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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-13 and 19-20, and species A, claims 1-11 and 19-20, in the reply filed on December 16, 2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 12-18 have been canceled. Claims 1-11 and 19-20 are under examination.
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 1-11 and 19-20 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.
The term “low temperatures” in claims 1 and 19 is a relative term which renders the claims indefinite. The term 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.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the variable pitch screw case." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the ground surface." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 1-7, 9-11 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nielsen (US 2009/0064581) in view of Kim (US 2021/0140633).
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; 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); 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).
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.
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 7: Nielsen discloses plasma arc torches (¶¶ 34-35).
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).
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.
Claim 20: Nielsen discloses 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).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nielsen (US 2009/0064581) in view of Kim (US 2021/0140633), as applied to claim 7 above, further in view of Lai (US 2016/0146461).
Claim 8: Nielsen is 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).
Conclusion
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