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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-12, in the reply filed on 8/19/26 is acknowledged.
Claims 13-22 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 8/19/26.
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: “pyrolysis generator” 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 4-5 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.
Regarding claims 4-5, in claim 4, the recitation “the frame part” has unclear antecedent basis in the claims
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) 1-3 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jung (KR100715694 with ref made to Abstract provided by applicant on 11/18/25 and Espacenet Machine Translation of KR100715694 Obtained 2 September 2026).
Regarding claim 1, Jung teaches a pyrolysis system for waste (title, abstract), comprising a pyrolysis chamber 140 that provides a sealed internal space suitable to host introduced waste in layers; a pyrolysis member 140 provided on a lower side of the pyrolysis chamber and contacting a lower part of the layered waste to pyrolyze the waste, wherein the pyrolysis member is suitable to be heated by hot air supplied from fan 141 and tank 145 from the outside, suitable to melt and pyrolyze the waste that comes in contact with the pyrolysis member. Furthermore, this pyrolysis member 140 comprises (see configuration of fig. 6) a frame part formed by conduits 143/146 to block a lower part of the internal space of the pyrolysis chamber, on which the waste suitable to be layered; and discharge holes formed in the frame part between conduits 143/146 so that the residues generated during the pyrolysis of the waste can accumulate on the lower side of the pyrolysis member. Pipes 148a/148b are also suitable to transport hot air in the pyrolysis member. Hence this frame part is formed in a hollow shape and therefore suitable to allow the hot air to be introduced and circulated inside; an exhaust pipe 130 provided on one side of the pyrolysis chamber suitable to discharge combustible gas generated during the pyrolysis of the waste; and a residue discharge section 150 provided on a lower side of the pyrolysis member suitable to discharge residues remaining after the pyrolysis of the waste (see Figs 5-6, P6:last line - P8:last line).
Regarding claims 2-3, in Jung, as set forth above, the details of the frame as set forth above are taught as claimed.
Regarding claim 10, in Jung, as set forth above, the pyrolysis generator is at a predetermined distance from the bottom of the system (see Fig 5).
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) 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung (KR100715694 with ref made to Abstract provided by applicant on 11/18/25 and Espacenet Machine Translation of KR100715694 Obtained 2 September 2026).
Regarding claims 4-5, Jung teaches all limitations as set forth above, however does not teach the pair of distribution pipes header being an arc shape, because the distribution pipe 145 is a line (See Jung Fig 6), however changes in shape and size would be routine constructional design choice to one having ordinary skill in the art and would have the expected result of distributing air while advantageously changing the footprint of the unit to be more compact, see MPEP 2144.04 (IV).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung (KR100715694 with ref made to Abstract provided by applicant on 11/18/25 and Espacenet Machine Translation of KR100715694 Obtained 2 September 2026) as applied above and further in combination with Komori et al (JP2010270988 with ref made to Abstract provided by applicant on 11/14/24 and Espacenet Machine Translation of JP2010270988 Obtained 2 September 2026).
Regarding claims 6, Jung teaches all limitations as set forth above, including the first heater is the air distribution piping system as set forth above, however Jung does not teach second heater as claimed.
Komori teaches cylindrical combustion device for a solid fuel (title, abstract), Komori teaches the system comprises primary gas combustion space 5 in combustion unit 3 that is ignited by ignition unit 4, and surrounding chamber 3 is air heating space 7 that provides for air heating (see Fig 1-2, [0014,0021-0025,0033]).
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 Jung in view of Komori to include additional surrounding air heating space to provide additional heating and improve efficiency of the system as taught by Komori in the system of Jung.
Claim(s) 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung (KR100715694 with ref made to Abstract provided by applicant on 11/18/25 and Espacenet Machine Translation of KR100715694 Obtained 2 September 2026) as applied above and further in combination with Jung ‘716 (KR 20110100716 with ref made to Abstract provided by applicant on 11/18/25 and Espacenet Machine Translation of KR20110100716 Obtained 2 September 2026).
Regarding claims 7-9, Jung teaches all limitations as set forth above, however Jung does not teach the sealed jacket space with refractory on interior side configured to receive air as claimed.
Jung ‘716 teaches a pyrolysis gas generation system for combustible wastes (title, abstract), Jung ‘716 teaches in the system to include a jacket portion formed of a refractory material and surrounding the exterior of the pyrolysis chamber suitable for a sealed gas circulation space provided between the jacket portion and the exterior e.g. jacket 310 with refractory material 320 on its inner surface surrounding the exterior of the pyrolysis chamber 330 to maintain decomposition temperature (see Fig 4, [0045-0051]).
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 Jung in view of Jung ‘716 in include the exterior jacket isolated space that can be configured to receive air and including interior refractory as taught by Jung ‘716 to maintain decomposition temperature inside the pyrolysis system.
Claim(s) 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung (KR100715694 with ref made to Abstract provided by applicant on 11/18/25 and Espacenet Machine Translation of KR100715694 Obtained 2 September 2026) as applied above and further in combination with Matsuoka et al (JP2004115576 with ref made to Abstract provided by applicant on 11/14/24 and Espacenet Machine Translation of JP2004115576 Obtained 2 September 2026).
Regarding claims 11-12, Jung teaches all limitations as set forth above, however Jung does not teach lower door with rotating scraper as claimed to remove solid particles to bin in the manner as claimed.
Matsuoka teaches a dry distillation system for decomposing a solid fuel (title, abstract), Matsuoka teaches the residue discharge section includes a rotating scraper 20, which is connected to a lower door 33 installed at the bottom of the pyrolysis chamber to selectively open or seal the internal space as an air tight structure (fig. 9-12, [0043-0049]).
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 Jung in view of Matsuoka to include lower door with rotating scraper as claimed to remove solid particles to bin in the system of Jung as taught by Matsuoka to provide an efficient way to remove and contain the pyrolysis residue of Jung as taught by Matsuoka, and to select the driving system of the scraper as a magnetic motor would be routine selection of limited number of types of known drive motors for rotating scrapers with the expected result of driving the scraper rotation.
Pertinent Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Janning (US 4,203,804) teaches pyrolysis system. Green (US 4,341,598) teaches pyrolysis system. Tanaka (US 5,264,196) teaches pyrolysis system. Ershag (US 2006/0163053) teaches a pyrolysis system. Machon (US 11,479,723) teaches a thermal decomposition system. BI (US 2023/0149875) teaches a fluid bed pyrolysis system. Heydenrych (US 2023/0357641) teaches a fluid pyrolysis 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
Prosecution Insights