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 .
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.
Claim 4 recites “an end water-cooling pipeline (34) of the discharge pipe (211) of the feeding unit (21)”. This end water-cooling pipeline of the feeding unit is not shown in the Figures. It is acknowledged that the Figures do show water-cooling pipes which are labeled with the reference numeral 34. However, the illustrated water cooling pipes 34 are clearly not end water-cooling pipelines of the discharge pipes 211, as they are not connected to the discharge pipes.
Claim 4 recites “a moving device of the heat insulation valve (212)” This moving device is not shown in the claims.
The features outlined above must be shown in the drawings 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.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “34” has been used to designate both “the end water-cooled pipe 34 of the discharge pipe 211 of the feeding device 21” and “multiple fixed water-cooled pipelines (34) [that] are connected to the seat (33)”.
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. 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.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show “the end water-cooled pipe 34 of the discharge pipe 211 of the feeding device 21” as described in the specification.
Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d).
The absence of the end water-cooled pipe of the discharge pipe is especially problematic, as they have been assigned a reference numeral (34) which is also used to designate other cooling pipes. Said other cooling pipes are attached to a seat 33 of the distribution device and, unlike the end water-cooled pipe, are shown in the Figures. Thus, the absence of the end water-cooled pipe in the Figures is likely to give the inaccurate impression that the end water cooled pipe is one or more of the cooling pipes attached to the seat 33 of the distribution device.
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 Interpretation
Claim 1 recites “a discharge pipe (211) of the feeding unit (21) being positioned into the inside of the middle vessel (2)”. The requirement that the discharge pipe of the feeding unit “positioned into the inside of the middle vessel” is interpreted as requiring that the discharge pipe protrudes into an interior volume of the middle vessel.
Claim Interpretation - 35 U.S.C. 112(f)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are described below.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim limitation “water-cooled insulation device” has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder “device” coupled with functional language “water-cooled insulation” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claim(s) 3 has/have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation: “In a preferred embodiment of the present invention, the bottom of the end water-cooled pipe 34 of the discharge pipe 211 of the feeding device 21 protrudes to allow the heat insulation valve 212 to close the discharge port in an inclined state,” (page 9 lines 26-28).
Accordingly, the claimed “water-cooled insulation device” has been interpreted as a device comprising a pipe for supplying cooling water, as well as equivalents thereof.
Claim limitation “air-cooled insulation device” has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder “device” coupled with functional language “air-cooled insulation” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claim(s) 3 has/have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
However, a review of the specification has failed to uncover any corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation.
Accordingly, the claimed “air-cooled insulation device” has been rejected under 112(b). See 112(b) rejections below for details.
Claim limitation “moving device of the heat insulation valve” has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder “device” coupled with functional language “moving… of the heat insulation valve” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claim(s) 4 has/have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
However, a review of the specification has failed to uncover any corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation.
Accordingly, the claimed “moving device of the heat insulation valve” has been rejected under 112(b). See 112(b) rejections below for details.
Claim limitation “ash/char discharge unit” has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder “unit” coupled with functional language “ash/char discharge” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claim(s) 11 and 12 has/have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation: The illustration of the ash/char discharge unit in Figure 1. To elaborate, the illustration of the ash/char discharge unit in Figure 1 is provided with sufficient detail so as to allow one of ordinary skill in the art to decern that the ash/char discharge unit is an ash/char discharge vessel.
Accordingly, the claimed “ash/char discharge unit” has been interpreted as an ash/char discharge vessel, as well as equivalents thereof.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “the middle vessel (2) being provided with at least two feeding units (21), a discharge pipe (211) of the feeding unit (21) being positioned into the inside of the middle vessel (2),” in lines 5-6.
The fac that the claim recites “at least two feeding units” and then goes on to reference merely “the feeding unit”, i.e. a single feeding unit, raises two questions:
1) Should the claim be treated as having at least two feeding units, or merely one feeding unit?
2) Is the claimed device required to have only one discharge pipe?
Presumably, it is Applicant’s intent to require that there be at least two feeding units, and that each of the feeding units comprise its own discharge pipe.
Applicant should amend claim 1 to clarify as appropriate.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the inside of the middle vessel" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the top of the integrated gate" in line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the outer circumference of the support tray" in line 16. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the surface of the integrated gate" in lines 17-18. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 2-12 are rejected due to their dependency on indefinite claim 1.
