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 Objections
Claim(s) 3 and 6 is/are objected to because it contains/they contain informalities.
With regard to claim 3: In line 2, replace “are provided” with --is provided--.
With regard to claim 6: In line 2, replace “are provided” with --is provided--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims.
Specifically, the drawings are objected to because they fail to show the subject matter of claim 3. Claim 3 recites “wherein the input pipe of the one or more second biomass input units (21) are provided with a thermal insulation structural layer on a section inside the lower vessel (1),” (emphasis added). The drawings fail to illustrate a section of an input pipe of the one or more second biomass input units, wherein said section is positioned within the lower vessel.
Therefore, the input pipe of the one or more second biomass input units having a section positioned within the lower vessel must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 1-10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the top center of the grate" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the surface of the grate" in lines 4-. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites “the second biomass input unit (21) goes deep into the core reaction zone” in lines 7-8 (emphasis added).
The term “deep” in claim 1 is a term of degree which renders the claim indefinite. The term “deep” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Put differently, a person having ordinary skill in the art would be unable to reasonably ascertain what is “deep” and what is not. Thus, the scope of “deep into the core reaction zone” is indefinite.
For the purposes of examination, claim 1 has been treated as reciting --the second biomass input unit (21) protrudes into the core reaction zone--.
Applicant should amend claim 1 to clarify the scope thereof as appropriate.
With regard to claims 1 and 9:
Claim 1 recites “a rotatable grate (12) is integrally integrated in the lower vessel” in lines 2-3.
Claim 9 recites “a modular ash/char discharge seat (3) integrally integrable with the lower vessel (1), wherein the ash/char discharge seat (3) is detachably arranged at the bottom of the lower vessel (1),” (emphasis added).
The scope of “integrally” as used by Applicant is unclear, especially in view of claim 9. The terms “integral” and “integrally”, when used in the context of a patent claim, refer to two or more components which are not detachable from one another. However, Claim 9 expressly requires that the ash/char discharge seat which is “integrally integrable with the lower vessel” also be “detachably arranged at the bottom of the lower vessel”. Thus, it is clear that Applicant is using the term “integrally” in a manner inconsistent with its accepted meaning.
Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
The term “integrally” is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term.
Claims 2-10 are rejected due to their dependency on indefinite claim 1.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the bottom surface of the lower vessel" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the bottom surface of the grate" in lines 4-5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 is rejected due to its dependency on indefinite claim 9.
Claim 10 recites “the lower vessel (1), and the ash/char discharge seat (3) are each in ring fit” in lines 2-3. It is unclear what it means for something to be “in ring fit”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 7-10 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 Graham et al. (US 2007/0266914), hereafter referred to as Graham, and Chapman (US 1,341,044).
With regard to claim 1: Cui teaches pyrolysis reactor (Figures 1 and 2, paragraphs [n0024]-[n0050] of Espacenet translation).
A modular lower vessel provided with a first biomass input unit wherein a rotatable grate (disk body) 1 is integrally integrated in the lower vessel, and an outlet end (discharge end) 32 of an input pipe (feeding shaft) 3 of the first biomass input unit is formed at the top center of the grate 1, so that the surface of the grate 1 forms a core reaction zone of the pyrolysis reactor (Figures 1 and 2, paragraphs [n0024]-[n0050] of Espacenet translation, see annotated Figure 2 below).
And a modular upper vessel (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 modular upper vessel comprises one or more second biomass input units, wherein an outlet end of an input pipe of the second biomass input unit protrudes into the core reaction zone of the pyrolysis reactor.
Graham teaches a pyrolysis reactor (gasifier) having a first input unit 3 similar to that of Cui (Figures 1A, 2, and 3, paragraph [0058]). Note: Gasification includes an aspect of pyrolysis. Thus, the gasifier of Graham is fairly characterized as a pyrolysis reactor.
