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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on two applications (10-2023-0176028 and 10-2024-0041179) filed in Korea on 12/6/2023 and 3/26/2024. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of either application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Furthermore, on 5/6/2025, attempts were made by the Office to electronically retrieve both of said applications. Said attempts failed. See two documents titled “Document indicating retrieval request was unsuccessful”, both dated 5/6/2025.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because they are of poor quality and/or low resolution.
Figures 1-9 are of poor quality and/or low resolution and thus, appear fuzzy or blurry, for lack of a better term. Consequently, much of the text in said Figures is illegible or barely legible. Furthermore, at least Figures 2-7 and possibly Figure 9 contain low quality/resolution photographs. Due to the low quality of said photographs, the subject(s) thereof cannot be clearly decerned.
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 “DB storage step” and Claim 4 recites a “DB storage means”. In the context of Applicant’s disclosure and claims, the term “DB” is understood to refer to a --database--.
Accordingly, the “DB storage step” has been interpreted as a --database storage step--. Likewise, the “DB storage means” has been interpreted as a --database storage means--.
Claim Interpretation - 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.
Claim limitation “first monitoring means” 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 “means” coupled with functional language “monitoring” and “acquiring first data” 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) 1-4 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 has failed to uncover any explicitly disclosed corresponding structure in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation. However, paragraph [0037] of the specification indicates that “the first data [obtained by the first monitoring means] and the second data [obtained by the second monitoring means] may be visual information, and the visual information may be an image.” Accordingly, the specification implicitly discloses that the structure corresponding to the first and second monitoring means is a camera.
Accordingly, the claimed “first monitoring means” has been interpreted as a camera, as well as equivalents thereof.
Claim limitation “second monitoring means” 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 “means” coupled with functional language “monitoring” and “acquiring second data” 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) 1-4 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 has failed to uncover any explicitly disclosed corresponding structure in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation. However, paragraph [0037] of the specification indicates that “the first data [obtained by the first monitoring means] and the second data [obtained by the second monitoring means] may be visual information, and the visual information may be an image.” Accordingly, the specification implicitly discloses that the structure corresponding to the first and second monitoring means is a camera.
Accordingly, the claimed “second monitoring means” has been interpreted as a camera, as well as equivalents thereof.
Claim limitation “pyrolysis reaction means” 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 “means” coupled with functional language “Pyrolysis reaction” and “configured to perform at least one of torrefaction, biochar reaction, drying, activated carbon reaction, and carbonization” 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) 1-4 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 present invention provides a rotary pyrolysis reaction apparatus 100 including a kiln type indirect pyrolysis reaction means constituted by an outer cylinder 200 configured to allow external hot air to be supplied thereinto and an inner cylinder 300 configured to allow a raw material to move therein,” (paragraph [0056]).
Accordingly, the claimed “pyrolysis reaction means” has been interpreted as an indirectly heated rotary kiln, as well as equivalents thereof.
Claim limitation “raw material input means” 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 “means” coupled with functional language “raw material input” and “configured to input a raw material and to acquire first data through a first monitoring means” 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.
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 present invention provides… a raw material inlet 110 located at one side of the pyrolysis reaction means, the raw material inlet 110 being configured to allow a raw material to be input to the pyrolysis reaction means therethrough, a reactant outlet 120 located at the other side of the pyrolysis reaction means, which is opposite the raw material inlet 110, the reactant outlet 120 being configured to allow a pyrolysis reactant, which is the raw material that has been pyrolyzed, to be discharged therethrough… a first monitoring means 700 installed in the vicinity of the raw material inlet 110, the first monitoring means 700 being configured to monitor a raw material input through the raw material inlet 110 and to transmit first data acquired through monitoring, a second monitoring means 710 installed in the vicinity of the reactant outlet 120, the second monitoring means 710 being configured to monitor a reactant discharged through the reactant outlet 120 and to transmit second data acquired through monitoring,” (paragraph [0056]).