Claim 2 suffers from the same lack of clarity as claim 1 with respect to the number of feeding units and discharge pipes present in the reactor.
Presumably, it is Applicant’s intent to require that there be at least two feeding units, and that each of the feeding units comprise its own discharge pipe.
Applicant should amend claim 2 to clarify as appropriate and to ensure consistency with claim 1.
Claim 2 recites “closely adjacent” in line 2.
The term “closely” in claim 2 is a term of degree which renders the claim indefinite. The term “closely” 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. Accordingly, the scope of the term “closely adjacent” is unclear.
Claim 3 suffers from the same lack of clarity as claim 1 with respect to the number of feeding units and discharge pipes present in the reactor.
Presumably, it is Applicant’s intent to require that there be at least two feeding units, and that each of the feeding units comprise its own discharge pipe.
Applicant should amend claim 3 to clarify as appropriate and to ensure consistency with claim 1.
Claim 3 recites “an air-cooled insulation device” in lines 4-5.
Claim limitation “air-cooled insulation device” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. See 112(f) interpretations above for details.
Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim 4 suffers from the same lack of clarity as claim 1 with respect to the number of feeding units and discharge pipes present in the reactor.
Presumably, it is Applicant’s intent to require that there be at least two feeding units, and that each of the feeding units comprise its own discharge pipe.
Applicant should amend claim 4 to clarify as appropriate and to ensure consistency with claim 1.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the bottom of an end water-cooling pipeline (34) of the discharge pipe" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the top of the end water-cooling pipeline (34) of the discharge pipe" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites “the bottom of an end water-cooling pipeline (34) of the discharge pipe (211) of the feeding unit (21) protrudes so that the heat insulation valve (212) is closed at the discharge port in an inclined state,” in lines 1-3. It is unclear what structure this limitation intends to capture.
The specification does not provide any clarification regarding the structure and arrangement of the “end water-cooling pipeline”. Furthermore, the Figures do not illustrate the “end water-cooling pipeline”. Thus, Examiner is unable to determine Applicant’s intent with this limitation.
Given the language of the limitation as presently presented, it seems that Applicant is claiming the following: The discharge ports of the feeding systems are each provided with an end water-cooling pipe, wherein the end water-cooling pipes protrude from a respective one of the discharge ports in such a manner that the heat insulation valves, when closed, are disposed at a non-zero angle from horizontal and in physical contact with a bottom portion of a respective one of the end water-cooling pipes.
To overcome this rejection, Applicant should clarify this limitation as appropriate, preferably by amendment. No new matter should be added.
Claim 4 recites “a moving device of the heat insulation valve” in line 4.
Claim limitation “moving device of the heat insulation valve” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. See 112(f) interpretations above for details.
Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the bottom of the lower vessel" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the bottom of the surface of the integrated grate" in lines 4-5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the inner wall of the lower vessel" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 recites “respective corresponding joins of the upper vessel (1), the middle vessel (2), the lower vessel (3), and the ash/char discharge unit (4) each are a ring fit, to horizontally implement modular assembly adjustable in any direction” in lines 2-3. 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 12 recites the limitation "the ash/char discharge unit" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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) 1-5 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Flesch et al. (US 4,146,369), hereafter referred to as Flesch, in view of Kupfer et al. (US 4,014,664), hereafter referred to as Kupfer, Taylor (US 4,225,392), Fallon (US 2,506,782), and Chapman (US 1,341,044).
With regard to claim 1: Flesch teaches a pyrolysis reactor (gasification reactor) (abstract, Figure 2, Column 6). Note: Gasification includes an aspect of pyrolysis. Therefore, the gasification reactor of Flesch qualifies as a pyrolysis reactor.
The reactor of Flesch comprises:
A modular upper vessel (upper part) 3 the upper vessel 3 being provided with a gas collection pipeline 20 (Figure 2, Columns 3-6).
A modular middle vessel (middle part) 2, the middle vessel 2 being connected to the upper vessel 3, the middle vessel 2 being provided with at least two feeding units 11/13, each of the at least two feeding units comprising a discharge pipe 11 being positioned to feed material into inside of the middle vessel 2, each of the discharge pipes 11 having a discharge port (Figure 2, Columns 3-6).