The pyrolysis reactor of Graham further comprises a second input unit (opening) 54 in an upper portion of the reactor which can be used to add supplemental fuel the core reaction zone of the reactor (Figure 3, paragraph [0086]).
It is understood that said second input unit can be used to feed biomass to reactor. Accordingly, said second input unit can be fairly characterized as a second biomass input unit.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Cui in view of Graham by adding a second biomass input unit to the modular upper vessel, wherein said second biomass input unit is configured to supply supplemental fuel (biomass) into the core reaction zone of the reactor, in order to obtain a system which is capable of feeding supplemental fuel (biomass) into the reactor.
Modified Cui remains silent to an outlet end of an input pipe of the second biomass input unit protruding into the core reaction zone of the pyrolysis reactor.
Chapman teaches a pyrolysis reactor (gas producer) having an organic material input unit positioned in a wall of the reactor, the input unit comprising: an input pipe (trough) 26 having an outlet end protruding into the core reaction zone of the pyrolysis reactor (Figures 1, 4, and 5, page 1 lines 55-110), and a screw 45 for conveying organic material through said input pipe 26 and into the reactor (Figures 1, 4, and 5, page 1 lines 55-110). A person having ordinary skill in the art will recognize that this input unit has several advantages over a second input unit like that of Graham, which is a mere opening in the wall of the reactor. Namely, the input unit of Chapman: i) by virtue of the input pipe 26 extending into the reactor, is capable of supplying feed material into a center portion of the reactor more easily than an opening which simply penetrates the reactor wall; and ii) by virtue of comprising the screw portion, is capable of supplying feed material automatically without considerable manual effort.
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 Chapman by utilizing as the second input unit, an input unit like that of Chapman, i.e. an input unit comprising an input pipe having an outlet end protruding into the core reaction zone of the pyrolysis reactor, and a screw for conveying organic material through said input pipe and into the reactor, in order to obtain a device wherein the second input unit is capable of supplying supplementary feed into a center portion of the reactor easily and without considerable manual effort.
With regard to claim 2: In modified Cui:
The input pipe of the first biomass input unit is provided internally with a screw for conveying biomass (Cui: Figures 1 and 2, paragraph [n0048]-[n0050] of Espacenet translation).
The input pipe of the second biomass unit is provided internally with a screw for conveying biomass (see rejection of claim 1 above).
With regard to claims 3 and 4: Modified Cui is silent to the input pipe of the one or more second biomass input units being provided with a thermal insulation structural layer on a section inside the lower vessel, wherein the thermal insulation structural layer is coated with an insulating material, or the thermal insulation structural layer is a circulating water-cooling layer.
However, Figure 1 of Chapman illustrates the bottom of the input pipe 26 of the input unit therein as having a hollow interior connected to a pipe (See annotated Figure 1 below). The hollow interior is further illustrated in Figure 5. These illustrations at least suggest the presence of a thermal insulation layer on a section of the input pipe inside the vessel, wherein said thermal insulation layer is a circulating water-cooling layer, or at least a thermal insulation structural layer coated with an insulating material. A person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that such a thermal insulation layer would be advantageous, as it would protect the input pipe from the heat of the pyrolysis reactor.
PNG
media_image2.png
716
814
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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 Chapman by providing the input pipe of the second biomass input unit with a thermal insulation structural layer on a section inside the lower vessel, wherein the thermal insulation structural layer is coated with an insulating material, or the thermal insulation structural layer is a circulating water-cooling layer, in order to protect the input pipe from heat.
With regard to claim 7: The upper vessel can be considered to be split by a virtual/imaginary plane.
With regard to claim 8: Modified Cui further comprises a plurality of water-cooling pipes (stirring components/agitators) 2 communicating with each other are connected in the lower vessel, the water-cooling pipes 2 fixed in the lower vessel and arranged above the surface of the grate 1 to stir and mix a biomass on the grate 1 (Figures 1 and 2, paragraphs [n0024]-[n0050] of Espacenet translation).
