DETAILED ACTION
Correction
This Office Action supersedes the previous Non-Final Rejection mailed 3/12/2026 and is issued to correct a citation error in the 103 rejections of dependent claims 10 and 11.
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 .
Claim Interpretation
Claim 1 is drafted in such a manner that the recited “fluidized bed of particulate material comprising particulate material susceptible to inductive heating” need not be present in order for a system to satisfy said claim.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are discussed in detail below.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim limitation “cleaning apparatus” 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 “apparatus” coupled with functional language “cleaning” and “for gleaning said particulate material” 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) 5 and 19 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 “cleaning apparatus” has been rejected under 112(b). See 112(b) rejections below.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 4 and 6 is/are objected to because it contains/they contain informalities.
With regard to claim 4: In line 2, insert --further-- after “pyrolysis reactor” and before “comprises”.
With regard to claim 6: In line 1, insert --further-- after “claim 1,” and before “comprising”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because it recites a “use” but fails to recite any process steps (see MPEP 2173.05(q)).
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 1-20 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.
With regard to claims 1-20: The claims recites at least three different elements by the name “particulate material”, i.e. the “particulate material susceptible to inductive heating” (introduced in claim 1), the “particulate material not susceptible to inductive heating” (introduced in claim 12), and the “particulate material” which comprises the other two particulate materials (introduced in claim 1).
The claims also potentially recite a fourth particulate material, i.e. “a particulate material for forming the fluidized bed in the pyrolysis reactor” (introduced in dependent claim 4). It is presumably Applicant’s intent that this particulate material is actually “particulate material” introduced in claim 1 which comprises the “particulate material susceptible to inductive heating”. However, this is not clear from the language of claim 4.
The issue of the potential fourth particulate material aside, the fact that the claims recite at least three particulate materails leads to a lack of clarity in the claims. Namely, when the claims recite “the particulate material”, e.g. in line 3 of claim 4, or “said particulate material”, e.g. in line 2 of claim 5, it cannot be reasonably determined which particulate material the claims are referring to.
For the purposes of examination, any instance of “the particulate material” or “said particulate material” which is not expressly identified as the “particulate material susceptible to inductive heating” or the “particulate material not susceptible to inductive heating” will be treated as referring to the particulate material comprised of the susceptible and non-susceptible particulate materials.
To overcome this rejection, Applicant should amend the claims so as to make it clear in all instances which particulate material is being referenced.
Claim 6 recites “The reactor system of claim 1, comprising particulate material for forming the fluidized bed in the pyrolysis reactor”.
It is unclear if the “comprising particulate material for forming the fluidized bed in the pyrolysis reactor” is the same as the “particulate material comprising particulate material susceptible to inductive heating” introduced in claim 1.
Presumably, such is Applicant’s intent.
Applicant should amend claims 1 and/or 6 to clarify as appropriate.
Claim 7 recites “such as” in lines 2-3.
The phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 13 recites “The reactor system of claim 12, wherein the percentage by weight of the particulate material not susceptible to inductive heating is greater than or equal to 10 wt%.”
It is unclear with respect to what the claimed percentage is calculated.
Presumably, Applicant’s intent is that the percentage be calculated based on the total weight of particulate material.
Applicant should amend claim 13 to clarify as appropriate.
Claim 16 recites “such as” in line 2.
The phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 17 recites “a reactor system according to claim 1” in line 2. To ensure that there is proper and clear antecedent basis, this limitation should be amended to recite --the reactor system according to claim 1--.
Claim 17 recites “fluidizing particulate material comprising particulate material susceptible to inductive heating” in lines 4-5. To ensure that there is proper and clear antecedent basis, this limitation should be amended to recite --fluidizing the particulate material comprising the particulate material susceptible to inductive heating--.
Claim 18 recites “such as” in line 1 and again in line 2.
The phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 20 recites “a pyrolysis reactor in a reactor system according to claim 1”. To ensure that there is proper and clear antecedent basis, this limitation should be amended to recite --the pyrolysis reactor of the reactor system according to claim 1--.
