referred to as Cui III, and Yue et al. (CN 207552147 U), hereafter referred to as Yue.
With regard to claims 1 and 5-8: Cui teaches pyrolysis reactor (Figures 1 and 2, paragraphs [n0024]-[n0050] of Espacenet translation), the reactor comprising:
A reactor vessel (shell) 6 comprising an upper vessel and a lower vessel (Figures 1 and 2, paragraphs [n0024]-[n0050] of Espacenet translation, see annotated Figure 2 below).
A feeding unit comprised of hopper 81, horizontal screw feeder 8, and vertical screw feeder 9 provided at the lower vessel (Figures 1 and 2, paragraphs [n0024]-[n0050] of Espacenet translation, see annotated Figure 2 below).
An integrated grate (disc body/tray body) 1 integrated with the feeding unit (the vertical screw feeder 9 thereof) and a discharge gate unit (ash outlet; formed between the bottom of the integrated grate and the vessel 6) (Figures 1 and 2, paragraphs [n0018] and [n0024]-[n0050] of Espacenet translation).
The integrated grate 1 rotatably provided inside the lower vessel, and fitted on a feeding pipe (the vertical screw feeder) 9 of the feeding unit (Figures 1 and 2, paragraphs [n0024]-[n0050] of Espacenet translation).
A cooling stirring pipe 2 fixedly connected to the reactor vessel 6 being provided above a material moving surface (feeding surface) 12 of the integrated grate 1 (Figures 1 and 2, paragraphs [n0024]-[n0050] of Espacenet translation).
The cooling stirring pipe 2 is provided with a flow channel for coolant, e.g. water, said flow channel having a water inlet nozzle (i.e. an inlet) a water outlet (paragraphs [n0021], [n0034]-[n0035], and [n0039]-[n0041] of Espacenet translation). Said cooling stirring pipe 2 is fixedly connected to the reactor vessel 6 (Figures 1 and 2, paragraphs [n0024]-[n0050] of Espacenet translation). Therefore, it is understood that the flow channel of said cooling stirring pipe 2, and thus the water inlet nozzle and water outlet thereof, are fixed to the reactor vessel 6.
An ash/char discharge unit (ash outlet device) 7 fixedly connected to the lower vessel, provided at the bottom of the integrated grate 1, and integrated with the feeding unit 81/8/9 and the integrated grate (Figures 1 and 2, paragraphs [n0024]-[n0050] of Espacenet translation, see annotated Figure 2 below).
Wherein the discharge gate unit (ash outlet) is provided between the integrated grate 1 and the ash/char discharge unit so that ash/char, having reacted completely and being present on the material moving surface 12 of the integrated grate 1 enters an ash/char discharge hopper of the ash/char discharge unit 7 after passing through the discharge gate unit (Figures 1 and 2, paragraphs [n0018] and [n0024]-[n0050] of Espacenet translation).
Wherein, when the pyrolysis reactor is in the assembled condition, a first joint between the upper vessel and the lower vessel is a circular ring-shaped joint, i.e. an element which appears to be a flange illustrated in Figure 2, which is configured to support a connection between respective components forming each joint (Figure 2; see annotated Figure 2 below).
Wherein, when the pyrolysis reactor is in the assembled condition, a second joint between the lower vessel and the ash/char discharge unit is a circular ring-shaped joint, i.e. a circular flange joint, which is configured to support a connection between respective components forming each joint (Figure 2; see annotated Figure 2 below). Because the second joint is a circular flange joint, it is understood that the directional orientations of the respective components are selectively variable relative one another. In other words, because the second joint is circular, one or both of the respective components could be rotated relative the other so as to be joinable in different orientations.
And wherein, when the pyrolysis reactor is in the assembled condition, a third joint between the lower vessel and the ash/char discharge unit is a circular ring-shaped joint, i.e. a joint comprising circular flange 33, which is configured to support a connection between respective components forming each joint (Figure 1). Because the third joint comprises a circular flange, it is understood that the directional orientations of the respective components are selectively variable relative one another. In other words, because the third joint is circular, one or both of the respective components could be rotated relative the other so as to be joinable in different orientations.
