Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The amendment filed April 30, 2026 has been entered.
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 1-6, 9-11 and 19 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.
Amended claim 1 now recites “a raw material input unit configured to waste plastic raw materials.” The amendment replaced the original recitation “for inputting” with “configured to” without including a verb. The claim now states that the input unit is configured to “waste” plastic raw materials, which is inconsistent with the specification. For the purposes of examination and compact prosecution the limitation has been interpreted as “a raw material input unit configured to input waste plastic raw materials,” consistent with the specification as filed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-6, 9-11 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nielsen (US 2009/0064581) in view of Kim (US 2021/0140633) and Lai (US 2016/0146461).
Claim 1: Nielsen discloses a waste plastic gasification device (title; ¶ 6). The device includes a raw material input unit for inputting waste plastic raw materials (title; ¶¶ 5-6, 11; fig. 1); a first gasification unit that is capable of pyrolyzing the materials at low temperatures using steam to produce a mixed gas and capable of preheating residual raw materials that have not been decomposed (¶¶ 23-24, 37, 41; fig. 1); a second gasification unit that is capable of further decomposing the materials through plasma to produce the mixed gas (¶¶ 32-35); a residue discharge unit that is capable of storing and discharging waste plastic residual melt slag that has not been decomposed in the second gasification unit (¶¶ 11-15); a heat exchange unit that is capable of cooling the mixed gas generated in the first and second gasification units (¶¶ 25-26; claims 7-8; heat exchanger downstream of the gas quench); wherein the second gasification unit is inclined in a direction of the residue discharge unit to discharge the slag (fig.1; bottom zone forming a slag pool and top zone with plasma torches), and wherein the second gasification unit includes an arc plasma device configured to supply heat (¶¶ 33-36)
Nielson is silent as to the first gasification unit capable of using superheated steam. However, in the same field of endeavor, Kim discloses a waste plastic gasification device that includes a raw material input unit for inputting waste plastic raw materials (title; ¶¶ 5-6, 11), and a first gasification unit that pyrolyzes the waste plastic raw materials at low temperatures using superheated steam to produce a mixed gas and preheats residual raw materials that have not been decomposed (¶¶ 14, 82-84). As taught by Kim, using superheated steam rather than other forms of heat achieves commercialization and increases the overall thermal efficiency (¶¶ 11-12). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the application to have implemented the low-temperature devolatilization/pyrolysis step of Nielsen using superheated steam as taught by Kim to enable commercialization and increase the overall thermal efficiency of the device.
Nielsen is also silent as to the unit being cylindrical or the claimed angle with the ground surface. However, in the same field of endeavor, Lai discloses a waste gasification device including a plasma treatment device in which the casing is preferably cylindrical and has a longitudinal axis that is inclined with respect to the horizontal by an angle between 0 and 45 degrees (¶¶ 27, 29), which encompasses the claimed range. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the application to have selected the cylindrical shape and angle taught by Lai to promote mixing and uniform distribution of the treated material about the axis, thereby increasing the surface exposed to plasma irradiation. Moreover, a prima facie case of obviousness typically exists when the ranges of a claimed element overlap or are encompassed by the ranges disclosed in the prior art. E.g., In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936-37 (CCPA 1976); In re Malagari, 499 F.2d 1297, 1303, 182 USPQ 549, 553 (CCPA 1974).
Claim 2: Nielson discloses a hopper that stores and shreds the materials (fig. 1; ¶ 22), and Kim discloses crushing the material further increases a decomposition rate of the fuel (¶ 70).
Claim 3: Kim discloses a conveying screw rotating to convey the fuel through the casing, and the screw divided into conveying/compression/pyrolysis sections with pitch spacing different by section, i.e., variable pitch configurations (¶¶ 14, 27-29, 35).
Claim 4: Kim discloses the conveying screw installed in the casing in a horizontal direction and rotating to convey the fuel, i.e., aligned with and parallel to the conveying direction (¶ 14; fig. 1).
Claim 5: Kim discloses the materials move inside the case, and the superheated steam moves outside the case, wherein the moving directions are in opposite directions (fig. 1; ¶¶ 14, 24 and 60).
Claim 6: Kim discloses the superheated steam at 700 degrees (¶ 59). Moreover, a claim is only limited by positively recited elements. Thus, "[i]nclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims." In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); see also In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935).
Claim 9: Nielsen discloses an internal temperature of the second unit being 1400C (¶ 33).
Claim 10: Nielsen discloses the discharge unit including a water tank capable of storing cooling water for cooling the slag (¶ 33).
Claim 11: Nielsen disclose the second unit capable of recirculating gases including carbon dioxide (¶ 34).
Claim 19: Nielsen discloses a waste plastic gasification device (title; ¶ 6). The device includes a a first gasification unit that is capable of pyrolyzing the materials at low temperatures using steam to produce a mixed gas and capable of preheating residual raw materials that have not been decomposed (¶ 23; fig. 1); a second gasification unit that is capable of further decomposing the materials through plasma to produce the mixed gas (¶ 34); a residue discharge unit that is capable of storing and discharging waste plastic residual melt slag that has not been decomposed in the second gasification unit (¶¶ 11-15), the second gasification unit being inclined in a direction of the discharge unit and being capable of discharging the slag (fig. 1; bottom zone forming a slag pool and top zone with plasma torches), and and wherein the second gasification unit includes an arc plasma device configured to supply heat (¶¶ 33-36).