Claim 20 recites “The use of particulate material susceptible to inductive heating, wherein the particulate material susceptible to inductive heating comprises one or more electrically conductive and/or ferromagnetic materials, for forming a fluidized bed in a pyrolysis reactor in a reactor system according to claim 1”.
This claim is indefinite as it is attempts to claim a process but does not set forth any steps recited in said process (See MPEP 2173.05(q)).
Claims 5 and 19 recite a “cleaning apparatus” for cleaning particulate material.
Claim limitation “cleaning apparatus” 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 § 102
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6, 15, 16, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jiang et al. (US 2016/0067665), hereafter referred to as Jiang.
With regard to claim 1: Jiang teaches a reactor system (abstract, Figure 1, paragraph [0040]), comprising:
A fluidized bed reactor, wherein the reactor comprises a shell (reactor inner tube) 2 defining a heating chamber, the heating chamber having a fluidized bed zone configured to contain a fluidized bed of particulate material comprising particulate material susceptible to inductive heating (Figure 1, paragraphs [0038] and [0040]-[0045]).
And an induction heater assembly comprising an induction emitter (induction heating device) 3 configured to inductively heat said particulate material susceptible to inductive heating to a temperature from about 600-800 °C in the fluidized bed zone (Figure 1, paragraphs [0038], [0040]-[0045], and [0058]).
Wherein the shell 2 can be made from an inductively inert material, i.e. a high temperature resistant material having poor electric conductivity, such as quartz or silicon nitride (paragraph [0043]).
Jiang indicates that the reactor system is suitable for pyrolysis, i.e. thermolysis/thermal decomposition of silane (paragraphs [0057] and [0058]). Thus, the system is fairly described as a reactor system for pyrolysis, wherein the fluidized bed reactor is fluidized bed pyrolysis reactor configured to pyrolyze a feed material to produce a pyrolysis product, and wherein the induction heater assembly is a pyrolysis induction heater assembly.
In any event, the claim language to the reactor system being “for pyrolysis of carbonaceous waste” is merely a statement of intended use, framed in terms of material worked upon (the carbonaceous waste being the material worked upon). The same is true of the claim language to the fluidized bed reactor being a “pyrolysis reactor configured to pyrolyse carbonaceous waste to produce a pyrolysis product”. The claim language to the induction heater assembly being a “pyrolysis induction heater assembly” is merely a statement of intended use. Language to the intended use/manner of operating a system does not distinguish a claimed system from a prior art system capable of use/operation in the claimed manner (MPEP 2114). Furthermore, system claims are not limited by inclusion of material worked upon (MPEP 2115). As discussed above, Jiang’s teachings indicate that the reactor system is suitable for pyrolysis (paragraphs [0057] and [0058]). Thus, it is understood that said reactor system could be used for pyrolyzing carbonaceous materials. Furthermore, the reactor system of Jiang satisfies all of the structural limitations of the claimed reactor system and therefore, is necessarily capable of use/operation in the same manner. Accordingly, the system of Jiang satisfies the claim language regarding the reactor system being one “for pyrolysis of carbonaceous waste”, wherein the fluidized bed reactor is a “pyrolysis reactor configured to pyrolyse carbonaceous waste to produce a pyrolysis product”, and wherein the induction heater assembly is a “pyrolysis induction heater assembly” (see MPEP 2114 for guidance).
With regard to claim 2: The induction emitter 3 is at least one coil wrapped around the heating chamber (Figure 1, paragraphs [0038] and [0040]-[0045]).
With regard to claim 3: The shell (reaction inner tube) 2 defining the heating chamber is an inner shell, and the pyrolysis reactor further comprises an outer shell (reaction outer tube) 1 separated from the inner shell 2 by a thermally insulating material (thermal insulating layer) 6 (Figure 1, paragraphs [0038] and [0040]-[0045]).