Because the directional orientations of the respective components in the second and third joints are selectively variable relative one another, said second and third joints allow for a plurality of different assembled configurations having different three-dimensional structural arrangments.
PNG
media_image1.png
616
494
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Cui does not explicitly teach that the upper and lower vessels being detachably coupled to one another.
However, the illustration of the reactor vessel 6 in Figure 2 (see annotated Figure 2 above) suggests: i) the lower vessel is detachable from that which is below it (i.e. by illustration of a flange joint at the bottom of lower vessel), and ii) the upper and lower vessels are detachable from one another (i.e. by the upper and lower vessels being illustrated as seemingly distinct elements and/or by the illustration of what appears to be a flange between the upper and lower vessels).
Furthermore, it is well-known in the art to construct pyrolysis reactors from several vessels that are detachably connected to one another. For example, Fallon teaches a pyrolysis (gasification) reactor comprised of several vessels which are detachably connected to one another (Figure 1, Column 1 Line 30-Column 3 Line 40, especially Column 3 Lines 35-38). It is noted that while Fallon does not explicitly state that each of said vessels are detachably connected, because said vessels are bolted together, as is clearly illustrated in Figure 1, they are understood to be detachably connected to one another.
Note: Gasification includes an aspect of pyrolysis. Thus, the gasifier of Fallon is fairly characterized as a pyrolysis reactor.
As would be clear to one of ordinary skill in the art, forming a reactor from several detachable vessels brings several advantages. Namely, a reactor formed from several detachable vessels is easier to assemble and disassemble, e.g. for the purposes of repair or relocation.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Cui in view of Fallon by configuring the upper and lower vessels to be detachably coupled, i.e. at the first joint, in order to obtain a reactor which is easier to assemble and disassemble and which is congruent with that which is suggested by Figure 2 of Cui.
As discussed above, the first joint in Cui is is a circular ring-shaped joint, i.e. an element which appears to be a flange illustrated in Figure 2 (Figure 2; see annotated Figure above). Because the upper and lower vessels are to be detachably coupled at the first joint in modified Cui, and because the first joint is circular, it is understood that the directional orientations of the respective components in said first joint are selectively variable relative one another. In other words, because the first joint is circular, one or both of the respective components could be rotated relative the other so as to be joinable in different orientations.
In modified Cui, Because the directional orientations of the respective components in the first joint are selectively variable relative one another, said first joint allow for a plurality of different assembled configurations having different three-dimensional structural arrangments.
Modified Cui is silent to an air intake unit being integrated with the integrated gate and the integrated grate being connected to the air intake unit.
However, it is well known in the art to provide reactors like that of Cui with air intake units for supplying air. For example, Cui II, teaches a pyrolysis reactor similar in construction to that of Cui, said reactor of Cui II comprising a rotary furnace grate (furnace plate) 1 which is similar in construction to that of Cui, wherein said furnace grate is integrated with and connected to an air intake unit comprising a plurality of air holes 5 (Figures 1 and 2, paragraphs [0011]-[0013] and [0021]-[0024] of Espacenet translation).
Notably, Cui and Cui II have the same first listed inventor.
Of further note is the illustration of integrated grate 1 in Figure 1 of Cui, which depicts what appear to be holes on the surface of said integrated grate (see annotated Figure 1 below).
Given that Cui and Cui II both disclose furnace grates of similar construction and are both to the same first listed inventor, the fact that the integrated grate 1 in Cui appears to have holes on its surface suggests that an air intake unit comprised of said holes is or should be present in Cui, especially when Cui is considered in combination with Cui II.
PNG
media_image2.png
790
682
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Furthermore, Cui III, teaches yet another a pyrolysis reactor similar in construction to that of Cui, said reactor of Cui III comprising a rotating grate 6 which is similar in construction to that of Cui, wherein said furnace grate 6 is integrated with and connected to an air intake unit comprising an air inlet 10 and air holes or gaps in the furnace grate (Figures 1-3, Column 2 Line 57-Column 3 Line 37, Claim 16).
Notably, Cui and Cui III have the same first listed inventor, and Cui III and II are by the same inventive entity.
