DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 2/2/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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) 16, 19, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as anticipated by Lin (CN 111558611 A) or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious in view of Ye (CN 2196505 Y).
Regarding claim 16, Lin discloses a thermal desorption system for treating a bulk material comprising at least one substance to be removed, comprising:
an airlock (Fig. 3, 402) for receiving the bulk material (English translation; pg. 3, “In the invention…the air locking device drives the soil in and out of the cylinder…”);
a heating chamber (Fig. 1/3; negative pressure heating device 4/401) connected to the airlock;
a condensing chamber (Fig. 1, 8);
one or more vacuum pumps (air pumping device 6) for generating a partial vacuum in the airlock and the heating chamber (the heating chamber and a bottom portion of the air lock are fluidly connected, as shown in Fig. 3, and therefore would be at the same pressure) (see abstract discussing where the air pumping device creates a negative pressure in the heating device);
one or more heaters in the heating chamber for heating the bulk material when the bulk material has entered the heating chamber from the airlock to cause the at least one substance to vaporize (English translation; top of pg. 5 discloses a heating rod on the side wall of the heating chamber 401) (see top of pg. 5 disclosing a heat insulating layer for the chamber 401; the heating chamber is a space enclosed by the heat insulating layer, and the heating rod is located in this space); and
one or more vapor ducts positioned to direct the at least one vaporized substance from the heating chamber to the condensing chamber (Fig. 1 shows a vapor duct connecting the heating chamber 4 with the condensing chamber 8).
wherein, by causing the at least one substance to vaporize, the one or more heaters are configured (i.e., capable) to cause a pressure in the heating chamber to be higher than a pressure in the condensing chamber and thereby produce a pressure differential to passively transfer the at least one vaporized substance from the heating chamber to the condensing chamber via the one or more vapor ducts (see Comment 1 below).
Comment 1. Lin discloses all of the structural limitations necessary for producing the intended effect wherein, by causing the at least one substance to vaporize, the one or more heaters are configured to cause a pressure in the heating chamber to be higher than a pressure in the condensing chamber and thereby produce a pressure differential to passively transfer the at least one vaporized substance from the heating chamber to the condensing chamber via the one or more vapor ducts.
This is because if the pump (6) is stopped after creating the vacuum inside the heating chamber (4), and heat is generated in the heating chamber (6), then there would be a temperature gradient, and pressure gradient due to the temperature gradient (pressure is proportional to temperature via the ideal gas law, PV=nRT), created in the system between the heating chamber (6) and the condensing chamber (8). Because heat always flow from high temperature (e.g., heating chamber 4) to low temperature (e.g., condensing chamber 8), the vapors would distribute out of the heating chamber, through the open vapor duct, and into the condenser. Moreover, since pressure always wants to equalize, the higher pressure vapors in the heating chamber would distribute across the vapor duct and into the condensing chamber.
Nevertheless, even if the system of Lin were not capable of producing this intended effect, this feature is known in the prior art as evidenced by Ye. Ye teaches a negative pressure heating chamber (3) that causes a substance to vaporize. The vapors enter a vapor duct (4) before entering the condenser (5) for cooling the vapors. This process happens without a pump or device, and would be due to the heater causing a pressure in the heating chamber to be higher than a pressure in the condensing chamber, thereby producing a pressure differential to passively transfer the at least one vaporized substance from the heating chamber to the condensing chamber via the vapor duct.
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art at the time of effective filing of the application to modify Lin wherein, by causing the at least one substance to vaporize, the one or more heaters are configured to cause a pressure in the heating chamber to be higher than a pressure in the condensing chamber and thereby produce a pressure differential to passively transfer the at least one vaporized substance from the heating chamber to the condensing chamber via the one or more vapor ducts. The motivation to combine is for improved energy efficiency since passive transfer of the vapors would not require an energy-consuming device for driving the vapors.
Regarding claim 19, Lin discloses the thermal desorption system of claim 16, further comprising: one or more conveyors (Fig. 3, auger conveyor 404) in the heating chamber positioned to receive the bulk material from the airlock and to transport the bulk material to an outlet (Fig. 3: outlet adjacent the discharging air lock 403) of the heating chamber.
Regarding claim 20, Lin discloses the thermal desorption system of claim 16, wherein: the thermal desorption system further comprises a housing at least partially defining the heating chamber (401) (see Fig. 3 showing a housing or outer surfaces of the cylinder 401 and air lock 402); and
the airlock (402) extends through the housing and comprises a drum (Fig. 3: spinning wheel of the airlock) that is rotatable, between: an open position in which an opening in the drum (one or more of the four chambers of the drum) is open (facing upward to accept the bulk material) to an exterior of the thermal desorption system such that the bulk material may be loaded into the drum; and
a closed position (a position where the chamber faces downward into the heating chamber to drop the bulk material) in which the opening is positioned to permit the loaded bulk material to enter the heating chamber.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin (CN 111558611 A) alone or, in the alternative, in view of Ye (CN 2196505 Y), as applied to claim 16, and further in view of Veltmann (US 5619936 A).