With regard to claim 4: The fluidized bed pyrolysis reactor further comprises a fluidizing gas distributer 4 positioned below the fluidized bed zone, the distributor being configured so as to allow a portion of the particulate material to fall through the distributor for removal from the reactor for at least disposal via a particulate material outlet (product outlet) 401, and wherein the reactor comprises a particulate material inlet 9 for feeding fresh particulate material to the fluidized bed zone (Figure 1, paragraphs [0038] and [0040]-[0045]).
With regard to claim 6: The reactor system further comprises particulate material for forming the fluidized bed in the pyrolysis reactor, the particulate material comprising particulate material susceptible to inductive heating, wherein the particulate material susceptible to inductive heating comprises at least one electrically conductive material (granular silicon/silicon seed) (paragraphs [0033] and [0044]).
With regard to claim 15: The particulate material (granular silicon seed) may have a particle size of 100-500 micrometers (0.1-0.5 mm) upon supply thereof into the reactor (paragraph [0064]).
With regard to claim 16: Jiang does not explicitly teach that pyrolyzing a solid carbonaceous waste in the reactor system. However, the carbonaceous waste is merely the material worked upon by the claimed system. Therefore, the claim language to the carbonaceous waste being solid carbonaceous waste is merely a statement of intended use framed in terms of material worked upon. Language to the intended use/manner of operating a system does not distinguish a claimed system from a prior art system capable of use/operation in the claimed manner (MPEP 2114). Furthermore, system claims are not limited by inclusion of material worked upon (MPEP 2115). As discussed in the rejection of claim 1 above, Jiang’s teachings indicate that the reactor system is suitable for pyrolysis (paragraphs [0057] and [0058]). Thus, it is understood that said reactor system could be used for pyrolyzing solid carbonaceous materials. Furthermore, the reactor system of Jiang satisfies all of the structural limitations of the claimed reactor system and therefore, is necessarily capable of use/operation in the same manner. Accordingly, the system of Jiang satisfies the claim language regarding the carbonaceous waste being solid carbonaceous waste (see MPEP 2114 for guidance).
With regard to claim 20: As discussed in the rejection of claim 1 above, Jiang teaches a reactor system which satisfies the limitations of claim 1. Jiang teaches using a particulate material susceptible to inductive heating for forming the fluidized bed in the pyrolysis reactor of said reactor system, wherein said particulate material susceptible to inductive heating comprises at least one electrically conductive material (granular silicon/silicon seed) (paragraphs [0033] and [0044]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 6, and 12-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nieminen et al. (US 2024/0375073), hereafter referred to as Nieminen, in view of Jiang.
With regard to claim 1: Nieminen teaches a reactor system for pyrolysis of carbonaceous waste (Figure 1, paragraphs [0018], [0033], [0035], and [0039]-[0043], claims 9, 10, 19, and 21), comprising:
A fluidized bed pyrolysis reactor 1 configured to pyrolyze carbonaceous waste to produce a pyrolysis product, wherein the reactor comprises a shell defining a heating chamber, the heating chamber having a fluidized bed zone configured to contain a fluidized bed of particulate material comprising particulate material susceptible to inductive heating (first bed material) 3 (Figure 1, paragraphs [0018], [0033], [0035], and [0039]-[0043], claims 9, 10, 19, and 21).
And a pyrolysis induction heater assembly comprising an induction emitter (induction coils) 8 configured to inductively heat said particulate material susceptible to inductive heating (first bed material) 3 in the fluidized bed zone to a temperature sufficient for carrying out pyrolysis
Nieminen does not explicitly teach that the induction emitter 8 heats the particulate material 3 to a temperature in the range of 350-800 °C.
However, it is notoriously well understood that temperature is a result effective variable in pyrolysis reactions. Thus, because the particulate material (first bed material) 3 is used to supply heat to the to the raw material 9 being treated in the reactor (paragraphs [0039]-[0044]), a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the temperature to which the particulate material is heated is a result effective variable in Nieminen. "[When] the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation," (see MPEP 2144.05 II A).