Accordingly, the claimed “raw material input means” has been interpreted as an inlet, said inlet either: i) comprising the first monitoring means (a camera; see above), or ii) cooperating with the first monitoring means, so as to allow the first monitoring means to monitor a raw material passing through said inlet, as well as equivalents thereof.
Claim limitation “reactant discharge means” 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 “means” coupled with functional language “reactant discharge” and “configured to discharge a pyrolyzed reactant and to acquire second data through a second monitoring means” 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.
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 present invention provides… a raw material inlet 110 located at one side of the pyrolysis reaction means, the raw material inlet 110 being configured to allow a raw material to be input to the pyrolysis reaction means therethrough, a reactant outlet 120 located at the other side of the pyrolysis reaction means, which is opposite the raw material inlet 110, the reactant outlet 120 being configured to allow a pyrolysis reactant, which is the raw material that has been pyrolyzed, to be discharged therethrough… a first monitoring means 700 installed in the vicinity of the raw material inlet 110, the first monitoring means 700 being configured to monitor a raw material input through the raw material inlet 110 and to transmit first data acquired through monitoring, a second monitoring means 710 installed in the vicinity of the reactant outlet 120, the second monitoring means 710 being configured to monitor a reactant discharged through the reactant outlet 120 and to transmit second data acquired through monitoring,” (paragraph [0056]).
Accordingly, the claimed “reactant discharge means” has been interpreted as an outlet for discharging a reaction product, said outlet either: i) comprising the second monitoring means (a camera; see above), or ii) cooperating with the second monitoring means, so as to allow the second monitoring means to monitor the reaction product as it passes through said outlet, as well as equivalents thereof.
Claim limitation “image sample collection means” 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 “means” coupled with functional language “image sample collection” and “configured to additionally obtain image samples in order to improve accuracy of the first data and the second data” 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.
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 “image sample collection means” has been rejected under 112(b). See 112(b) rejections below.
Claim limitation “DB [i.e. database] storage means” 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 “means” coupled with functional language “[database] storage” and “acquiring second data” 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.
A review of the specification has failed to uncover any explicitly disclosed corresponding structure in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation. However, a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize the corresponding structure for a database storage means as being any number of data storage devices, for example, a hard drive, a solid state disk, an optical disk, etc.
Accordingly, the claimed “second monitoring means” has been interpreted as a one or more data storage devices, such as a hard drive, a solid state disk, an optical disk, etc., as well as equivalents thereof.
Claim limitation “labeling means” 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 “means” coupled with functional language “labeling” and “configured to assign labels to the first data and the second data based on the stored DB values” 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.
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 “labeling means” has been rejected under 112(b). See 112(b) rejections below.
Claim limitation “data processing means” 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 “means” coupled with functional language “data processing” and “means configured to assign a water content evaluation value to the label of the first data to derive a correlation between the RGB value and the water content, to assign a heating value evaluation value to the label of the second data to derive a correlation between the RGB value and the heating value, and to compare the first data and the second data with the data stored in the DB through simulation to generate third data, which is an estimated water content, and fourth data, which is an estimated heating value” 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.
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 “data processing means” has been rejected under 112(b). See 112(b) rejections below.
Claim limitation “control value deriving means” 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 “means” coupled with functional language “control value deriving” and “control value deriving means configured to derive control values of a pyrolysis temperature and a pyrolysis time required to secure heating value-based quality of the pyrolyzed reactant based on the third data and the fourth data generated by the data processing means” 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.
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 “data processing means” has been rejected under 112(b). See 112(b) rejections below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-4 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 “a data processing step of assigning a water content evaluation value to the label of the first data to derive a correlation between the RGB value and the water content, assigning a heating value evaluation value to the label of the second data to derive a correlation between the RGB value and the heating value, and comparing the first data and the second data with the data stored in the DB through simulation to generate third data, which is an estimated water content, and fourth data, which is an estimated heating value;” in lines 18-27.
The scope of the data processing step is unclear. Examiner has been unable to interpret said step in a way which makes technical sense and is also consistent with the claim language.
