DETAILED ACTION
The communication dated 9/24/2024 has been entered and fully considered. Claims 1-20 are pending.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-14 and 21-24 of U.S. Patent No. US 12129598 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both claim sets are directed to a digester arrangement with concentric pipes and sensor channels that extend into the center pipe.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 10, 12, 16, 17, and 19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but
would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, and if the applicable double patenting and indefinite rejections are overcome.
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 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the outer vessel" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the concentric pipe" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the concentric pipe" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "the at least one sensor" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 20 line 14 recites “at least one the sensors” which is grammatically incorrect.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-9, 11, 13-15, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TUURI (US 20090188641 A1) in view of CLARKE (US 20110092726 A1).
For claim 1, TUURI teaches a vertical digester that continuously converts lignocellulosic fibrous material [0015]. This teaches the limitation of “A digester vessel oriented vertically and configured to continuously treat a lignocellulosic material”. TUURI teaches the digester has an outer wall with interior chamber made by a central pipe that extends into the bottom of the digester and the cellulose moves form top down through the digester [0025]. This teaches the limitation of “the digester vessel comprising: an outer wall defining an interior chamber configured to treat the lignocellulosic material flowing continuously down through the digester vessel from an upper inlet to a lower outlet for the material; wherein the central pipe is configured to deliver liquor to the lignocellulosic material in the interior chamber;”. TUURI teaches the vessel has a height of greater than about 30 meters [0015]. The TUURI center pipe is at least about 15 meters into the vessel. This range is within the instant range of “a central pipe coaxial with the outer vessel and extending downward at least ten meters within the interior chamber”. TUURI also teaches a sensing elements can be installed on an outer wall of a center pipe [0025]. TUURI teaches an embodiment of the sensors ten meters below the chip level [0024]. This value is within the claim range of “a sensor channel mounted to an outermost wall of the central pipe and extending at least a meter in the interior chamber, wherein the sensor channel supports sensors arranged at various elevations within the digester vessel”.
TUURI is silent to the connection method for the sensors. CLARKE teaches a similar vertical pulp mill reaction vessel with lignocellulose [0030]. CLARKE also teaches the use of sensors to aid in reaction control [0143]. CLARKE further teaches the sensors are connected by cables in a conduit to communication devices [0142]. This teaches the limitation of “a cable conduit extending from the sensor channel, through the interior chamber and to an outlet at or external to the outer wall; and at least one sensor cable connected to the sensors and extending through the sensor channel and through the cable conduit, wherein the at least one sensor cable is configured to carry signals generated by the sensors outside of the digester vessel”. CLARKE teaches the advantage of the invention is the improved economics from using the existing infrastructure of the plant reactor [0207]. It would be obvious to one skilled in the arts to substitute cable conduits into the TUURI reaction vessel to improve controls. One would be motivated to substitute the art based on the improved economics from using the existing infrastructure of the plant reactor as taught by CLARKE.
For claim 2, TUURI and CLARKE teach the digester vessel of claim 1, as above. CLARKE teaches the conduits are sealed [0134]. This teaches the limitation of “further comprising a sealed channel extending through the cable conduit and the sensor channel, wherein the sealed channel is configured to be pressurized”.
For claim 3, TUURI and CLARKE teach the digester vessel of claim 1, as above. CLARKE teaches the conduits are sealed to protect cables [0142] and the material is outside of the channel [0134]. This teaches the limitation of “wherein the sensor channel includes an outer wall exposed to the lignocellulosic material moving through the interior chamber and the sensor channel is configured to shield the sensors from the lignocellulosic material”.
For claim 4, TUURI and CLARKE teach the digester vessel of claim 1, as above. TUURI teaches the chips are removed by pressurizing the pipe containing the material and the pressure at both ends (entrance/exit) is controlled by sensors [0035]. TUURI teaches the sensors can indirectly interact with the fluid by capillaries around the sensor prior to removal [0029]. This teaches the limitation of “further comprising an evacuation tube extending from an outlet external to the outer wall and the interior chamber and extending to at least a bottom of the sensor channel, wherein the evacuation tube is configured to evacuate liquid from the sensor channel and out of the digester vessel”.
For claim 5, TUURI and CLARKE teach the digester vessel of claim 1, as above. CLARKE teaches the conduits are sealed to protect cables [0142] and the material is outside of the channel [0134]. This teaches the limitation of “wherein the cable conduit and the sensor channel are sealed and configured to isolate an interior channel through the cable conduit and the sensor channel from the lignocellulosic material”.
For claim 6, TUURI and CLARKE teach the digester vessel of claim 1, as above. TUURI teaches the sensor channels are along the outer wall and are arranged along the full height of the vessel [0019]. CLARKE teaches the sensor channels are made into bundles in conduit channels that follow along the reactor vessel [0396]. This teaches the limitation of “wherein the sensor channel is concentric with the central pipe and extends around an outermost wall of the central pipe”.
For claim 7, TUURI and CLARKE teach the digester vessel of claim 1, as above. TUURI uses sensors to measure the chip level [0019]. This teaches the limitation of “wherein the sensors include at least one of: a temperature sensor, a chip level sensor, a liquid interface sensor, a liquid level sensor, or a residual alkali concentration sensor”.