Furthermore, Nieminen teaches an embodiment where the reactor is used for gasification, wherein gasification is carried out at a temperature in the range of 680-760 °C (paragraph [0033]). It is noted that gasification processes include an aspect of pyrolysis. Accordingly, gasification processes can be fairly considered to be pyrolysis processes. Regardless, Nieminen describes both a pure pyrolysis embodiment and a gasification embodiment (paragraph [0018]). Said embodiments are clearly very similar as evidenced, for example, by the disclosure of (paragraph [0018]). In view of the forgoing, a person having ordinary skill in the art would expect that it would be desirable, or at least workable to heat the particulate material (first bed material) 3 to a temperature of 680-760 °C when using the reactor for pyrolysis (whether that be pure pyrolysis or gasification). Put differently, the disclosure of Nieminen would, to one of ordinary skill in the art, suggest heating the first bed material 3 to a temperature of 680-760 °C.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Nieminen by configuring the pyrolysis induction heater to heat the particulate material (first bed material) to a temperature of 680-760 °C, in order to obtain a system which is predictably capable of achieving temperatures necessary for pyrolysis.
Nieminen does not explicitly teach that the shell is made of an inductively inert material.
However, Nieminen makes no mention of the shell being inductively heated or being composed of an inductively active material. This at least suggests that the shell may be made of an inductively inert material.
Furthermore, it is known in the art to manufacture the shells of inductively heated reactors from inductively inert material so as to avoid induction heating thereof. For example, Jiang teaches an inductively heated fluidized bed reactor having a reactor shell (reaction inner tube) 2 surrounded by an induction emitter induction heating device 3 (Figure 1, paragraph [0040]). Jiang teaches that “Preferably, the reaction inner tube 2 [analogous to Applicant’s shell] is made of a high temperature resistant material having poor electric conductivity, such as quartz or silicon nitride, so as to avoid the induction heating of the reaction inner tube 2 which may otherwise increase the temperature of the reactor internal wall, such that the deposition on the wall surface can be depressed effectively and the operation cycle of the fluidized bed reactor can be increased,” (paragraph [0043]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Nieminen in view of Jiang by forming the shell from an inductively inert material in order to prevent the shell from being inductively heated, thereby avoiding disadvantages which come with such heating.
With regard to claim 2: The induction emitter comprises at least one coil 8 wrapped around the heating chamber (Nieminen: Figure 1, paragraph [0042]).
With regard to claim 3: In modified Nieminen, the shell defining the heating chamber is an inner shell, and the pyrolysis reactor further comprises an outer shell separated from the inner shell (Nieminen: Figure 1, paragraphs [0039]-[0043]).
Modified Nieminen is silent to the inner shell and the outer shell being separated by a thermally insulating material.
However, to separate an inner and outer shell of an inductively heated fluidized bed with a thermally insulating material is known in the art. For example, in the inductively heated fluidized bed reactor of Jiang, the shell (reaction inner tube) 2 defining the heating chamber is an inner shell, and the reactor further comprises an outer shell (reaction outer tube) 1 separated from the inner shell 2 by a thermally insulating material (thermal insulating layer) 6 (Figure 1, paragraphs [0038] and [0040]-[0045]). Jiang teaches that “The presence of the thermal insulating layer can avoid effectively the loss of heat, so as to utilize the heat sufficiently,” (paragraph [0042]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Nieminen in view of Jiang by adding a thermally insulating material which separates the inner shell and the outer shell, in order to obtain a system which avoids, or at least mitigates, loss of heat.
With regard to claim 5: The particulate material for forming the fluidized bed further comprises a particulate material not susceptible to inductive heating (second bed material) 4 (Nieminen: paragraphs [0021], [0040], [0041], [0042]).