A modular lower vessel (lower part) 1, the lower vessel 1 being connected to the middle vessel 2, the lower vessel 1 being integrated with an integrated grate (revolving grate) 4, the integrated grate 4 being rotatably provided inside the lower vessel 1, a top of the integrated grate 4 being provided with a rotatable distributor, the distributor comprising at least a material distribution tower having a pointed top structure provided at a center of the integrated grate, such that materials falling from the discharge port first fall to the pointed top structure of the material distribution tower for primary distribution (Figure 2, Columns 3-6).
Flesch does not explicitly teach that the distributor further comprises a support tray, wherein the material distribution tower is provided at the center of the support tray, such that materials after primary distribution by the distribution tower evenly fall to an outer circumference of the support tray for secondary distribution, and then more evenly fall to a surface of the integrated grate.
However, Flesch does provide substantial detail concerning the structure of the rotary grate. Given this lack of substantial detail, a person having ordinary skill in the art would be motived to look to prior art examples of rotary grates in order to determine a suitable specific structure for said grate. Indeed, Flesch teaches that “The fixed bed gasification zone F for gasifying the fuel in a stationary or quasi stationary bed is in the form of a shaft and is fitted with a revolving grate 4, which may be of known construction.” (Column 3 Lines 34-37). This teaching by Flesch amounts to an explicit suggestion that a person having ordinary skill in the art should consult the prior art to determine a suitable specific structure for said rotary grate.
Kupfer teaches a rotary grate for a gasification reactor (abstract, Figure 1, Column 3 Line 55-Column 5 Line 45). The rotary grate of Kupfer comprises a rotatable distributor (inner part) 3a comprising a support tray 11/8a/8b and a material distribution tower 9 having a pointed top structure and provided at the center of the support tray 11/8a/8b, such that materials falling onto the rotary grate first fall to the pointed top structure of the material distribution tower 9 for primary distribution, the materials after primary distribution evenly fall to an outer circumference of the support tray 11/8a/8b for secondary distribution, and then more evenly falling to a surface (outer part) 3b of the grate (Figure 1, Column 3 Line 55-Column 5 Line 45). A person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize the rotary grate of Kupfer as a rotary grate of “known construction” suitable for use as the rotary gate in Flesch.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Flesch in view of Kupfer by selecting a rotary grate having the structure taught by Kupfer for use as the rotary grate in Flesch, in order to provide the device of Flesch with a rotary grate having a specific structure, said rotary grate being of “known construction” in accordance with the express suggestion of Flesch.
Modified Flesch is silent to the discharge port of each discharge pipe being provided with a heat insulation valve capable of being automatically closed 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). Though it is not expressly taught by Taylor, it is understood that said valve will necessarily provide some degree of heat insulation, e.g. by preventing escape of gases. Thus, said valve constitutes a heat insulation valve.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Flesch in view of Taylor by adding a valve which automatically closes under gravity to the discharge port of each of the discharge pipes, in order to provide the feed units with a means of creating a material plug to prevent gases from escaping through the input pipe thereof. Said valves necessarily provide some degree of heat insulation, e.g. by preventing escape of gases, and therefore, said valves constitute heat insulation valves.
Modified Flesch is silent to the middle vessel being detachably connected to the upper vessel and the lower vessel being detachably connected to the middle vessel.
However, it is well-known in the art to construct gasification devices from several vessels that are detachably connected to one another. For example, Fallon teaches a 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.
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 further modify Flesch in view of Fallon by configuring the upper and middle vessels to be detachably connected and by configuring the lower and middle vessels to be detachably connected, in order to obtain a reactor which is easier to assemble and disassemble.
Modified Flesch does not explicitly teach that the discharge pipes of the feeding units are “positioned into the inside of the middle vessel”, i.e. that the discharge pipes protrude into an interior volume of the middle vessel.
Chapman teaches a pyrolysis reactor (gas producer) having an organic material feeding unit positioned in a wall of the reactor, the input unit comprising: a discharge pipe (trough) 26 having a discharge port 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 feeding unit has advantages over a feeding unit like that of Flesch, which is does not extend past the inner surface of the reactor wall. Namely, the feeding unit of Chapman by virtue of the discharge pipe 26 extending into the reactor, is capable of supplying feed material into a center portion of the reactor more easily than a feeding unit which does not extend past the inner surface of the reactor wall, thereby enabling better distribution of feed material.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Flesch in view of Chapman by configuring the discharge pipes of the feeding units to protrude into an interior volume of the middle vessel, such that they are “positioned into the inside of the middle vessel”, in order to obtain a device wherein the feeding units are better able to supply feed material into a center portion of the reactor, thereby enabling better distribution of feed material.