The disclosure of Cui III reveals that the reaction temperature in the pyrolysis reactor can be controlled by controlling the volume and/or temperature of air supplied into the reactor via air inlet 10 (Column 3 Lines 30-37). The disclosure of Cui III further reveals that the air supplied via the air inlet can be hot air (Column 3 Lines 10-15). These teachings of Cui III indicate that an air inlet can be provided to a pyrolysis reactor for the purpose of providing heat and/or controlling temperature to the interior of the pyrolysis reaction. Indeed, a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that supplying air to the interior of a pyrolysis reactor will lead to a partial combustion of the feed material in said reactor, which would generate heat and result in heating of the remaining unburned feed material.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Cui in view of Cui II and Cui III by providing the reactor of Cui with an air intake unit comprised of an air inlet and air holes distributed on the surface of the integrated grate, in order to obtain a system which: i) is congruent with what the disclosure of Cui suggests when considered in combination with Cui II, and ii) comprises of a means of heating the pyrolysis reactor and controlling the temperature therein (i.e. through the introduction of air).
Note: Because said air intake unit in modified Cui is comprised of air holes distributed on the surface of the integrated grate, said air intake unit is integrated with the integrated gate and the integrated grate is connected to the air intake unit.
Modified Cui is silent to a discharge gate unit comprising:
a flange ring connected to the bottom of the lower vessel and configured to be horizontal;
a plurality of discharge gate plates configured to be horizontal and for moving in a radial direction of the flange ring to perform blocking between the material moving surface of the integrated grate and a circular strip-shaped outlet surface of the ash/char discharge hopper of the ash/char discharge unit;
and a plurality of filling angle plates, each of said plurality of filling angle plates fixed to an inner ring of the flange ring and filling a joint between two adjacent discharge gate plates.
wherein a vertical projection of the filling angle plate is an isosceles triangle, a bottom line of the filling angle plate being connected to the flange ring, two side lines of the filling angle plate extending and converging towards the center of the flange ring, and correspondingly, a flat bevel matching the shape of the side line of the filling angle plate being formed on an end portion of the valve plate;
wherein each discharge gate plate is driven by a separate motor or air cylinder;
wherein when the discharge gate plate is driven by the motor, a nut is fixed to the discharge gate plate, a lead screw fixed to an output shaft of the motor, and the lead screw cooperating with the nut;
and wherein said discharge gate unit is integrated with the integrated grate provided between the integrated grate and the ash/char discharge unit so that ash/char, having reacted completely and being present on the material moving surface of the integrated grate enters an ash/char discharge hopper of the ash/char discharge unit after passing through the discharge gate unit;
However, Yue discloses a pyrolysis reactor discharge gate unit which is structurally identical to that which is claimed (Figures 1-3, paragraphs [0005], [0014], [0020] and [0021] of Espacenet translation). The discharge gate unit of Yue is integrated with a rotary grate (not shown in Figures) and positioned below said rotary grate (paragraphs [0005], [0014], [0020] and [0021] of Espacenet translation).
Yue’s disclosure indicates that said discharge gate unit effectively controls ash/slag discharge rate and flow rate so at to prevent ash/slag being discharged too quickly (paragraphs [0005], [0014], and [0021]).
A person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that, if such a discharge gate unit were to be added to Cui, the only logical position for adding said unit is between the integrated grate and the ash/char discharge unit, as such positioning would be necessary to ensure that the discharge gate unit is able to control ash/char discharge rate as intended.
In any event, when Figure 2 of Cui is viewed in combination with Yue, it suggests that a discharge gate unit like that of Yue is already present in Cui between the integrated grate and the ash/char discharge unit. Namely, Figure 2 of Cui shows an element which resembles what discharge gate of Yue would be expected to look like in an external side view (see annotated Figure below). At the very least, said Figure would at least reinforce the expectation that, if a discharge gate unit like that of Yue were incorporated into Cui, it should be positioned between the integrated gate and the ash/char discharge unit.