It appears that the data processing step is either:
1) comprised of multiple sub-steps, wherein said sub steps include at least: a) deriving first and second correlations using the first data, the second data, and the stored data; and b) using said correlations, generating third and fourth data from the first and second data; or
2) contains unnecessary, confusing, and/or redundant language.
Concerning the first case, it may be that Applicant intends for the step of “data processing” to involve: a) by comparing the first data with the stored data, deriving a first correlation between an RGB value and water content; b) by comparing the second data with the stored data; deriving a second correlation between an RGB value and heating value; c) using the first correlation, determining a water content value corresponding to the first data and outputting said water content value as third data; and d) using the second correlation, determining a heating value corresponding to the second data and outputting said heating value as fourth data.
However, there are clear issues with this possibility. Namely, if the first data and the second data are used to generate first and second correlations, then the water content and heating value corresponding to the first and second data must already be known. Thus, it is either impossible to generate the first and second correlations using the first and second data or unnecessary to use the correlations to generate the third and fourth data.
Concerning again the first case, it might be that Applicant intends for the step of data processing to involve using the first and second data to refine preexisting first and second correlations, and then using the refined first and second correlations to generate third and fourth data from the first and second data.
However, this interpretation has the same issue as the previous, if the first data and the second data are used to generate first and second correlations, then the water content and heating value corresponding to the first and second data must already be known. Thus, it is either impossible to refine the first and second correlations using the first and second data or unnecessary to use the correlations to generate the third and fourth data. In any event, the claim does not provide any indication that such first and second correlations exist prior to being generated in the data processing step.
Concerning yet again the first case, it might be that Applicant intends for the step of data processing to involve: a) deriving a first correlation between an RGB value and water content using an earlier recorded first data; b) deriving a second correlation between an RGB value and heating value using an earlier recorded second data; c) using the first correlation, determining a water content value corresponding to a later recorded first data and outputting said water content value as third data; and d) using the second correlation, determining a heating value corresponding to a later recorded second data and outputting said heating value as fourth data.
While this interpretation makes sense logically, the claim language contains no indication that multiple first data and second data are involved in the process. Furthermore, under such an interpretation, the data processing step would include several sub-steps which occur at completely different times. Given the timewise separation of such sub-steps, it is questionable to whether or not they could be fairly described as amounting to a single data-processing step.
Concerning the second case, it is possible that the step of data processing could merely be a step of comparing the first and second data to the stored data to generate third and fourth data. However, the language to “assigning a water content evaluation value to the label of the first data to derive a correlation between the RGB value and the water content…” very much implies a different process from “comparing the first data and the second data with the data stored in the DB through simulation to generate third data, which is an estimated water content”. If the step of data processing is intended to amount merely to a step of comparing data to generate third and fourth data, then the claim language defining said step is redundant and misleading.
As exemplified by the above discussion, it is unclear how the claimed “data processing step” should be treated. Examiner has been unable to find sufficient clarification in the specification. Therefore, on account of the claimed “data processing step”, Examiner is unable to conduct a proper comparison of claim 1 and its dependents to the prior art.
To overcome this rejection, Applicant should amend claim 1 to clarify the scope of the claimed “data processing step” as appropriate.
Claim 1 recites “the pyrolysis reaction step is performed by a pyrolysis reaction means configured to perform at least one of torrefaction, biochar reaction, drying, activated carbon reaction, and carbonization,” in lines 33-36.
This limitation renders the scope of the pyrolysis reaction step indefinite by seemingly allowing the pyrolysis reaction step to be satisfied by processes which do not involve pyrolysis.
“Torrefaction” is understood to be a type of mild pyrolysis. The term “carbonization” is more or less synonymous with “pyrolysis”. Thus, when the pyrolysis reaction means is configured to perform at least one of torrefaction and carbonization, it is understood that the pyrolysis reaction step will involve pyrolysis.