With regard to claim 2: In modified Flesch, the discharge port of the discharge pipes 11 of the feeding units 11/13 are provided above the distributor (Flesch: Figure 2, Columns 3-6).
As discussed in the rejection of claim 1 above, the discharge pipes in modified Flesch protrude into an interior volume of the middle vessel. Therefore, said discharge pipes are inserted into a core feed zone and a reaction zone inside the pyrolysis reactor.
The discharge ports of the discharge pipes in modified Flesch can be fairly considered to be closely adjacent to the distributer of the rotary grate (Flesch: Figure 2, Columns 3-6).
With regard to claim 3: Modified Flesch does not explicitly teach that each of the discharge pipes are provided with an external insulation structure to isolate a temperature inside the pyrolysis reactor, so as to avoid an excessively high temperature inside the discharge pipes, wherein the external insulation structure is an insulation layer, a water-cooled insulation device, or an air-cooled insulation device.
However, Figure 1 of Chapman illustrates the bottom of the discharge pipe 26 of the feeding 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_image1.png
716
814
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Flesch in view of Chapman by providing each of the discharge pipes with an external insulation structure to isolate a temperature inside the pyrolysis reactor, so as to avoid an excessively high temperature inside the discharge pipes, wherein the external insulation structure is a water-cooled insulation device, or at least an insulation layer, in order to protect the discharge pipes from heat.
With regard to claim 4: In modified Flesch, the heat insulation valves are rotatably provided at each discharge port such that when the close, they are in an inclined state, i.e. they are disposed at a non-zero angle from horizontal, an in physical contact with a bottom of the respective discharge port, wherein a moving device (a hinge) of each heat insulation valve, is provided at a top end of each discharge port (Taylor: Figure 1, Column 6, especially column 6 Lines 41-43; see rejection of claim 1 above).
Modified Flesch is silent to each discharge port being provided with an end water-cooling pipeline which: i) protrudes from the respective discharge port such that the respective heat insulation valve is in physical contact with a bottom of the respective end water-cooling pipeline when closed, and i) is disposed such that the moving device of the respective heat insulation valve is provided at a top of the respective end water-cooling pipeline.
However, it is known in the art to provide discharge ports with end water-cooling pipelines. For example, Figure 1 of Chapman illustrates the bottom of the discharge pipe 26 of the feeding 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 an end water cooling pipe disposed at the discharge port of the discharge pipe 26. A person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that such an end water cooling pipe would be advantageous, as it would protect the input pipe from the heat of the pyrolysis reactor.
PNG
media_image1.png
716
814
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As for the end water cooling pipes protruding from the respective discharge port such that the respective heat insulation valve is in physical contact with a bottom of the respective end water-cooling pipeline when closed, and being disposed such that the moving device of the respective heat insulation valve is provided at a top of the respective end water-cooling pipeline, a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize such an arrangement as advantageously protecting the respective heat insulation valves and the moving devices thereof from heat.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Flesch in view of Chapman by providing each of the discharge ports with an end water-cooling pipeline which: i) protrudes from the respective discharge port such that the respective heat insulation valve is in physical contact with a bottom of the respective end water-cooling pipeline when closed, and i) is disposed such that the moving device of the respective heat insulation valve is provided at a top of the respective end water-cooling pipeline, in order to protect each discharge pipe and the respective discharge port, heat insulation valve, and moving device thereof, from the heat of the pyrolysis reactor.
With regard to claim 5: In modified Flesch, the material distribution tower 9 is rotatably provided on the support tray 11/8a/8b (Kupfer: Figure 1, Column 3 Line 55-Column 5 Line 45).
With regard to claim 10: The integrated grate 4 is integrated with an air inlet pipe 5, and an air inlet of the air inlet pipe is introduced at the bottom of the integrated grate (Flesch: Figure 2, Columns 3-6).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Flesch, in view of Kupfer, Taylor, Fallon, and Chapman as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Koller (US 1,527,879).
With regard to claim 6: Modified Flesch does not explicitly teach that the material distribution tower is provided with a blade configured to push materials outwards.
However, it is known in the art to provide material distribution towers with blades for the purpose of pushing materials outwards. For example, Koller teaches a rotary grate having a material distribution tower fitted with such blades b7 (Figures 1 and 2, page 1). A person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that such a blade would enhance the ability of the distribution tower to radially distribute material.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Flesch in view of Koller by providing the material distribution tower with a blade configured to push material outwards, in order to enhance the ability of the distribution tower to radially distribute material.