PNG
media_image3.png
450
890
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It is notable that the Yue has an inventor (Zhu Lin-jun) in common with Cui II and Cui III. All of Cui, Cui II, and Cui III have at least one inventor in common. Thus, there is a clear link between the inventive entities in Yue and Cui.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Cui in view of Yue by adding an discharge gate unit identical to that of the claims, said discharge gate unit being integrated with the integrated grate and provided between the integrated grate and the ash/char discharge unit so that ash/char, having reacted completely and being present on the material moving surface of the integrated grate enters an ash/char discharge hopper of the ash/char discharge unit after passing through the discharge gate unit, in order to provide the reactor of Cui with a means of controlling ash/char discharge rate and flow rate so at to prevent ash/char being discharged too quickly.
With regard to claim 3: Modified Cui is silent to the water inlet nozzle of the cooling stirring pipe being provided on the lower vessel and the water outlet of the cooling stirring pipe being provided on the upper vessel.
However, Cui teaches that the cooling stirring pipe 2 can be connected with a cooling system to form a circulating water cooling system (paragraph [n0040] of Espacenet translation). It is understood that such a water cooling system would be outside the walls of the reactor vessel, as the inside of the reactor will be hot and therefore an unsuitable location for cooling the cooling water. Accordingly, in such embodiments, it is understood that, the inlets and outlets of the cooling stirring pipe 2 must be arranged so as to pass through the walls of the reactor vessel to reach the water cooling system. Yet Cui does not provide any specific teachings as to the manner in which the inlet and outlet of the cooling stirring pipe pass through the walls of the reactor vessel. Thus, a person having ordinary skill in the art would be required to select some specific manner in which the inlet and outlet of the cooling stirring pipe penetrate the walls of the reactor vessel.
The particular manner in which the inlet and outlet of the cooling stirring pipe penetrate the walls of the reactor vessel is merely a matter of design choice, and would not be expected to greatly impact the functionality of said reactor.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Cui by arranging the water inlet nozzle of the cooling stirring pipe on the lower vessel and the water outlet of the cooling stirring pipe on the upper vessel, in order to obtain a device wherein the inlet and outlet of the water cooling stirring pipe pass through the walls of the reactor in a particular manner.
With regard to claim 4: In modified Cui, a join between the top of the lower vessel and the upper vessel (i.e. a portion of the reactor where the upper vessel meets the top of the lower vessel) is configured to be gradually narrowing (Cui: Figure 2). Furthermore, given the shape of said join it is understood that inner surface of said join necessarily forms an arch protrusion part protruding into the reactor vessel (i.e. relative to the wider portion of the lower vessel), wherein said arch protrusion part is formed in a tapered position narrowed gradually.
With regard to claim 13: Modified Cui does not explicitly teach that the pyrolysis reactor fits onto or into a road vehicle when assembled.
However, whether or not the pyrolysis reactor fits onto or into a road vehicle when assembled is a matter which is determined merely by the size/scale of said reactor. Limitations relating merely to size/scale are not sufficient patentably distinguish a device from the prior art (MPEP 2144.04(IV)A). The reactor of modified Cui could be successfully scaled down (if necessary) to fit onto or into a road vehicle without materially altering said reactor’s functionality.
Furthermore, smaller scale devices capable of being transported in an assembled state have clear advantages which would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. Namely, it would be clear to one of ordinary skill in the art that such smaller scale devices would be advantageously easier to relocate than analogous larger scale devices.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Cui by scaling down the reactor (if necessary) such that it were able to fit onto or into a road vehicle, in order to obtain a predictably functional smaller scale device which is easy (or at least easier) to relocate.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cui in view of Fallon, Cui II, Cui III, and Yue as applied to claims 1 and 5-8 above, and in further view of Yue et al. (CN 207581621 U), hereafter referred to as Yue II.
With regard to claim 2: Modified Cui is silent to a circulating water channel for circulating cooling water being formed in a housing wall of the lower vessel.
However, Yue II teaches a pyrolysis reactor having a lower vessel (lower part of upper shell 3), with an integrated rotary grate 8 disposed within said lower vessel and a circulating water channel (cooling jacket insulation layer) 5 for circulating cooling water formed in a housing wall of said lower vessel (Figure 1, paragraph [0029] of Espacenet translation). A person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that said circulating water channel 5 beneficially protects the wall of the lower vessel from overheating.