However, the scope of “biochar reaction” is broad, and can be reasonably construed as encompassing non-pyrolytic reactions involving biochar, such as combustion of biochar without any pyrolysis.
Likewise, the scope of “activated carbon reaction” is broad, and can be reasonably construed as encompassing non-pyrolytic reactions involving activated carbon.
It is well understood that drying does not necessarily involve pyrolysis.
In view of the above, it seems claim 1 allows for the pyrolysis reaction step to be performed by a pyrolysis reaction means configured to perform at least one of drying, a biochar reaction, and an activated carbon reaction, without any pyrolysis reaction. Consequently, it seems that said claim allows for the pyrolysis reaction step to be a step that does not actually involve pyrolysis.
For the purposes of examination, the lines 33-36 of claim 1 have been treated as reciting --the pyrolysis reaction step is performed by a pyrolysis reaction means configured to perform at least one of torrefaction and carbonization--.
To overcome this rejection, Examiner suggests amending claim 1 to make it clear that the pyrolysis reaction means must be configured to perform a pyrolysis reaction.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the stored DB values" in line 14. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the RGB value" in line 20. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the data stored in the DB" in line 24. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 2-3 are rejected due to their dependency on indefinite claim 1.
Claim 4 recites “a data processing means configured to assign a water content evaluation value to the label of the first data to derive a correlation between the RGB value and the water content, to assign a heating value evaluation value to the label of the second data to derive a correlation between the RGB value and the heating value, and to compare the first data and the second data with the data stored in the DB through simulation to generate third data, which is an estimated water content, and fourth data, which is an estimated heating value;” in lines 19-28.
The claimed “data processing means” suffers from a lack of clarity for substantially the same reasons as the “data processing step” recited in claim 1 (see 112(b) rejections of claim 1 above for details).
The scope of the “data processing means” as claimed is unclear, and Examiner has been unable to find sufficient clarification in the specification. Therefore, on account of the claimed “data processing means”, Examiner is unable to conduct a proper comparison of claim 4 to the prior art.
To overcome this rejection, Applicant should amend claim 4 to clarify the scope of the claimed “data processing means” as appropriate.
Claim 4 recites “wherein the pyrolysis reaction means performs at least one of torrefaction, biochar reaction, drying, activated carbon reaction, and carbonization,” in lines 35-37.
This limitation renders the scope of the pyrolysis reaction means indefinite by seemingly allowing the pyrolysis reaction means to be satisfied by a device which is not actually capable of pyrolysis.
“Torrefaction” is understood to be a type of mild pyrolysis. The term “carbonization” is more or less synonymous with “pyrolysis”. Thus, when the pyrolysis reaction means is configured to perform at least one of torrefaction and carbonization, it is understood that the pyrolysis reaction step will involve pyrolysis.
However, the scope of “biochar reaction” is broad, and can be reasonably construed as encompassing non-pyrolytic reactions involving biochar, such as combustion of biochar without any pyrolysis.
Likewise, the scope of “activated carbon reaction” is broad, and can be reasonably construed as encompassing non-pyrolytic reactions involving activated carbon.
It is well understood that drying does not necessarily involve pyrolysis.
In view of the above, claim 4 allows for the pyrolysis reaction means to be a device that is configured to perform at least one of drying, a biochar reaction, and an activated carbon reaction, without any pyrolysis reaction. Consequently, said claim allows for the pyrolysis reaction means to be a device which is not actually capable of performing pyrolysis.
For the purposes of examination, the lines 35-37 of claim 4 have been treated as reciting -- the pyrolysis reaction means performs at least one of torrefaction and carbonization --.
To overcome this rejection, Examiner suggests amending claim 4 to make it clear that the pyrolysis reaction means must be configured to perform a pyrolysis reaction.
Claim 4 recites “an image sample collection means” in line 10.
Claim limitation “image sample collection means” 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.
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 recites “a labeling means” in line 16.
Claim limitation “labeling means” 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.
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 recites “a data processing means” in line 19.
Claim limitation “data processing means” 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.
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 recites “a control value deriving means” in line 29.