Modified Nieminen further comprises a cleaning apparatus (separating device/cyclone) 11 for cleaning said particulate material, i.e. the particulate material not susceptible to inductive heating (second bed material) 4 thereof, wherein the pyrolysis reactor 1 and the cleaning apparatus 11 are configured so that, in use, spent particulate material is transferred from the pyrolysis reactor 1 to the cleaning apparatus 11 for cleaning, and cleaned particulate material 4b is transferred from the cleaning apparatus to the pyrolysis reactor (Nieminen: Figure 1, paragraph [0043]). Note: The particulate material 4 is cleaned in the cleaning apparatus (separating device/cyclone) 11 in that it is separated from gaseous product 10 (Nieminen: Figure 1, paragraph [0043]).
With regard to claims 6 and 20: Nieminen comprises particulate material for forming the fluidized bed in the pyrolysis reactor, the particulate material for forming the fluidized bed in the pyrolysis reactor comprising the particulate material susceptible to inductive heating, wherein the particulate material susceptible to inductive heating comprises at least one electrically conductive and/or ferromagnetic materials (Nieminen: abstract, paragraphs [0022] and [0040], claim 5).
With regard to claim 12: The particulate material for forming the fluidized bed further comprises a particulate material not susceptible to inductive heating (second bed material) 4 (Nieminen: paragraphs [0021], [0040], [0041], [0042]).
With regard to claim 13: Modified Nieminen is silent to the percentage by weight of the particulate material not susceptible to inductive heating being greater than or equal to 10 wt% of the combined weight of the particulate material not susceptible to inductive heating and the particulate material susceptible to inductive heating.
However, a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the relative amounts (masses/weights) of the particulate material not susceptible to inductive heating and the particulate material susceptible to inductive heating is a result effective variable. Specifically, a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that if the percentage of the particulate material not susceptible to inductive heating is too low, it will not fulfill its purpose of preventing direct contact between the feed and the particulate material susceptible to inductive heating. On the other hand if the percentage is too high, it will take an excessive amount of energy to heat, and perhaps undesirably insulate the feed from the heat supplied by the particulate material susceptible to inductive heating. "[When] the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation," (see MPEP 2144.05 II A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Nieminen by optimizing the percentage of particulate material by weight that is the particulate material not susceptible to inductive heating, such that said percentage is 10% or more, in order to obtain a system wherein the particulate material not susceptible to inductive heating fulfills its intended purpose without requiring excessive heating and/or insulating the feed from heat.
With regard to claim 14: Modified Nieminen is silent to the percentage by weight of the particulate material susceptible to inductive heating is 40 wt% to 60 wt%, based on the total weight of particulate material.
However, a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the relative amounts (masses/weights) of the particulate material not susceptible to inductive heating and the particulate material susceptible to inductive heating is a result effective variable. Specifically, a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the percentage of particulate material susceptible to inductive heating is a result effective variable for substantially the same reasons discussed in the rejection of claim 13 above with respect to the percentage of particulate material not susceptible to inductive heating. "[When] the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation," (see MPEP 2144.05 II A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Nieminen by optimizing the percentage of particulate material by weight that is the particulate material susceptible to inductive heating, such that said percentage is 40 wt% to 60 wt%, in order to obtain a system wherein the particulate material susceptible to inductive heating is able to fulfill its intended purpose of heating without coming into direct contact with the feed.
With regard to claim 15: Modified Nieminen is silent to the particulate material having a median particle diameter in a range of from 0.06 mm to 1 mm.
However, a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the particle diameter of the particulate material, and thus the mean particle diameter, the median particle diameter, etc., is a result effective variable. Specifically, a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the particle diameter is an important factor which determines whether or not the particulate material will be fluidized. "[When] the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation," (see MPEP 2144.05 II A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Nieminen by optimizing the median particle diameter to be in a range of from 0.06 mm to 1 mm, in order to obtain a system wherein the particulate material is fluidized as desired.
With regard to claim 16: The carbonaceous waste may be solid waste, specifically plastic waste (Nieminen: Paragraphs [0016], [0018], [0035], [0038], claim 10).
