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 Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 11-13, 15 and 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Henrich et al (US 2010/0163395).
Regarding claim 11, Henrich teaches a method for pyrolyzing ligneous biomass (title, abstract, [0002]), comprising: mechanically grinding 2 ligneous biomass into ligneous particles 1/3 of less than 3 cm3 (Fig 1a/b, [0016,0027,0040]); conveying the ligneous particles 1/3 to a dryer 4 operating at a temperature of at least 80°C, the dryer being configured to have a moisture level of the ligneous particles of less than 10% at an outlet (Fig 1a/b [0012,0016-0022,0040]); heating the ligneous particles coming from the dryer 4, in a horizontal-trough pyrolysis reactor 7/17 having an oxygen level of less than 15%, the horizontal-trough pyrolysis reactor comprising a first inlet 22 for the ligneous particles 1 and a second inlet 23 for heat-transfer beads 6, the heating is configured to establish a temperature inside the horizontal-trough pyrolysis reactor of between 400°C and 660°C and configured to make the ligneous particles react so as to have a first output 25 of a mixture of the heat-transfer beads and pyrolyzed ligneous particles, and a second output 24 of a pyrolysis gas, the residence time in the horizontal-trough pyrolysis reactor is at least 20 seconds (see Figs 1a/b, 2, [0040-0048]); heating the heat-transfer beads in a bead regenerator 28, prior to the heat-transfer beads entering the horizontal-through reactor, at a temperature of between 400°C and 650°C for at least 40 seconds, the bead regenerator comprising a main cylinder 28 through which cylindrical tubes pass (heat exchanger) in which the heat-transfer beads pass (see Fig 2, [0040-0048]).
Regarding claim 12-13, Henrich further teaches vibratory sieve 26 separating heat transfer beads 6 from biocarbon 8,10 through vertical conveyor 25 (Fig 2, [0042,0048]).
Regarding claim 15, in Henrich tubes in 28 are seen as vertically oriented (Fig 2).
Regarding claims 17-18, Henrich teaches the beads may be ceramic, and sized as greater than 3 mm in diameter or 6mm to 16mm in diameter ([0029,0031]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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) 14 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Henrich et al (US 2010/0163395) as applied above and further in combination with Ellens et al (US 8,100,990).
Regarding claim 14, Henrich teaches all limitations as set forth above, however Henrich does not teach wherein the dryer is a rotary dryer operating with combustion gases.
Ellens teaches a system and method for pyrolysis of biomass (title, abstract), Ellens teaches the process comprises biomass pyrolysis conversion reactor 115, where the non-condensable gases generated are used to generate process heat 140, where the flue gases generated a used in the biomass pre-treatment units 105/110, including rotary dryer, biochar recovered are provided to product recovery 120, where plural liquid fractions are recovered by condensation (see Fig 1-2, C7:L44-C8:L45, C12:L54-C13:L58)..
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to perform the drying step of Henrich in view of Ellens as a rotary dryer, because Ellens teaches the rotary dryer was one of several known dryer types for drying biomass, with the expected result of drying biomass.
Regarding claim 19, Henrich teaches all limitations as set forth above, however Henrich does not teach wherein the dryer is a rotary dryer operating with combustion gases.
Ellens teaches a system and method for pyrolysis of biomass (title, abstract), Ellens teaches the process comprises biomass pyrolysis conversion reactor 115, where the non-condensable gases generated are used to generate process heat 140, where the flue gases generated a used in the biomass pre-treatment units 105/110, including rotary dryer, biochar recovered are provided to product recovery 120, where plural liquid fractions are recovered by condensation (see Fig 1-2, C7:L44-C8:L45, C12:L54-C13:L58).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to perform condensation of the produced pyrolysis vapors of Henrich in view of Ellens, because Ellens teaches the condensation of vapors may be performed to obtain different liquid fractions from the pyrolysis vapors, which can then be separately utilized.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Henrich et al (US 2010/0163395).
Regarding claim 16, Henrich teaches all limitations as set forth above, however Henrich does not teach wherein tubes of the regenerator are a spiral. However, selecting the tubes as spiral rather than straight would be a constructional design choice for the skilled artisan balancing cost versus space of the bead regenerator, because the spiral heat exchange tubes would be more costly to construct due to more complex design, however would be more compact, therefore this would be a routine design choice, see MPEP 2144.04 (IV).
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Henrich et al (US 2010/0163395) as applied above and further in combination with Badger (US 2008/0006519).
Regarding claim 20, Henrich teaches all limitations as set forth above, however Henrich does not teach wherein the dryer is a rotary dryer operating with combustion gases.
Badger teaches a system and method for pyrolysis of biomass with heat carrier materials (title, abstract), Badger teaches dried 12 (Fig 1, [0027-0028]) biomass 112 is augered 128/130 and fed to the pyrolysis reactor 116, mixed with heat carrier from 120/122, with a vertical gas storage area, before gases and vapors are withdrawn from reactor 116 via outlet 114 (Fig 2, 8, [0033-0035,0049-0053]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention design the reactor with an storage zone in Henrich as taught by Badger, because the storage zone of Badger allows mixing of heat carrier and biomass feed, as well as a point for removal of generated pyrolysis gases.
Pertinent Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Pollock (US 4,160,719) teaches heat carrier pyrolysis. Freel (US 5,792,340) teaches heat carrier pyrolysis. Hornung (US 2011/0278149) teaches biomass pyrolysis. Kulprathipanja (US 2013/0075072) teaches pyrolysis process. Tumiatti (US 2013/0256113) teaches heat carrier pyrolysis. Li (US 9,994,774) teaches heat carrier pyrolysis. Acerkson (US 10,611,966) teaches heat carrier pyrolysis.
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