Claim limitation “control value deriving means” 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.
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 Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 recites an abstract idea comprising:
A DB storage step normalizing the obtained image samples into time series data and storing RGB code values in a DB;
a labeling step of assigning labels to the first data and the second data based on the stored DB values;
a data processing step of assigning a water content evaluation value to the label of the first data to derive a correlation between the RGB value and the water content, assigning a heating value evaluation value to the label of the second data to derive a correlation between the RGB value and the heating value, and comparing the first data and the second data with the data stored in the DB through simulation to generate third data, which is an estimated water content, and fourth data, which is an estimated heating value; and
a control value deriving step of deriving control values of a pyrolysis temperature and a pyrolysis time required to secure heating value-based quality of the pyrolyzed reactant based on the third data and the fourth data generated through the data processing step,
(claim 1, lines 13-32).
Said abstract idea could be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper, and thus falls within the mental processes grouping (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)III). It is noted that “The use of a physical aid (e.g., pencil and paper or a slide rule) to help perform a mental step (e.g., a mathematical calculation) does not negate the mental nature of the limitation, but simply accounts for variations in memory capacity from one person to another,” (MPEP see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)III.B).
It is acknowledged that the limitations in question make use of a database (referred to as “a DB” in the claims). According to Oracle.com, a database is merely “an organized collection of structured information, or data, typically stored electronically in a computer system,” (https://www.oracle.com/database/what-is-database/). Thus, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, a database (i.e. the claimed DB) can be a mere “organized collection of structured information, or data” which is not necessarily stored on a computer and does not necessarily require a computer to access. On at least this basis, the use of a database does not negate the mental nature of the limitations.
Regardless, even if the language to the use of a database were treated as requiring the use of a computer, said language would at most merely require the use of a computer as a tool for generating, storing, and/or accessing the claimed database. When a claim requires merely using a computer as a tool to perform a concept that can be performed in the human mind, said claim is considered to recite a mental process (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)III.C). Accordingly, even if claim 1 were treated as requiring the use of a computer, claim 1 would still be considered to recite mental process.
Notably MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)III.C provides the following example of a case in which a computer was used as a tool for carrying out a mental process:
An example of a case in which a computer was used as a tool to perform a mental process is Mortgage Grader, 811 F.3d. at 1324, 117 USPQ2d at 1699. The patentee in Mortgage Grader claimed a computer-implemented system for enabling borrowers to anonymously shop for loan packages offered by a plurality of lenders, comprising a database that stores loan package data from the lenders, and a computer system providing an interface and a grading module. The interface prompts a borrower to enter personal information, which the grading module uses to calculate the borrower’s credit grading, and allows the borrower to identify and compare loan packages in the database using the credit grading. 811 F.3d. at 1318, 117 USPQ2d at 1695. The Federal Circuit determined that these claims were directed to the concept of "anonymous loan shopping", which was a concept that could be "performed by humans without a computer." 811 F.3d. at 1324, 117 USPQ2d at 1699. Another example is Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 125 USPQ2d 1649 (Fed. Cir. 2018), in which the patentee claimed methods for parsing and evaluating data using a computer processing system. The Federal Circuit determined that these claims were directed to mental processes of parsing and comparing data, because the steps were recited at a high level of generality and merely used computers as a tool to perform the processes. 881 F.3d at 1366, 125 USPQ2d at 1652-53.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements recited in claim 1 amount to insignificant extra-solution activity and/or merely generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.04(d) I).
Specifically, the limitations to “acquiring first data through a first monitoring means;” “acquiring second data through a second monitoring means;” and “an image sample collection step of additionally obtaining image samples in order to improve accuracy of the first data and the second data;” all amount to mere data gathering, which is an insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The limitations to “a raw material input step of inputting a raw material”, “a pyrolysis reaction step of pyrolyzing and moving the input raw material”, “a reactant discharge step of discharging a pyrolyzed reactant”, and “wherein the pyrolysis reaction step is performed by a pyrolysis reaction means configured to perform at least one of torrefaction, biochar reaction, drying, activated carbon reaction, and carbonization” merely generally link the use of the judicial exception to a pyrolysis process (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements in the claims: i) simply append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception; ii) add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; and/or iii) Generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(I)A).
