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 .
Claim Interpretation
Claim 13 recites “wherein after the lower vessel (12) of the reactor vessel (1), a frame body (6), the feeding unit (2), the integrated grate (3), the ash/char discharge unit (4), and the discharge gate unit (5) are pre-assembled completely to be integrated into a whole, a three-dimensional space occupied thereby is smaller than or equal to a loading space of a loading vehicle, so that the loaded vehicle satisfies road transportation requirements.”
Examiner interprets this limitation as requiring that the pyrolysis reactor fits onto or into a road vehicle when assembled.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 13 is/are objected to because it contains/they contain informalities.
Claim 13 is objectionably narrative in its format.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 5-9, 12, and 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 5 recites “the two discharge gate plates” in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
To overcome this rejection, Examiner suggests amending lines 9-10 of claim 5 to recite the following: --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.--
Claims 6-8 are rejected due to their dependency on indefinite claim 5.
Claim 9 recites “the reactor housing” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 recites “wherein respective corresponding joins of the reactor vessel (1), the feeding unit (2), the integrated grate (3), the ash/char discharge unit (4), and the discharge gate unit (5) each are a ring fit, so as to achieve modular assembly horizontally in any direction.” It is unclear what it means for something to be “a ring fit”.
For the purposes of examination, the term “a ring fit” has been interpreted as referring to a joining of two flanges.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the loaded vehicle" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(d)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 14 recites “A multi-product co-generation system, comprising the pyrolysis reactor according to claim 1.”
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 pyrolysis reactor of claim 1 necessarily amounts to a multi-product co-generation system comprising said pyrolysis reactor.
Because claim 14 does not require any additional components beyond the reactor of claim 1, claim 14 fails to limit the scope of claim 1 upon which it depends.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 4, and 12-14 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, vertical screw feeder 9, and feeding shaft 3 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 and feeding shaft 3 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 (feeding shaft) 3 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 81/8/9/3 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).
PNG
media_image1.png
616
500
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Cui does not explicitly teach that the upper and lower vessels are detachable.
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 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 detachable, 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.
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 12: Modified Cui does not explicitly teach that respective corresponding joins of the reactor vessel, the feeding unit, the integrated grate, the ash/char discharge unit, and the discharge gate unit each are a ring fit, so as to achieve modular assembly horizontally in any direction.
However, connections between adjacent detachable components in the form of “a ring fit”, i.e. a joining of two flanges, is notoriously well-known in the art. For example, Fallon illustrates connecting adjacent detachable components by joining together two flanges with bolts (Fallon: Figure 1). Such connection by the joining of two flanges with bolts is understood to be advantageous, as the flanges, by projecting out from the sides of the joined components, leave the joining bolts accessible for tightening or loosening.
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 Fallon by configuring respective corresponding joins of the reactor vessel, the feeding unit, the integrated grate, the ash/char discharge unit, and the discharge gate unit each to be a ring fit, i.e. a joining of two flanges using bolts, in order to obtain a device wherein the bolts are left accessible after joining for convenient tightening or loosening.
Because the joins (connections) are ring fits, i.e. joinings of two flanges, the device of modified Cui would allow one to achieve modular assembly horizontally in any direction.
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.
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.
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) 15 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 14 above, and in further view of Cui (CN 208312361 U), hereafter referred to as Cui IV.
With regard to claim 15: 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 12-14 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, vertical screw feeder 9, and feeding shaft 3 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 and feeding shaft 3 thereof) (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 (feeding shaft) 3 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 81/8/9/3 and the integrated grate (Figures 1 and 2, paragraphs [n0024]-[n0050] of Espacenet translation, see annotated Figure 2 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
616
500
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Cui does not explicitly teach that the upper and lower vessels are detachable.
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 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 detachable, 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.
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.
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 12: Modified Cui does not explicitly teach that respective corresponding joins of the reactor vessel, the feeding unit, the integrated grate, the ash/char discharge unit, and the discharge gate unit each are a ring fit, so as to achieve modular assembly horizontally in any direction.
However, connections between adjacent detachable components in the form of “a ring fit”, i.e. a joining of two flanges, is notoriously well-known in the art. For example, Fallon illustrates connecting adjacent detachable components by joining together two flanges with bolts (Fallon: Figure 1). Such connection by the joining of two flanges with bolts is understood to be advantageous, as the flanges, by projecting out from the sides of the joined components, leave the joining bolts accessible for tightening or loosening.
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 Fallon by configuring respective corresponding joins of the reactor vessel, the feeding unit, the integrated grate, the ash/char discharge unit, and the discharge gate unit each to be a ring fit, i.e. a joining of two flanges using bolts, in order to obtain a device wherein the bolts are left accessible after joining for convenient tightening or loosening.
Because the joins (connections) are ring fits, i.e. joinings of two flanges, the device of modified Cui would allow one to achieve modular assembly horizontally in any direction.
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.
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.
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 claim 14 above, 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) 15 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 claim 14 above, Cui (CN 208312361 U), hereafter referred to as Cui IV.
With regard to claim 15: 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).
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.
Claims 1-15 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-10 of copending Application No. 18/775,375 (reference application).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the ‘375 application anticipate or otherwise render obvious the present claims.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-15 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-12 of copending Application No. 18/775,648 (reference application).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the ‘648 application render the present claims obvious.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Citation of Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
CN 202371185 U and CN 203395221 U both have at least one inventor in common with the present application and teach valves relevant to the subject matter of claim 10.
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