For claim 8, TUURI and CLARKE teach the digester vessel of claim 1, as above. TUURI teaches the digester has an outer wall with interior chamber made by a central pipe that extends into the bottom of the digester and the cellulose moves form top down through the digester [0025]. “wherein the central pipe extends down through the interior chamber into a lower half of the digester vessel”.
For claim 9, TUURI and CLARKE teach the digester vessel of claim 8, as above. TUURI teaches the sensor channels are along the outer wall and are arranged along the full height of the vessel [0019]. “wherein the sensor channel extends to the lower half of the digester vessel”.
For claim 11, TUURI and CLARKE teach the digester vessel of claim 1, as above. TUURI teaches the sensors can be attached along the outside wall of the center pipe [0025]. TUURI teaches the use of a diaphragm (channel) that separates the sensor from the fluid [0029]. The examiner understands the sensor and diaphragm are attached to together along the outside wall of the center pipe. This teaches the limitation of “wherein an outer wall of the sensor channel is attached along opposite longitudinal sides of the sensor channel to an outermost wall of the central pipe”.
For claim 13, TUURI and CLARKE teach the digester vessel of claim 1, as above. TUURI teaches the sensors can be attached along the outside wall of the center pipe [0025]. TUURI teaches the use of a diaphragm (channel) that separates the sensor from the fluid [0029]. The examiner understands the sensor/diaphragm measure the pressure difference between inside the diaphragm and the outer fluid. This teaches the limitation of “wherein the sensor channel is or includes a sealed channel connected to a source of pressurized fluid”.
For claim 14, TUURI and CLARKE teach the digester vessel of claim 1, as above. It would be obvious to one skilled in the art to extend the sensor channel into the concentric pipe full length in order to measure at multiple points. See MPEP 2144.04 (V)(E). This teaches the limitation of “wherein the sensor channel: extends vertically downward beyond the central pipe, or has an end proximate vertically an outlet of the concentric pipe”.
For claim 15, TUURI and CLARKE teach the digester vessel of claim 1, as above. It would be obvious to one skilled in the art to add additional central pipes to increase throughput. See MPEP 2144.04 (VI)(B). This teaches the limitation of “further comprising at least one additional central pipe concentric to the central pipe”.
For claim 18, TUURI and CLARKE teach the digester vessel of claim 1, as above. TUURI teaches the sensors used are kept from the temperature of the liquor [0030]. The examiner understands this to mean the sensor channel is insulated. This teaches the limitation of “wherein the sensor channel is insulated from an outer wall of the concentric pipe”.
For claim 20, TUURI teaches a vertical digester that continuously converts lignocellulosic fibrous material [0015]. This teaches the limitation of “A digester vessel oriented vertically and configured to continuously treat a lignocellulosic material”. TUURI teaches the digester has an outer wall with interior chamber made by a central pipe that extends into the bottom of the digester and the cellulose moves form top down through the digester [0025]. This teaches the limitation of “the digester vessel comprising: an outer wall defining an interior chamber configured to treat the lignocellulosic material flowing continuously down through the digester vessel from an upper inlet to a lower outlet for the material; wherein the central pipe is configured to deliver liquor to the lignocellulosic material in the interior chamber;”. TUURI teaches the vessel has a height of greater than about 30 meters [0015]. The TUURI center pipe is at least about 15 meters into the vessel. This range is within the instant range of “a central pipe coaxial with the outer vessel and extending downward at least ten meters within the interior chamber”. TUURI also teaches a sensing elements can be installed on an outer wall of a center pipe [0025]. TUURI teaches an embodiment of the sensors ten meters below the chip level [0024]. This value is within the claim range of “a sensor channel mounted to an outermost wall of the central pipe and extending at least a meter in the interior chamber, wherein the sensor channel supports sensors arranged at various elevations within the digester vessel”.
TUURI is silent to the connection method for the sensors. CLARKE teaches a similar vertical pulp mill reaction vessel with lignocellulose [0030]. CLARKE also teaches the use of sensors to aid in reaction control [0143]. CLARKE further teaches the sensors are connected by cables in a conduit to communication devices [0142]. This teaches the limitation of “a cable conduit extending from the sensor channel, through the interior chamber and to an outlet at or external to the outer wall; and at least one sensor cable connected to the sensors and extending through the sensor channel and through the cable conduit, wherein the at least one sensor cable is configured to carry signals generated by the sensors outside of the digester vessel”. CLARKE teaches the advantage of the invention is the improved economics from using the existing infrastructure of the plant reactor [0207]. It would be obvious to one skilled in the arts to substitute cable conduits into the TUURI reaction vessel to improve controls. One would be motivated to substitute the art based on the improved economics from using the existing infrastructure of the plant reactor as taught by CLARKE.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHEN M RUSSELL whose telephone number is (571)272-6907. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 7:30 to 4:30 EST.
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, Abbas Rashid can be reached at (571) 270-7457. 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.
/S.M.R./Examiner, Art Unit 1748
/Abbas Rashid/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1748
Prosecution Insights