Regarding claim 17, Lin fails to disclose the thermal desorption system of claim 16, further comprising one or more controllers comprising circuitry and configured to:
activate the one or more vacuum pumps to generate the partial vacuum in the airlock and the heating chamber;
operate the airlock to transfer the bulk material from the airlock to the heating chamber;
activate the one or more heaters to heat the bulk material when the bulk material has entered the heating chamber from the airlock, and cause the at least one substance to vaporize; and
extract the bulk material, with the at least one vaporized substance separated therefrom, from the heating chamber.
However, Veltmann teaches the use of a computer controller (a device known to have circuitry) for controlling the various subsystems of a thermal desorption unit (see abstract and Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art at the time of effective filing of the application to modify Lin to include a computer controller configured to operate the various subsystems in Lin, such as to activate the one or more vacuum pumps to generate the partial vacuum in the airlock and the heating chamber; operate the airlock to transfer the bulk material from the airlock to the heating chamber; activate the one or more heaters to heat the bulk material when the bulk material has entered the heating chamber from the airlock, and cause the at least one substance to vaporize; and extract the bulk material, with the at least one vaporized substance separated therefrom, from the heating chamber.
The motivation to combine is to provide an automated control and safety system for the thermal desorption system of Lin.
Claim(s) 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin (CN 111558611 A) alone or, in the alternative, in view of Ye (CN 2196505 Y), as applied to claim 16, and further in view of Rusak (SU 1097879 A).
Regarding claim 26, Lin fails to disclose the thermal desorption system of claim 16, wherein the one or more conveyors comprise at least one scraper conveyor.
However, Rusak teaches a thermal treatment chamber for contaminated tree bark, comprising a plurality of scraper conveyors (7).
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art at the time of effective filing of the application to modify Lin to replace the conveyor (Lin, 404) with one or more scraper conveyors. A scraper conveyor works well with sticky, abrasive, irregular, or lumpy materials. An auger conveyor is best suited for uniform free flowing granular material. Sticky and irregular material might clump and clog the auger. Abrasive material trapped between the auger and inner wall of the heating chamber might cause excess wear on the auger and inner wall of the heating chamber. Since soils can be sticky, abrasive, irregular, or lumpy, then a scraper conveyor would be better suited.
Claim(s) 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Lin (CN 111558611 A) in view of Ye (CN 2196505 Y).
Regarding claim 27, Lin fails to disclose the thermal desorption system of claim 16, wherein the pressure differential mediates the passive transfer of the at least one vaporized substance from the heating chamber to the condensing chamber without the at least one vaporized substance being routed through a pump.
However, Ye teaches wherein the pressure differential mediates the passive transfer of the at least one vaporized substance from the heating chamber (3) to the condensing chamber (5) without the at least one vaporized substance being routed through a pump (no pump is shown on vapor duct 4).
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art at the time of effective filing of the application to modify Lin wherein the pressure differential mediates the passive transfer of the at least one vaporized substance from the heating chamber to the condensing chamber without the at least one vaporized substance being routed through a pump. The motivation to combine is so that the vapors do not condense onto inner surfaces of the pump, thereby corroding or fouling the pump. With the modification, the pump (Lin, 6) could be placed elsewhere to create the vacuum inside the heating chamber. For example, the pump could be placed on the housing of the heating chamber, or it could be placed downstream the condenser (Lin, 8).
Response to Arguments
Applicant asserts the following on page(s) 6-7 of the Remarks filed on 2/2/2026:
PNG
media_image1.png
579
702
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s response:
Anticipation requires that every element of the claim be expressly or inherently described by the reference. The intended effect of causing the pressure in the heating chamber to be higher than the pressure in the condensing chamber and thereby produce a pressure differential to passively transfer the at least one vaporized substance from the heating chamber to the condensing chamber via the one or more vapor ducts, is not a claim element. Since Lin discloses all of the structural elements of the claim (which Applicant does not dispute), then Lin’s device would necessarily produce the intended effect.
Applicant asserts the following on page(s) 7-8 of the Remarks filed on 2/2/2026:
PNG
media_image2.png
645
644
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
298
634
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s response:
The term “passive transfer” is taken to mean that there is no blower or mechanical device that actively forces the movement of the gases. Ye does not teach a blower or mechanical device that actively forces the movement of the gases; therefore, Ye teaches passive transfer of the gases.
The responses made for claim 16 also apply to claim 27.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON LAU whose telephone number is (571)270-7644. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00-5:00.
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, Michael Hoang can be reached on 571-272-6460. 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.
/JASON LAU/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762
Prosecution Insights