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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Korea on 1/5/2024. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the 1/5/2024 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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.
Said claim limitations are:
The “feeding part” (claim 7)
The “waste composite material supply unit” (claim 13).
The “heat supply unit” (claim 13).
The “reforming unit” (claim 13).
The “separation unit” (claim 13).
The “separation part” (claim 13).
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 2 and 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.
Claim 2 recites “wherein the swirler includes” in line 1. However, claim 1 specifies that there are a plurality of swirlers, not just one. Accordingly, claim 2 should be amended to recite --wherein the swirlers include--.
Claim 14 recites “wherein the swirler includes” in line 1. However, claim 1 specifies that there are a plurality of swirlers, not just one. Accordingly, claim 2 should be amended to recite --wherein the swirlers include--.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/35 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 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.
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, 2, 4, 6, 7, and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Livingston et al. (US 8,388,813), hereafter referred to as Livingston.
With regard to claim 1: Livingston teaches two pyrolysis reactors, i.e. torrefaction reactor 14 and carbonization reactor 16 (Figures 1A and 2-8, Column 4 Lines 35-40 and 50-60), wherein the carbonization reactor 16 is “essentially identical” to the torrefaction reactor aside from the specific materials used in the construction thereof (Column 6 Lines 21).
The reactors 14 and 16 each comprise:
A casing (shell) 30 having a cylindrical shape (Figures 2-8, Column 4 Lines 50-60)
At least two movement modules, i.e. sections comprising spirally oriented flights 92 and spiral flights 106, 108, 110, 112, each movement module including a spiral wing, i.e. spirally oriented flights 92 and spiral flights 106, 108, 110, 112 respectively, mounted on an inner wall of the casing and deployed in a longitudinal direction of the casing (Figures 5-7, Column 5 Lines 25-50).
At least one stirring module including a plurality of plate-shaped swirlers (angular flights) 94 mounted perpendicularly on the inner wall of the casing 30 so that each of the swirlers extends in the longitudinal direction of the casing (Figures 5-8, Column 5 Lines 25-50).
Wherein the stirring module is arranged alternately with, i.e. in a different place than, the movement module (Figures 5-7, Column 5 Lines 25-50).
With regard to claim 2: The swirlers 94 include a flat portion (inwardly projecting segment) 96 having a short side in a radial direction of the casing 30 and an inclined portion (oblique segment) 98 inclined at a predetermined angle with respect to the flat portion (Figures 5, 6, and 8, Column 5 Lines 25-35).
With regard to claim 4: It is possible to rotate the casing in a direction in which end parts of the inclined portions are directed (See MPEP 2114).
With regard to claim 6: The reactors further include a heating furnace comprised of insulative housing 36 and external reactor burner 20, the heating furnace (i.e. the insulative housing 36 thereof) accommodating the casing 30 therein (Figures 1A and 2-5, Column 4 lines 35-40 and 50-60).
With regard to claim 7: The reactors further include a feeding part (tubular inlet) 52 arranged on one side of the heating furnace and connected to an end part of the one side of the casing 30 (Figures 5 and 6, Column 4 Line 60-Column 5 Line 6).
With regard to claim 11: Livingston teaches two pyrolysis reactors, i.e. torrefaction reactor 14 and carbonization reactor 16 (Figures 1A and 2-8, Column 4 Lines 35-40 and 50-60), wherein the carbonization reactor 16 is “essentially identical” to the torrefaction reactor aside from the specific materials used in the construction thereof (Column 6 Lines 21).
The reactors 14 and 16 each comprise:
A casing (shell) 30 having a cylindrical shape (Figures 2-8, Column 4 Lines 50-60)
A movement module, i.e. a section comprising spirally oriented flights 92, each movement module including a spiral wing (i.e. spirally oriented flights) 92, mounted on an inner wall of the casing and deployed in a longitudinal direction of the casing (Figures 5-7, Column 5 Lines 25-50).
A stirring module including a plurality of plate-shaped swirlers (angular flights) 94 mounted perpendicularly on the inner wall of the casing 30 so that each of the swirlers extends in the longitudinal direction of the casing (Figures 5-8, Column 5 Lines 25-50).
Wherein each of the swirlers 94 have one side fitted into the spiral wing 92 and extending in the longitudinal direction of the casing (Figures 5-7, Column 5 Lines 25-50).
Claim(s) 3, 5, and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Livingston.
With regard to claim 3: Livingston anticipates claim 2 as described in the 102 rejections above.
Figure 8 shows the inclined portion 98 disposed at an angle between 90° and 170° relative to the flat portion 96. Accordingly, by the illustration of Figure 8, Livingston anticipates or, in the alternative, at least suggests an angle between the flat portion and the inclined portion of 90°-170°.
With regard to claim 5: Livingston anticipates claim 2 as described in the 102 rejections above.