With regard to claims 17 and 18: Nieminen teaches a reactor system for pyrolysis of carbonaceous waste (Figure 1, paragraphs [0018], [0033], [0035], and [0039]-[0043], claims 9, 10, 19, and 21), comprising:
A fluidized bed pyrolysis reactor 1 configured to pyrolyze carbonaceous waste to produce a pyrolysis product, wherein the reactor comprises a shell defining a heating chamber, the heating chamber having a fluidized bed zone configured to contain a fluidized bed of particulate material comprising particulate material susceptible to inductive heating (first bed material) 3 and a particulate material not susceptible to inductive heating (second bed material) 4 (Figure 1, paragraphs [0018], [0033], [0035], and [0039]-[0043], claims 9, 10, 19, and 21).
And a pyrolysis induction heater assembly comprising an induction emitter (induction coils) 8 configured to inductively heat said particulate material susceptible to inductive heating (first bed material) 3 in the fluidized bed zone to a temperature sufficient for carrying out pyrolysis.
Nieminen further teaches a method of treating carbonaceous waste comprising plastic (Paragraphs [0016], [0018], [0035], [0038], claims 1 and 10), the method comprising:
Fluidizing the particulate material comprising the particulate material susceptible to inductive heating 3 in the fluidized bed zone of the fluidized bed pyrolysis reactor (Paragraphs [0016], [0018], [0035], [0038], and [0039]-[0043], claims 1 and 10).
Operating the pyrolysis induction heater assembly to inductively heat the particulate material susceptible to inductive heating 3 to a temperature sufficient for carrying out pyrolysis in the fluidized bed zone (Paragraphs [0016], [0018], [0035], [0038], and [0039]-[0043], claims 1 and 10).
And contacting the carbonaceous waste with the heated particulate material, the particulate material not susceptible to inductive heating (second bed material) 4 thereof, in the fluidized bed zone of the pyrolysis reactor, thereby pyrolysing the carbonaceous waste to form the pyrolysis product (Paragraphs [0016], [0018], [0035], [0038], and [0039]-[0043], claims 1 and 10).
Nieminen does not explicitly teach that the induction emitter 8 heats the particulate material 3 to a temperature in the range of 350-800 °C.
However, it is notoriously well understood that temperature is a result effective variable in pyrolysis reactions. Thus, because the particulate material (first bed material) 3 is used to supply heat to the to the raw material 9 being treated in the reactor (paragraphs [0039]-[0044]), a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the temperature to which the particulate material is heated is a result effective variable in Nieminen. "[When] the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation," (see MPEP 2144.05 II A).
Furthermore, Nieminen teaches an embodiment where the reactor is used for gasification, wherein gasification is carried out at a temperature in the range of 680-760 °C (paragraph [0033]). It is noted that gasification processes include an aspect of pyrolysis. Accordingly, gasification processes can be fairly considered to be pyrolysis processes. Regardless, Nieminen describes both a pure pyrolysis embodiment and a gasification embodiment (paragraph [0018]). Said embodiments are clearly very similar as evidenced, for example, by the disclosure of (paragraph [0018]). In view of the forgoing, a person having ordinary skill in the art would expect that it would be desirable, or at least workable to heat the particulate material (first bed material) 3 to a temperature of 680-760 °C when using the reactor for pyrolysis (whether that be pure pyrolysis or gasification). Put differently, the disclosure of Nieminen would, to one of ordinary skill in the art, suggest heating the first bed material 3 to a temperature of 680-760 °C.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Nieminen by configuring the pyrolysis induction heater to heat the particulate material (first bed material) to a temperature of 680-760 °C, in order to obtain a system which is predictably capable of achieving temperatures necessary for pyrolysis.
Nieminen does not explicitly teach that the shell is made of an inductively inert material.
However, Nieminen makes no mention of the shell being inductively heated or being composed of an inductively active material. This at least suggests that the shell may be made of an inductively inert material.