Nielson is silent as to the first gasification unit capable of using superheated steam. However, in the same field of endeavor, Kim discloses a waste plastic gasification device that includes a raw material input unit for inputting waste plastic raw materials (title; ¶¶ 5-6, 11), and a first gasification unit that pyrolyzes the waste plastic raw materials at low temperatures using superheated steam to produce a mixed gas and preheats residual raw materials that have not been decomposed (¶¶ 14, 82-84). As taught by Kim, using superheated steam rather than other forms of heat achieves commercialization and increases the overall thermal efficiency (¶¶ 11-12). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the application to have implemented the low-temperature devolatilization/pyrolysis step of Nielsen using superheated steam as taught by Kim to enable commercialization and increase the overall thermal efficiency of the device.
Nielsen is also silent as to the unit being cylindrical or the claimed angle with the ground surface. However, in the same field of endeavor, Lai discloses a waste gasification device including a plasma treatment device in which the casing is preferably cylindrical and has a longitudinal axis that is inclined with respect to the horizontal by an angle between 0 and 45 degrees (¶¶ 27, 29), which encompasses the claimed range. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the application to have selected the cylindrical shape and angle taught by Lai to promote mixing and uniform distribution of the treated material about the axis, thereby increasing the surface exposed to plasma irradiation. Moreover, a prima facie case of obviousness typically exists when the ranges of a claimed element overlap or are encompassed by the ranges disclosed in the prior art. E.g., In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936-37 (CCPA 1976); In re Malagari, 499 F.2d 1297, 1303, 182 USPQ 549, 553 (CCPA 1974).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed April 30, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Nielsen describes only a vertically erected, symmetrical funnel-shaped reactor in which high-viscosity slag remains stagnant in a pool until a certain amount accumulates, and thus does not disclose the inclined second gasification unit. This argument has been considered but is not persuasive. Nielson is not relied upon alone for the cylindrical shape or claimed angle. Lai is. Moreover, Applicant’s characterization of Nielsen is contradicted by ¶ 33 of Nielsen which states that the molten slag liquid is tapped continuously from the slag pool through line 96 into a granulating water bath. Nothing in Nielsen describes slag that waits until a certain amount accumulates before being discharged. The modification in the rejection relies on Lai for the overall shape of the unit and the angle of its axis.
Applicant further argues that Kim only describes a horizontally installed screw-type pyrolysis device, and therefore does not cure the deficiencies of Nielsen. This argument has also been considered but is not persuasive. Kim is relied on solely for the use of superheated steam in the first gasification unit. As noted above, the modification in the rejection relies on Lai for the overall shape of the unit and the angle of its axis.
Applicant also argues that Lai’s casing rotates about its axis to mix the waste by centrifugal action, that Nielsen’s reactor is stationary, and that a person of ordinary skill in the art therefor would have had no motivation to combine the references. This argument is also not persuasive. The rejection does not propose importing Lai’s rotary drive into Nielsen. It relies on Lai for teaching that a plasma treatment casing that is cylindrical and has its axis inclined, within a preferred range of 0 to 45 degrees allows the residue outlet to lie at the lower end. Moreover, Lai separates the benefit of inclination from the benefit of rotation. Paragraph 73 teaches that the inclined arrangement of the casing favors, in addition to mixing, the migration and collection of the waste toward the outlet port. Paragraph 72 teaches that the residue is discharged through the outlet port with the casing stationary. Therefore, at the moment the residue is discharged in Lai, the casing is not rotating, and it is the inclination alone that moves the residue to the outlet. Rotation is a separate feature that the rejection does not rely on. Finally, the argument is not persuasive because it is not commensurate in scope with the claims. The instant claims do not require that the second gasification unit be stationary or non-rotating. Features not recited in the claim cannot distinguish over the prior art See In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344 (CCPA 1982) (limitations not appearing in the claims cannot be relied upon for patentability).
With regard to Applicant’s assertion that if Nielsen’s vertical reactor were “significantly inclined by about 45 degrees according to Lai,” a stable slag pool could not form and that the molten slag would “lean abnormally toward one side wall,” this argument is also not persuasive. The rejection does not propose inclining Nielsen’s reactor by 45 degrees. The rejection relies on the selection of an angle within Lai’s preferred range, including 15 to 25 degrees. If an inclination of 15 to 25 degrees is operable in Applicant’s device, there is no basis for the assertion that the same inclination would render Nielsen’s plasma melting zone inoperable. “The arguments of counsel cannot take the place of evidence in the record.” (MPEP 716.01(c)).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LARRY THROWER whose telephone number is (571)270-5517. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-5pm MT M-F.
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, Susan Leong can be reached at 571-270-1487. 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.
/LARRY W THROWER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1754
Prosecution Insights