Claim(s) 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Flesch, in view of Kupfer, Taylor, Fallon, and Chapman as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Cui et al. (CN 112680239 A), hereafter referred to as Cui.
With regard to claims 7-9: Modified Flesch is silent to the structure recited in claims 7-9.
However, rotary grates having such structures are known in the art. For example, Cui teaches a reactor having a rotary grate featuring said structures (see Figure 1, PE2E English language translation). It is well established that it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute one known element for another in order to obtain predictable results (MPEP 2143).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Flesch in view of Cui by replacing the rotary grate of modified Flesch with a rotary grate like that of Cui, in order to obtain a predictably functional pyrolysis (gasification) device, thereby arriving at the reactor of claims 7-9.
Claim(s) 11 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Flesch, in view of Kupfer, Taylor, Fallon, and Chapman as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Weaver (US 4,659,340).
With regard to claim 11: Modified Flesch further comprises:
A modular ash/char discharge unit (lock) 6 capable of being integrated with the lower vessel 1, said ash/char discharge unit being provided at a bottom of the lower vessel (Flesch: Figure 2, Columns 3-6).
And a circular strip-shaped ash/char discharge port formed between the bottom surface of the integrated grate and the inner wall of the lower vessel (Flesch: Figure 2, Columns 3-6; Kupfer: Figure 1, Column 3 Line 55-Column 5 Line 45).
Wherein after a reaction in the reactor is complete, waste may enter the ash/char discharge unit through the ash/char discharge port.
Modified Flesch does not explicitly teach that the ash/char discharge unit is detachably provided at a bottom of the lower vessel.
However, it is well-known in the art to construct gasification devices such that the ash/char discharge unit is detachably connected to the bottom of the reactor vessel. For example, Weaver teaches a gasification reactor having an ash/char discharge unit that is detachably connected to the bottom of the reactor vessel (Figure 1, Columns 3-9, especially column 6). It is noted that while Weaver does not explicitly state that each of said ash/char discharge unit (ash chamber hopper) 106 is detachably connected to the bottom of the reactor vessel, because said ash/char discharge unit is bolted to the bottom of the rector vessel, as is clearly illustrated in Figure 1, it is understood that said ash/char discharge unit is detachable.
As would be clear to one of ordinary skill in the art, forming a gasification device such that the ash/char discharge unit is detachable brings several advantages. Namely, a detachable ash/char discharge unit will make the device easier to assemble and disassemble, e.g. for the purposes of repair or relocation, especially when the ash/char discharge unit is in need of maintenance, repair, or replacement.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Flesch in view of Weaver by configuring ash/char discharge unit to be detachably connected to the bottom of the lower vessel, in order to obtain a reactor which is easier to assemble and disassemble, e.g. for the purposes of repair, especially when the ash/char discharge unit is in need of maintenance, repair, or replacement.
With regard to claim 12: Modified Flesch does not explicitly teach that respective corresponding joins of the upper vessel, the middle vessel, the lower vessel, and the ash/char discharge unit are each a ring fit, to horizontally implement modular assembly adjustable 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, both Fallon and Weaver illustrate connecting adjacent detachable components by joining together two flanges with bolts (Fallon: Figure 1; Weaver: 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 Flesch in view of Fallon and/or Weaver by configuring respective corresponding joins (connections) of the upper vessel, the middle vessel, the lower vessel, and the ash/char discharge unit to be a ring fits, i.e. joinings 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 Flesch would enable one horizontally implement modular assembly adjustable in any direction.
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 1-12 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 1-12 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.
Kitson (US 596,018) teaches a reactor similar to that of the claims.
Chapman (US 1,441,330) is similar in scope to the Chapman reference relied upon in the 103 rejections above.
Byrne (US 1,872,883) teaches a reactor similar to that of the claims.
Stryker (US 2,126,150) teaches a reactor similar to that of the claims.
Stryker (US 2,216,792) teaches a reactor similar to that of the claims.
Kaimann et al. (US 4,200,438) is similar in scope to the Flesch reference relied upon in the 103 rejections above.
Yu et al. (US 7,794,514) teaches a reactor similar to that of the claims.
Francu et al. (US 2024/0010941) teaches a reactor similar to that of the claims.
Ge et al. (CN 103382402 A) teaches a reactor similar to that of the claims.
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