With regard to claim 9: Modified Cui further comprises a modular ash/char discharge seat (ash discharge device) 7 integrally integrable with the lower vessel, wherein the ash/char discharge seat is detachably arranged at the bottom of the lower vessel, circular strip-shaped ash/char discharge ports are formed at the bottom of the surface of the grate and the inner wall of the lower vessel, and waste ash/char after completion of the reaction enters the ash/char discharge seat through the ash/char discharge ports (Figures 1 and 2, paragraphs [n0024]-[n0050] of Espacenet translation).
With regard to claim 10: Respective corresponding connections of the upper vessel, the lower vessel, and the ash/char discharge seat are each in ring fit, so as to achieve modular assembly horizontally in any direction (Figures 1 and 2, paragraphs [n0024]-[n0050] of Espacenet translation).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cui in view of Graham and Chapman as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Na et al. (US 2018/0306435), hereafter referred to as Na.
With regard to claim 5: Modified Cui is silent to the top center of the grate being provided with a material distribution tower having a pointed apex and a bowl structure, the material distribution tower covering the outlet end of the input pipe of the first biomass input unit.
Na teaches a combustion reactor comprising a rotary grate 130 and a fuel material input unit (fuel supply portion) 200 having an input pipe with an outlet end formed at the top center of the grate 130 (Figure 1, paragraphs [0030]-[0035]). The tope center of the grate in Na is provided with a material distribution tower having a pointed apex (blocking member) 220 and a bowl structure (Figure 1, paragraphs [0030]-[0035], see annotated Figure 1 below). The pointed apex 220 serves to distribute incoming fuel laterally while blocking upward movement thereof (Figure 1, paragraph [0035]). It can be observed through Figure 1 that the bowl structure also serves to aid in lateral distribution of fuel.
PNG
media_image3.png
490
600
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Note: Though the reactor of Na is a combustion reactor, it is a rotary grate furnace having a feed input unit which shares the broad form and function of the first biomass input unit in Cui, as well as the claimed first biomass input unit.
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 Na by adding to the grate a material distribution tower having a pointed apex and a bowl structure, the material distribution tower covering the outlet end of the input pipe of the first biomass input unit, in order to provide the reactor with a means of latterly distributing incoming feed while blocking upward movement thereof.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cui in view of Graham and Chapman as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Taylor (US 4,225,392).
With regard to claim 6: Modified Cui is silent to the outlet end of the input pipe of the one or more second biomass input units being provided with a valve which automatically closes under gravity.
Taylor teaches a pyrolysis device having a feed input pipe (auger cylinder) 66 having a valve (hinged door) 62 disposed at an outlet end thereof, wherein said valve 62 is preferably configured to close automatically under gravity (Figure 1, Column 6, especially column 6 Lines 41-43). The valve 62 causes a buildup of material within the input pipe 66 so as to create a plug which prevents escape of gases through the input pipe (Column 6 Lines 46-58).
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 Taylor by adding a valve which automatically closes under gravity to the outlet end of the input pipe of the one or more second biomass input units, in order to provide the one or more second biomass input units with a means of creating a material plug to prevent gases from escaping through the input pipe thereof.
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 1-10 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 ‘658 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 1-10 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-15 of copending Application No. 18/772,719 (reference application).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the ‘718 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.
Citation of Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 1866730 A, US 1888586 A, US 1722495 A, US 1918739 A, US 1866730 A, US 1857354 A, US 0947065 A, US 1888585 A, US 20100313796 A1, US 20120137582 A1, US 20240240788 A1, US 9951957 B2, US 8882493 B2, US 7241322 B2, US 8001912 B2, US 4987115 A, US 5089030 A, US 8317886 B2, US 5138957 A, US 4971599 A, US 4388876 A, and US 9790443 B2 all teach devices similar to the claimed invention in that they comprise feed material input units which satisfy the “first biomass input unit” of the claimed invention.
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