Specifically, the limitations to “acquiring first data through a first monitoring means;” “acquiring second data through a second monitoring means;” and “an image sample collection step of additionally obtaining image samples in order to improve accuracy of the first data and the second data;” all amount to mere data gathering, which is an insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The limitations to “a raw material input step of inputting a raw material”, “a pyrolysis reaction step of pyrolyzing and moving the input raw material”, “a reactant discharge step of discharging a pyrolyzed reactant”, and “wherein the pyrolysis reaction step is performed by a pyrolysis reaction means configured to perform at least one of torrefaction, biochar reaction, drying, activated carbon reaction, and carbonization” merely generally link the use of the judicial exception to a pyrolysis process (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). The details of the pyrolysis reaction as claimed are specified only at a high level of generality and are all well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, as is evident from US 2018/0208851 A1 (cited in Applicant’s 11/5/2025 IDS).
Claim 2 is a dependent of claim 1 and thus, includes the same mental process as claim 1.
Claim 2 recites “wherein, in the control value deriving step, the pyrolysis temperature controls at least one of a rate of rotation of a raw material supply motor of a hot air furnace, a rate of rotation of an air supply motor of the hot air furnace, and a rate of rotation of a dilution air supply motor of a gas mixer.”
This limitation merely further defines the mental process (i.e. the control value deriving step thereof), and therefore, does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more.
It is noted that claim 2 states that “the pyrolysis temperature controls” several variables. It is unclear what this limitation actually necessitates (see 112(b) rejections above). Regardless, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitations of claim 2 do not require any real step of controlling the pyrolysis reaction step/means.
Claim 3 is a dependent of claim 1 and thus, includes the same mental process as claim 1.
Claim 3 recites “herein, in the control value deriving step, the pyrolysis time controls at least one of a rate of rotation of a driving motor of a rotary kiln and a rate of rotation of a raw material supply motor.”
This limitation merely further defines the mental process (i.e. the control value deriving step thereof), and therefore, does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more.
It is noted that claim 3 states that “the pyrolysis time controls” several variables. It is unclear what this limitation actually necessitates (see 112(b) rejections above). Regardless, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitations of claim 3 do not require any real step of controlling the pyrolysis reaction step/means.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 4 recites an abstract idea comprising:
a DB storage means configured to normalize the obtained image samples into time series data and storing RGB code values in a DB;
a labeling means configured to assign labels to the first data and the second data based on the stored DB values;
a data processing means configured to assign a water content evaluation value to the label of the first data to derive a correlation between the RGB value and the water content, to assign a heating value evaluation value to the label of the second data to derive a correlation between the RGB value and the heating value, and to compare the first data and the second data with the data stored in the DB through simulation to generate third data, which is an estimated water content, and fourth data, which is an estimated heating value; and
a control value deriving means configured to derive control values of a pyrolysis temperature and a pyrolysis time required to secure heating value-based quality of the pyrolyzed reactant based on the third data and the fourth data generated by the data processing means,
Said abstract idea could be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper, and thus falls within the mental processes grouping (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)III).
It is acknowledged that the abstract idea is recited in terms of “means” limitations, e.g. a DB storage means, a data processing means, etc. However, the claims do not impose any significant limitations on the scope of these means. Accordingly, under the broadest reasonable interpretation said means can be treated as mere mental processes or algorithms performed with or without physical aid.
Regardless, even said means were treated in a more limiting manner as actually being a physical device or devices, said means (i.e. the DB storage means, the labeling means, the data processing means, and the control value deriving means) would still be satisfied by the likes of a generic computer used as a tool for carrying out the mental process defined by said means limitations. When a claim requires merely using a computer as a tool to perform a concept that can be performed in the human mind, said claim is considered to recite a mental process (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)III.C). Accordingly, even if claim 4 were treated as requiring a computer corresponding to the DB storage means, the labeling means, the data processing means, and the control value deriving means, claim 4 would still be considered to recite mental process.