Furthermore, it is known in the art to manufacture the shells of inductively heated reactors from inductively inert material so as to avoid induction heating thereof. For example, Jiang teaches an inductively heated fluidized bed reactor having a reactor shell (reaction inner tube) 2 surrounded by an induction emitter induction heating device 3 (Figure 1, paragraph [0040]). Jiang teaches that “Preferably, the reaction inner tube 2 [analogous to Applicant’s shell] is made of a high temperature resistant material having poor electric conductivity, such as quartz or silicon nitride, so as to avoid the induction heating of the reaction inner tube 2 which may otherwise increase the temperature of the reactor internal wall, such that the deposition on the wall surface can be depressed effectively and the operation cycle of the fluidized bed reactor can be increased,” (paragraph [0043]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Nieminen in view of Jiang by forming the shell from an inductively inert material in order to prevent the shell from being inductively heated, thereby avoiding disadvantages which come with such heating.
With regard to claim 19: Modified Nieminen further comprises:
Transferring particulate material to be cleaned, i.e. the particulate material not susceptible to inductive heating (second bed material), from the fluidized bed pyrolysis reactor 1 to a cleaning apparatus (separating device/cyclone) 11 for cleaning said particulate material, wherein the pyrolysis reactor 1 and the cleaning apparatus 11 are configured so that, in use, spent particulate material is transferred from the pyrolysis reactor 1 to the cleaning apparatus 11 for cleaning, and cleaned particulate material 4b is transferred from the cleaning apparatus to the pyrolysis reactor (Nieminen: Figure 1, paragraph [0043]). Note: The particulate material 4 is cleaned in the a cleaning apparatus (separating device/cyclone) 11 in that it is separated from gaseous product 10 (Nieminen: Figure 1, paragraph [0043]).
Cleaning the particulate material to be cleaned 4 to form cleaned particulate material 4b (Nieminen: Figure 1, paragraph [0043]).
And returning the cleaned particulate material 4b to the fluidized bed pyrolysis reactor 1 (Nieminen: Figure 1, paragraph [0043]).
Note: The particulate material 4 is cleaned in the cleaning apparatus (separating device/cyclone) 11 in that it is separated from gaseous product 10 (Nieminen: Figure 1, paragraph [0043]).
Claim(s) 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nieminen in view of Jiang as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Vesselin et al. (“Inductive heating of fluidized beds: Influence on fluidization behavior”; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.powtec.2015.08.003), hereafter referred to as Vesselin.
With regard to claims 7, 8, and 9: Nieminen does not explicitly teach that the one or more electrically conductive and/or ferromagnetic materials is one or more of: one or more electrically conductive and/or ferromagnetic elemental metals; one or more electrically conductive and/or ferromagnetic metal alloys; and one or more electrically conductive metal oxides.
However, Nieminen does teach that the particulate material susceptible to inductive heating may be specifically a ferromagnetic material (Nieminen: paragraphs [0022] and [0040], claim 5). It is well understood that ferromagnetism is a property unique to only a handful of metallic elements and certain alloys thereof. As is well understood, the most common ferromagnetic elements are iron, cobalt, and nickel. Accordingly, even though Nieminen does not explicitly teach or suggest a specific ferromagnetic material, Nieminen’s teaching to the use of ferromagnetic materials in general would, to one skilled in the art, suggest that at least iron, cobalt, nickel, and/or magnetic alloys thereof are suitable for use as the one or more electrically conductive and/or ferromagnetic materials.
Furthermore, it is known in the art to use particles made from iron to inductively heat fluidized beds. For example, Vesselin, which is concerned with the inductive heating of fluidized beds (abstract), teaches using particles (balls) comprised of iron coated in a ceramic material (kaolin) as a bed material susceptible to inductive heating (section 3.2). Vesselin at least suggests that the ceramic coating prevents local overheating and surface sparks (section 3.2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Nieminen in view of Vesselin by selecting iron balls coated in ceramic (kaolin) as the particulate material susceptible to inductive heating (first bed material) 3, in order to obtain a predictably functional system wherein the particulate material susceptible to inductive heating (first bed material) is a ferromagnetic material, as is desired by Nieminen, and wherein the ceramic coating on said balls prevents local overheating and surface sparks.