Figure 8 illustrates the flat portion 96 and the inclined portion 98 as having cross sections with a roughly 1:1 length ratio. Accordingly, by the illustration of Figure 8, Livingston anticipates or, in the alternative, at least suggests a length ratio of a cross-section of the flat portion to a cross-section of the inclined portion being 1:1 to 1: 0.3.
With regard to claim 12: Livingston anticipates claim 11 as described in the 102 rejections above.
The swirlers 94 include a flat portion (inwardly projecting segment) 96 having a short side in a radial direction of the casing 30 and an inclined portion (oblique segment) 98 inclined at a predetermined angle with respect to the flat portion (Figures 5, 6, and 8, Column 5 Lines 25-35).
Figure 8 shows the inclined portion 98 disposed at an angle between 90° and 170° relative to the flat portion 96. Accordingly, by the illustration of Figure 8, Livingston anticipates or, in the alternative, at least suggests an angle between the flat portion and the inclined portion of 90°-170°.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Livingston in view of Holland (US 5,084,141), hereafter referred to as Holland.
With regard to claim 8: Livingston anticipates claim 7 as described in the 102 rejections above.
Livingston is silent to the feeding part including a first valve located at an upstream side thereof; a second valve located at a downstream side thereof; and a gas inlet located between the first valve and the second valve.
However, a feeding part including such elements would be satisfied by a double or triple gate valve airlock having one or more purge gas inlets disposed between two or more gate valves. Such double and triple gate valve airlocks are notoriously well-known and wide spread within the pyrolysis art. For example, Holland teaches pyrolysis reactors having such double and triple gate valve airlocks (Figures 1 and 2, Column 4 Lines 5-12 and 48-68). Holland’s teachings show that such airlocks can be used to prevent intrusion of air/oxygen into pyrolysis reactors (Figures 1 and 2, Column 4 Lines 5-12 and 48-68).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Livingston in view of Holland by adding, to the feeding part, a double or triple gate valve airlock having one or more purge gas inlets disposed between two or more gate valves, in order to provide the reactor with a means of preventing intrusion of air air/oxygen present with the feed material into the pyrolysis reactor.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Livingston in view of Bielski et al. (US 3,794,565), hereafter referred to as Bielski.
With regard to claim 9: Livingston anticipates claim 1 as described in the 102 rejections above.
The reactors of Livingston are heated by combustion gas from the burner 20 (Figures 1A and 2-5, Column 4 lines 35-40 and 50-60). Livingston teaches that the carbonization reactor 16 is heated with combustion gas that is at a temperature of 854 °F (~457 °C) (Figure 1, Column 8 Lines 23-31).
Livingston is silent to the combustion gas being supplied into (i.e. into the interior of) the casing.
However, directing heating of pyrolysis reactors by injection of combustion gas into the reactor interior is a well-known alternative to indirect heating thereof by an external furnace. For example, Bielski teaches a rotary kiln pyrolysis reactor heated by a combustion gas introduced directly into said reactor (Figure 2, Column 4 Lines 44-65).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Livingston in view of Bielski by replacing the external heating means of Livingston (i.e. for the carbonization reactor 16 thereof) with a means of supplying combustion gas directly into the casing, in order to obtain a predictably functional pyrolysis device wherein material in the reactor is directly heated.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Livingston.
With regard to claim 10: Livingston anticipates claim 1 as described in the 102 rejections above.
Livingston is silent to the distance between neighboring spirals in the spiral wing being 0.1-0.3 m.
However, a person having ordinary skill in the art will recognize that said distance is a result effective variable. Namely, a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that said distance must be appropriately sized in accordance with the size(s) of the material pieces being treated. "[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 modify Livingston by selecting an optimal or workable distance between neighboring spirals in the spiral wing, e.g. a distance of 0.1-0.3 m, in order to obtain a predictably functional device wherein the spirals are spaced appropriately in accordance with the size(s) of the material pieces being treated.
Claim(s) 1-7, 10, 13-18, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Faulkner et al. (US 6,221,329), hereafter referred to as Faulkner in view of Statham (US 1,566,778)
With regard to claims 1-7 and 13-18: Faulkner teaches a pyrolysis apparatus for pyrolysis of composite materials, i.e. vehicle tires (Figures 1-3, abstract). Because said apparatus is suitable for pyrolysis of composite materials, such as tires, it is also suitable for recovering carbon fiber and/or glass fiber, found in composite materials such as tires (see MPEP 2114 and 2115).
The apparatus comprises:
A waste composite supply unit comprised of hopper 18 (Figures 1-3, Column 4 Lines 45-Column 5 Line 30).