It is noted that a product claim can still recite a mental process. In other words, the fact that claim 4 is drawn to “a pyrolysis reaction apparatus” does not nullify the fact that It is noted that “The use of a physical aid (e.g., pencil and paper or a slide rule) to help perform a mental step (e.g., a mathematical calculation) does not negate the mental nature of the limitation, but simply accounts for variations in memory capacity from one person to another,” (MPEP see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)III.B).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements recited in claim 4 amount to insignificant extra-solution activity and/or merely generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.04(d) I).
Specifically, the limitation to “an image sample collection means configured to additionally obtain image samples in order to improve accuracy of the first data and the second data;” amounts to mere data gathering, which is an insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The limitations to “a raw material input means configured to input a raw material and to acquire first data through a first monitoring means”, and “a reactant discharge means configured to discharge a pyrolyzed reactant and to acquire second data through a second monitoring means” amount to mere data gathering recited along with a general link the use of the judicial exception to a pyrolysis device (see MPEP 2106.05(g) and MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The limitations to “a pyrolysis reaction means configured to pyrolyze and move the input raw material;” and “wherein the pyrolysis reaction means performs at least one of torrefaction, biochar reaction, drying, activated carbon reaction, and carbonization,” merely generally link the use of the judicial exception to a pyrolysis device (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Claim 4 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements in the claims: i) simply append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception; ii) add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; and/or iii) Generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(I)A).
Specifically, the limitation to “an image sample collection means configured to additionally obtain image samples in order to improve accuracy of the first data and the second data;” amounts to mere data gathering, which is an insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The limitations to “a raw material input means configured to input a raw material and to acquire first data through a first monitoring means”, and “a reactant discharge means configured to discharge a pyrolyzed reactant and to acquire second data through a second monitoring means” amount to mere data gathering recited along with a general link the use of the judicial exception to a pyrolysis device (see MPEP 2106.05(g) and MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The limitations to “a pyrolysis reaction means configured to pyrolyze and move the input raw material;” and “wherein the pyrolysis reaction means performs at least one of torrefaction, biochar reaction, drying, activated carbon reaction, and carbonization,” merely generally link the use of the judicial exception to a pyrolysis device (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The details of the pyrolysis device as claimed are specified only at a high level of generality and are all well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, as is evident from US 2018/0208851 A1 (cited in Applicant’s 11/5/2025 IDS).
Discussion of Prior Art
As detailed in the 112(b) rejections above, the claimed “data processing step” (independent claim 1) and “data processing means” (independent claim 4) are lacking in clarity. Due to this lack of clarity, Examiner is unable to conduct a proper comparison the claims to the prior art. Therefore, examination of the claims 1-4 under 102 and 103 is precluded until the aforementioned lack of clarity is remedied.
Nevertheless, Examiner makes note of the following references:
Masayuki et al. (JP 2016121924 A): See Figures 3 and 4 and paragraphs [0027]-[0032] of the Espacenet translation.
Wechsler et al. (US 9,005,400): See Column 26 Lines 5-15.
Kalermo et al. (WO 2023041841): See Figures 2d and 2e and 3-5, page 11 Lines 20-page 12 Line 10, Page 14 Line 35-Page 15 Line 15, page 18 Line 29-page 21 Line 25).
Masayuki, when taken in combination with Wechsler and Kalermo suggests a method which is at least similar to that of the claimed invention.
Additionally, it is known in the art to perform image recognition using color data specifically in the form of RGB values, as is evidenced by Pan et al. (US 10,706,334). See Column 7 Lines 4-12.
Rhaman et al. (“An Interpretable Deep Learning Model for Wood Chip Moisture Content Prediction”) teaches the use of image recognition software to determine moisture content in biomass.
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