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 .
Claim Interpretation
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: “mixing apparatus” in claim 1.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “feeding apparatus” in claim 1.
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 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 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors. The examiner will attempt to point out issues as possible, however Examiner suggests applicant work with attorney familiar with U.S. practice for proper and clear claim language.
Throughout the claims, the first instance of every limitation recited uses “the” therefore all of the claim language lacks proper antecedent basis. Applicant must go through the claims and ensure the first instance of every limitation uses “a” rather than “the” or “said” to make sure antecedent basis language is proper and clear.
Many instances of “it” (claim 1, 4, 5, 9), “their” (claim 2) and “them” (claim 1, 2) is unclear and imprecise, applicant must replace these words with the antecedent basis language in order to have clear metes and bounds.
“there” (1, c.) is imprecise what is meant by this destination, applicant must recite the destination.
“which feeding apparatus” (1, e.) is narrative and uses unclear antecedent language, applicant can recite “a feeding apparatus” to overcome this rejection.
“another conveyor” (1, g.) has unclear metes and bounds because “a first conveyor” is not yet recited, additionally claim 7 refers back to “the first and second conveyor” therefore it appears that this should recite “a second conveyor” in order to be consistent with the claims.
“liquid gotten raw material particles” (1, h.) is unclear what is meant by “liquid gotten”, this appears to be a translational issue.
Throughout the claims use of “mentioned” is unconventional antecedent basis language and must use standard “the” or “said” language.
Regarding claim 2, the phrase "other casing" renders the claim(s) indefinite because the claim(s) include(s) elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by " other casing "), thereby rendering the scope of the claim(s) unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 2, the limitation “certain favorable amount” uses subjective claim language that is not clearly defined therefore the metes and bounds cannot be fairly ascertained.
Regarding claim 2, “hat gas” has unclear metes and bounds, it appears this might be a typo of “hot gas” however the phrase must use antecedent basis language, such as “a hot gas”.
Regarding claim 2, “mentioned heating sections” has unclear antecedent basis language and unclear what is being referred back to in context.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 4 recites the broad recitation “rubber and/or plastic”, and the claim also recites “including polyolefin rich plastic waste” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Regarding claims 8 and 9-14, these claims refer to “heating sections” however this concept is not introduced into claim 2. These claims depend upon claim 1, therefore there is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations.
Regarding claim 11, “a product carbon statue” is unclear claim language in context, this appears to be a translational issue.
Regarding claim 11, “the mentioned opening” uses improper antecedent basis language and what is meant by “the mentioned opening” is unclear.
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, 3-7, 9 and 11-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abel (US 5,207,904) taken in combination with Riedewald (US 2016/0030987).
Regarding claim 1, Abel teaches a continuously operating pyrolysis equipment and method (title, abstract) that consists at least of: a. a feeding apparatus 160/80 to feed raw material into a reactor, b. a reactor 122 to produce the pyrolysis products, c. a heating system formed by housing 180 and heated auger 120/122 to generate the heat energy that the pyrolysis process needs and to transfer it to the raw material, d/ the mixing apparatus and the conveyor formed by auger 122 to mix and to transport the raw material particles in the reactor, and e. the channels 172 to exit the solid, liquid, and gas pyrolysis products from the reactor 122; the feeding apparatus includes the liquid seal 162 to maintain an oxygen-free condition in the reactor and includes: g. a second conveyor formed by weir 158 leading from the liquid above the liquid surface to transport and to lift the lighter than the liquid raw material particles to the surface of the liquid in the transport channel comprising valves 170, h. a first conveyor 166 leading from the liquid to the feeding opening of the reactor 122 to lift the heavier than the liquid raw material particles from the liquid (Fig. 7-9; C5:L20-C7:L12).
However Abel does not teach f. push button to press lighter than the liquid of the liquid seal raw material particles from the feeding channel under the liquid surface.
Riedewald teaches a system and method of treating electronic wastes, including circuit boards and batteries in a pyrolysis system and method (title, abstract), Riedewald teaches waste materials including plastics [0047] are fed via charging chamber 1 and/or charging vessel 30 with charging conveyor 31 into pyrolysis chamber 8 having a separation/pyrolysis liquid 7 that can be molten metals [0138], a plunger 35 may be used to submerge heavy materials floating on the surface of the separation/pyrolysis liquid 7 (Figs 1, 3, [0094-0136,0138-0148]), solids removal devices 15-17 remove treated solids from the pyrolysis chamber (Figs 1,3, [0149-0155]) and vapours are removed via top dross line (Figs 1,3, [0156-0165]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Abel in view of Riedewald to include the plunger (push button) of Riedewald to make sure heavy materials that might float being treated are submerged in the system of Abel.
Regarding claims 3, Abel suggests the mixing apparatus and conveyor as claimed (Fig. 7-9; C5:L20-C7:L12).
Regarding claim 4, in modified Abel, Riedewald has taught treating plastics as set forth above.
Regarding claims 5-6, in modified Abel, the modification of the plunger of Riedewald would arrive at the instantly claimed design without undue burden to ensure submerging of floating materials without unexpected results.
Regarding claim 7, in modified Abel, Riedewald has substantially taught conveyor belts 31.
Regarding claim 9, in modified Abel as set forth above, Abel, when modified by Riedwald teaches the method of operation of the system as claimed (Fig. 7-9; C5:L20-C7:L12), where in the push button (plunger 35) of Riedwald were incorporated into the system.
Regarding claim 11, in Abel as set forth above, the plug would form in solids output conveyor 62 of Abel (see Fig 1, C4:L31-44).
Regarding claims 12-14, in modified Abel as set forth above the hot gas is recovered and used as claimed (see Fig 1, C4:L31-44).
Claim(s) 2, 8 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abel (US 5,207,904) taken in combination with Riedewald (US 2016/0030987), as applied above and further in combination with Tenore et al (US 2020/0369964).
Regarding claims 2, 8 and 10, modified Abel teaches all limitations as set forth above however Abel does not teach the structure of the heating sections as claimed.
Tenore teaches a system and method of use of the system for plastics pyrolysis to make fuel (title, abstract), Tenore teaches the pyrolysis chamber comprises dual heated zones to transform the feed plastic materials surrounded by clamshell burners 1720 (Figs 1, 13, 17, [0122-0135,0142], the clamshell burners provide continuous even heating design [0136].
Therefore Tenore substantially teaches known methods of heating waste plastics for pyrolysis systems using dual burner design and it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Abel to incorporate dual clamshell burner designs taught by Tenore to improve the heating of the burners to providing an even heating design as taught by Tenore.
Pertinent Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Stout (US 3,977,960) teaches pyrolysis treatment system. Meuser (US 4,925,532) teaches pyrolysis treatment system. Harris (US 5,085,738) teaches pyrolysis treatment system. Jagau (US 5,449,438) teaches pyrolysis treatment system. Mabuchi (US 2009/0314700) teaches pyrolysis treatment system. Behrens (US 2010/0289270) teaches pyrolysis treatment system. Feerer (US 8,419,902) teaches pyrolysis treatment system. Carreira (US 2021/0308644) teaches pyrolysis treatment system.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN MILLER whose telephone number is (571)270-1603. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9 - 5.
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 (571) 272-5954. 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 MILLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1772