A reaction unit (rotary kiln) 52 configured to heat a waste composite material supplied from the waste composite material supply unit (Figures 1-3, Column 5 line 65-Column 6 Line 45)
Wherein the reaction unit 52 is a pyrolysis reactor (Figures 1-3, Column 5 line 65-Column 6 Line 45), said reaction unit including:
A casing (cylindrical shell) 56 having a cylindrical shape (Figures 1-3, Column 5 line 65-Column 6 Line 45).
At least one movement module comprising a spiral wing (flight) mounted on an inner wall of the casing 56 (via “internal dam” 74, etc.) and deployed in a longitudinal direction of the casing (Figures 1 and 2, Column 5 Lines 25-60, Column 6 Lines 15-30).
And at least one stirring module (open interior of rotary kiln) 62 (Figures 1-3, Column 6 Lines 15-30).
Wherein the stirring module and the movement module are arranged alternately (i.e. in different places (Figures 1 and 2, Column 5 Lines 25-60, Column 6 Lines 15-30).
The apparatus further comprises:
A heat supply unit, i.e. a heating furnace 52, configured to supply heat to the reaction unit 52, wherein the heating furnace includes a plurality of burners 80a-c and accommodates the casing 56 therein (Figures 1-3, Column 5 Line 65-Column 6 Line 7, Column 6 Line 44-Column 7 Line 35).
A feeding part comprised of valves 22 and feed chamber 32 and arranged on one side of the heating furnace 52 and connected to an end part of one side of the casing 56, wherein the feeding part includes a first valve (upper dump valve) 22 located at an upstream side thereof and a second valve (lower dump valve) 22 located at a downstream side thereof (Figures 1-3, Column 4 Lines 45-Column 5 Line 30).
A reforming unit (not shown) configured to separate pyrolysis gas discharged from the reaction unit 52 into gas and oil (Column 3 Lines 52-55, Column 9 Lines 36-43).
And a separation unit including a separation part (trommel) 98 configured to separate a product of the reaction into a first material and a second material, A first chamber (collection bin) 112 configured to accommodate the first material, and a second chamber (collection bin) 116 configured to accommodate the second material (Figures 1 and 3, Column 8 Line 15-Column 9 Line 18).
Faulkner is silent to the at least one stirring module being configured to include a plurality of plate-shaped swirlers mounted perpendicularly on the inner wall of the casing so that each of the swirlers extends in the longitudinal direction of the casing; wherein each of the swirlers includes a flat portion having a short side in a radial direction of the casing and an inclined portion inclined at a predetermined angle with respect to the flat portion; wherein an angle between the flat portion and the inclined portion is 90 to 170°; wherein an end part of the inclined portion is directed in a rotational direction of the casing; and wherein a length ratio of a cross-section of the flat portion to a cross-section of the inclined portion is 1:1 to 1: 0.3.
However, it is well-known in the art to provide such swirlers mounted on the inner wall of rotary kilns, including rotary kilns used in pyrolysis. For example, Statham teaches a pyrolysis (dry distillation) apparatus comprising a rotary kiln (retort) having at least one stirring module comprising a plurality of plate-shaped swirlers (ribs/flights) 32 mounted perpendicularly on an inner wall of a cylindrical casing from which said kiln (retort) is formed so that each of said swirlers 32 extends in a longitudinal direction of the casing (Figures 1 and 5, page 1 lines 1-10 and 74-105, page 2 Lines 30-55); wherein each of the swirlers includes a flat portion having a short side in a radial direction of the casing and an inclined portion inclined at a predetermined angle with respect to the flat portion (Figures 1 and 5, page 2 Lines 41-53); and wherein the inclined portion is directed in a rotation direction of the casing (Figure 5).
Statham illustrates said swirlers 32 as having the inclined portion disposed at a 90° angle from the flat portion (Figures 1 and 5, page 2 Lines 30-55, especially Figure 5). Thus, Statham at least suggests that the inclined portion should be disposed at a 90 °C from the flat portion.
Statham illustrates said swirlers 32 as having a length ratio of a cross-section of the flat portion to a cross-section of the inclined portion that is somewhere between 1:1 and 1: 0.3 (Figure 5). Thus, Statham at least suggests that said swirlers should have a length ratio of a cross-section of the flat portion to a cross-section of the inclined portion that is somewhere between 1:1 and 1: 0.3.
Statham teaches that the swirlers serve to agitate the material in the retort so as to cause said material to be uniformly distributed, thereby promoting uniform heating of said material at different parts or sections of the retort chamber (page 2 Lines 41-53).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Faulkner in view of Statham by configuring the stirring section to include a plurality of plate-shaped swirlers mounted perpendicularly on the inner wall of the casing so that each of the swirlers extends in the longitudinal direction of the casing; wherein each of the swirlers includes a flat portion having a short side in a radial direction of the casing and an inclined portion inclined at a predetermined angle with respect to the flat portion; wherein said predetermined angle between the flat portion and the inclined portion is 90 to 170°; wherein an end part of the inclined portion is directed in a rotational direction of the casing, in order to obtain a pyrolysis reactor which uniformly distributes material being treated therein; and wherein a length ratio of a cross-section of the flat portion to a cross-section of the inclined portion that is somewhere between 1:1 and 1: 0.3, thereby promoting uniform heating of said material at different parts or sections of the reactor.