The curie temperature of iron is understood to be about 770 °C.
Claim(s) 10 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nieminen in view of Jiang as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Morales et al. (“Induction Heating in Nanoparticle Impregnated Zeolite”; doi: 10.3390/ma13184013; cited as NPL reference 10 in the 8/21/2024 IDS).
With regard to claims 10 and 11: Nieminen does not explicitly teach that the particulate material susceptible to inductive heating comprises one or more molecular sieves comprising said one or more electrically conductive and/or ferromagnetic materials. Nieminen also does not explicitly teach that the particulate material susceptible to inductive heating comprises ceramic particles at least partially coated with said one or more electrically conductive and/or ferromagnetic materials.
However, it is known in the art to use such particles for inductive heating. For example, the use of molecular sieves (H-USY zeolite) impregnated with electrically conductive material (gama-Fe2O3 nanoparticles) for inductive heating is taught by Morales (Abstract, sections 2 and 3). The It is well established that it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute one known prior art element for another in order to obtain predictable results (MPEP 2143). Morales indicates that the electrically conductive material (gama-Fe2O3 nanoparticles) is disposed entirely on the surface of the molecular sieves (H-USY zeolite) (Section 3, in particular the final paragraph on page 6, Figure 4). Said molecular sieves are comprised of ceramic material (zeolite). Accordingly, it is understood that the impregnated molecular sieves in Morales are comprised of ceramic particles at least partially coated with electrically conductive materials.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Nieminen in view of Morales by selecting the molecular sieves (H-USY zeolite) impregnated with electrically conductive material (gama-Fe2O3 nanoparticles) taught by Morales as the particulate material susceptible to inductive heating based on the suitability of said impregnated molecular sieves for inductive heating, in order to obtain a predictably functional inductively heated fluidized bed reactor.
Discussion of Mayer (US 4,294,688).
The international search report cites Mayer as an X reference, and the written opinion provided therewith indicates that claims 1-20 are either not novel or not inventive over Mayer. Examiner disagrees with the opinion of the international search authority.
The written opinion characterizes the electromagnetic coil 2 of Mayer as an induction emitter which inductively heats fluidized bed material within the reactor 1 of Mayer (see written opinion at section 2.2). However, Examiner has not found any disclosure of inductive heating by Mayer. More importantly, Mayer teaches that the coil 2 is powered by direct current (Column 7 Lines 25-27). It is Examiner’s understanding that a coil like that of Mayer must be supplied with alternating current in order to cause inductive heating. Thus, Mayer’s coil does not constitute an induction heater assembly or an induction emitter. For this reason, Mayer does not anticipate the claims.
Examiner is not presently aware of any teaching or suggestion in the prior art which would lead one of ordinary skill in the art to configure the coil 2 of Mayer to be an induction heater.
Citation of Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
WO 2014/128430 is cited by and incorporated by reference into Applicant’s specification.
Elvander et al. (US 3,948,645) is suitable for use as a primary reference in alternative prior art rejections of many of the claims.
Calderon (US 4,376,033) is suitable for use as a primary reference in alternative prior art rejections of many of the claims.
Calderon (US 4,469,488) is suitable for use as a primary reference in alternative prior art rejections of many of the claims.
CN 206089598 U, CN 105861068 A, and CN 105885950 A were cited as X references in the search report of GB2202444.2 (which was cited by Applicant in the 8/21/2024 IDS).
Wu et al. (“Low energy consumption and high quality bio-fuels production via in-situ fast pyrolysis of reed straw by adding metallic particles in an induction heating reactor”; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2021.11.229.) is suitable for use as a primary reference in alternative prior art rejections of many of the claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN "LUKE" PILCHER whose telephone number is (571)272-2691. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, In Suk Bullock can be reached at 5712725954. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JONATHAN LUKE PILCHER/Examiner, Art Unit 1772