It is notable that the Yue II has an inventor (Zhu Lin-jun) in common with Cui II and Cui III. All of Cui, Cui II, and Cui III have at least one inventor in common. Thus, there is a clear link between the inventive entities in Yue II and Cui.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Cui in view of Yue II by adding a circulating water channel formed in a housing wall of the lower vessel for circulating cooling water, in order to provide the reactor with a means of protecting the lower vessel from overheating.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cui in view of Fallon, Cui II, Cui III, and Yue as applied to claims 1 and 5-8 above, and in further view of Jefferies (US 1,153,623).
With regard to claim 9: Modified Cui further comprises a frame body 5 for being arranged at a work site to support the reactor vessel 6, wherein the frame body 5 comprises a plurality of support legs, and wherein the frame body 5 is capable of being integrated with the lower vessel, the feeding unit 81/8/9/3, the integrated grate 1, the ash/char discharge unit 7, and the discharge gate unit to achieve modular assembly (Cui: Figures 1 and 2, paragraphs [n0024]-[n0050] of Espacenet translation, see annotated Figure 2 below).
Modified Cui does not explicitly teach that the support leg of the frame is formed “by connecting segments”, i.e. that the support leg is formed from a plurality of segments that are joined together.
However, support legs formed from a plurality of joined segments are known in the art. For example, Jefferies teaches a pyrolysis reactor (gas producer) having a plurality of support legs (posts) 3 that are formed from a plurality of joined segments (Figures 1 and 3, page 1 lines 1-20 and 50-75, especially Figure 1). A person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that forming support legs from a plurality of joined segments as in Jefferies comes with several advantages including: i) increased modularity enabling easier transport and repair of the legs, ii) decreased weight compared to non-segmented legs of the same overall dimensions, and iii) potentially increased resiliency as a failure or weakness in a single segment is less likely to compromise the entire leg in comparison to a single failure or weakness in a non-segmented leg.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Cui in view of Jefferies by forming the support leg of the frame from a plurality of segments that are joined together, in order to obtain the above-discussed advantages of a segmented support.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cui in view of Fallon, Cui II, Cui III, and Yue as applied to claims 1 and 5-8 above, and in further view of Zhu et al. (CN 203395194 U), hereafter referred to as Zhu.
With regard to claim 10: In Modified Cui, the upper vessel comprises a gas outlet pipe (biomass gas outlet) 61 (Cui: Figures 1 and 2, paragraphs [n0024]-[n0050] of Espacenet translation).
Cui is silent to a shut-off valve being provided on said gas outlet pipe, said shut-off valve comprising: a valve core, a sealing portion of the valve core facing an outlet of the gas outlet pipe of the upper vessel; and a valve stem for pushing the valve core to move away from or approach the outlet of the gas outlet pipe of the upper vessel.
However, Zhu teaches a shut-off valve identical to that which is claimed (Figure 1, paragraphs [0021]-[0024] of Espacenet translation). Zhu expressly teaches that said valve is a pyrolysis gas shut-off valve (paragraph [0002] of Espacenet translation). Zhu teaches that valves are required in the delivery of pyrolysis gas to pipelines to open and close gas supply (paragraph [0004]). Zhu’s disclosure indicates that the taught valve is advantageously resistant to high temperatures and does not deform when exposed to such temperatures (paragraphs [0006]-[0007] and [0018] of Espacenet translation).
It is notable that the Zhu has an inventor (Mao-pei Cui) in common with Cui.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Cui in view of Zhu by adding a shut-off valve identical to that of the claims, said shut-off valve being provided on said gas outlet pipe 61, in order to obtain a system having a valve for opening and closing gas supply from said outlet, as is taught by Zhu to be necessary, wherein said valve is advantageously resistant to high temperatures and not deform when exposed to such temperatures.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cui in view of Fallon, Cui II, Cui III, and Yue as applied to claims 1 and 5-8 above, and in further view of Galusha (US 2,816,823).
With regard to claim 11: A pyrolysis reactor necessarily produces, or is at least necessarily capable of producing, multiple products, i.e. at least pyrolysis gas and/or vapor and char and/or ash. This fact is confirmed by the disclosure of Cui (Paragraphs [n0002]-[n0003] and [n0024] of Espacenet translation. Therefore, the reactor of modified Cui necessarily amounts to a multi-product co-generation system comprising said pyrolysis reactor.