With regard to claims 10 and 20: Modified Faulkner is silent to the distance between neighboring spirals in the spiral wing being 0.1-0.3 m.
However, a person having ordinary skill in the art will recognize that said distance is a result effective variable. Namely, a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that said distance must be appropriately sized in accordance with the size(s) of the material pieces being treated. "[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 Faulkner by selecting an optimal or workable distance between neighboring spirals in the spiral wing, e.g. a distance of 0.1-0.3 m, in order to obtain a predictably functional device wherein the spirals are spaced appropriately in accordance with the size(s) of the material pieces being treated.
Claim(s) 8 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Faulkner in view of Statham as applied to claims 1-7 and 13-18, and in further view of Holland.
With regard to claims 8 and 19: As discussed in the rejection of claims 1-7 and 13-18 above, the reactor of modified Faulkner includes a 1-7 and 13-18 a feeding part comprised of valves 22 and feed chamber 32 and arranged on one side of the heating furnace 52 and connected to an end part of one side of the casing 56, wherein the feeding part includes a first valve (upper dump valve) 22 located at an upstream side thereof and a second valve (lower dump valve) 22 located at a downstream side thereof (Faulkner: Figures 1-3, Column 4 Lines 45-Column 5 Line 30).
Modified Faulkner is silent to a gas inlet located between the first valve and the second valve. However, such a gas inlet is satisfied by an inlet for inert purge gas positioned between the first and second valves. It is well-known in the pyrolysis art to provide such inert purge gas inlets between first and second valves of airlocks like that of Faulkner. For example, Holland providing such inert purge gas inlets between the valves of double and triple gate airlocks (Figures 1 and 2, Column 4 Lines 5-12 and 48-68). It is understood that such inert purge gas inlets can be used to displace air/oxygen and prevent intrusion thereof into pyrolysis reactors.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Faulkner in view of Holland by adding an inert purge gas inlet between the first and second valves, in order to provide the feeding part with means for introducing purge gas and displacing air/oxygen present with the feed material that has entered the space between the valves.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Faulkner in view of Statham as applied to claims 1-7 and 13-18, and in further view of Bielski.
With regard to claim 9: Modified Faulkner is heated with combustion gas supplied by burners 80a-c (Faulkner: Figures 1-3, Column 5 Line 65-Column 6 Line 7, Column 6 Line 44-Column 7 Line 35).
Modified Faulkner is silent to the combustion gas being supplied into (i.e. into the interior of) the casing.
However, directing heating of pyrolysis reactors by injection of combustion gas into the reactor interior is a well-known alternative to indirect heating thereof by an external furnace. For example, Bielski teaches a rotary kiln pyrolysis reactor heated by a combustion gas introduced directly into said reactor (Figure 2, Column 4 Lines 44-65).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Faulkner in view of Bielski by replacing the external heating means of Faulkner with an means of supplying combustion gas directly into the casing, in order to obtain a predictably functional pyrolysis device wherein material in the reactor is directly heated.
Modified Faulkner remains silent to the combustion gas supplied into the casing being supplied at a temperature of 400-500 °C.
However, it is notoriously well-understood that temperature is a result effective variable in pyrolysis processes. "[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 Faulkner by selecting a workable temperature for the combustion gas, e.g. a temperature of 400-500 °C, in order to obtain a predictably functional pyrolysis process.
Citation of Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 1,980,828 teaches a device similar to that of the claims.
EP 0086488 B1 teaches a device similar to that of the claims and to the device of the Faulkner patent relied upon in the 103 rejections above.
US 5,342,421 teaches a device similar to that of the claims and to the device of the Faulkner patent relied upon in the 103 rejections above (see Figure 15).
US 5,453,164 teaches a device similar to that of the claims and to the device of the Faulkner patent relied upon in the 103 rejections above (see Figure 15).
US 8,800,898 teaches a device similar to that of the claims (see Figures 4-6).
US 9,885,478 teaches a device similar to that of the claims (see Figure 3).
US 2025/0222425 is the PG Pub corresponding to copending application 19/005,632, which is also by Applicant. The subject matter claimed in said copending application is similar to that which is claimed in the present application.
At this time, Examiner does not make any double patenting rejections. However, Examiner maintains the right to do so in the future should such a rejection prove to be supported by some yet unconsidered teaching in the prior art.
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
Prosecution Insights