In Modified Cui a top of the reactor vessel is provided with a vent unit (biomass gas outlet) 61 (Cui: Figures 1 and 2, paragraphs [n0024]-[n0050] of Espacenet translation).
Modified Cui is silent to the vent unit being connected to a scrubbing tank.
However, it is known in the art to connect vent units of reactors like that of Cui to a scrubbing tank. For example, Galusha teaches a pyrolysis reactor (gas producer/retort) 3 comprising a, said reactor comprising a vent unit (hot gas off-take pipe) 61 at a top of the reactor 3, wherein said vent unit is connected to a scrubbing tank (scrubber) 62 (Figure 4, Columns 5 and 6). The scrubber 62 serves the purpose of removing condensable vapors from the gas products produced by the reactor (Column 6 Lines 43-71).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Cui in view of Galusha by connecting the vent unit to a scrubbing tank (scrubber), in order to provide a means of condensing condensable vapors contained in the gaseous products produced by the pyrolysis reactor.
Cui does not explicitly teach that said vent unit 61 is an “emergency” vent unit. However, it is nevertheless possible to make use of said vent unit 61 to vent the reactor in some manner of emergency. Accordingly, said vent unit 61 qualifies as an emergency vent unit (see MPEP 2114 for guidance).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cui in view of Fallon, Cui II, Cui III, and Yue as applied to claims 1 and 5-8 above, Cui (CN 208312361 U), hereafter referred to as Cui IV.
With regard to claim 14: A pyrolysis reactor necessarily produces, or is at least necessarily capable of producing, multiple products, i.e. at least pyrolysis gas and/or vapor and char and/or ash. This fact is confirmed by the disclosure of Cui (Paragraphs [n0002]-[n0003] and [n0024] of Espacenet translation. Therefore, the reactor of modified Cui necessarily amounts to a multi-product co-generation system comprising said pyrolysis reactor.
Modified Cui is silent to the system comprising a combustion chamber a plurality of the pyrolysis reactor.
Cui IV teaches a combustion chamber configured to be used combination with a plurality of biomass pyrolyzers (gasifiers), such that the combustion chamber receives pyrolysis gas from the plurality of pyrolyzers and uses said pyrolysis gas as fuel (Figures 1-4, Espacenet Abstract, paragraphs [0011]-[0013] and [0035]-[0037] of Espacenet translation). Note: Gasifiers can be fairly characterized as pyrolysis reactors, as is evident from Cui IV’s disclosure, which describes the use of “multiple gasifiers to pyrolyze various biomass raw materials” (see paragraph [0011]).
Cui IV indicates that a system comprising multiple pyrolysis reactors (gasifiers) in connection a combustion chamber advantageously allows for the combustion chamber to operate efficiently while using multiple biomass fuels, i.e. by pyrolyzing each fuel in a respective one of the pyrolysis reactors (gasifiers) to produce pyrolysis gas and combusting said pyrolysis gas in the combustion chamber ((paragraphs [0011]-[0012], see paragraphs [0006]-[0009] for further context.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Cui in view of Cui IV by: i) adding a combustor and additional instances of the pyrolysis reactor, such that the system comprises a plurality of said pyrolysis reactor, and ii) configuring the combustor to receive pyrolysis gas produced in each of the pyrolysis reactors, in order to obtain a system which can simultaneously utilize multiple biomass feeds as a combustion fuel.
As for one or two of the plurality of pyrolysis reactors being standbys, and the remaining pyrolysis reactors being operated normally at the same time, this is merely a matter regarding the intended use and/or manner of operating the reactors. Statements of intended use and/or manner of operating do not distinguish apparatus claims from a prior art system which is capable of use/operation in the claimed manner (MPEP 2114). The system of modified Cui, having a plurality of pyrolysis reactors, is capable of use/operation such that one or two of the plurality of pyrolysis reactors are standbys, and the remaining pyrolysis reactors are operated normally at the same time. Accordingly, modified Cui satisfies the claim language regarding one or two of the plurality of pyrolysis reactors being standbys, and the remaining pyrolysis reactors operating normally at the same time (See MPEP 2114 for guidance).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 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