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 37-49, in the reply filed on 8/24/26 is acknowledged.
Claims 50-67 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 8/24/26.
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: “heating system” and “extraction device” 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 § 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) 37-49 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abfalterer (US 2015/0290556) taken in combination with Schabel et al (US 2017/0283706) and Lin (US 2011/0034712).
Regarding claims 37, Abfalterer teaches a method of use of and a device for the material treatment of raw materials (see title, abstract), comprising a heating system 2, a distillation unit 3 and a reaction unit 4, wherein the heating system 2 is openable and closable in order to be loaded with the reaction unit 4, the distillation unit 3 has a cooling section 12, and the reaction unit 4 is loadable with the raw materials, wherein an exhaust gas line 11/11a/11b is formed between the reaction unit 4 and the distillation unit 3 for discharging the exhaust gases from the reaction unit 4, the cooling section 12 of the distillation unit 3 has a device for forced cooling, wherein the cooling section is located inside an air guide housing for selectively guiding ambient air via the cooling section: the arrangement of the tubes as two parallel tube rows provided with ribs thus forms an air guide housing in the cooling section 12 and water cooling can be used in order to cool the gases produced (Figs 1-9, [0102-0147]).
However Abfalterer does not teach the system comprising temperature sensors connected to a control device, wherein at least one temperature sensor is associated with the heating system and at least one temperature sensor is associated with the distillation unit; an extraction device for extracting gases from the reaction unit, wherein the extraction device is connected to the control device nor an exhaust gas line for discharging exhaust gases from the reaction unit, the exhaust gas line connecting reaction unit to the distillation unit and including a connecting element for connecting to a device for introducing a gaseous flushing medium into the reaction unit.
Schabel teaches process, apparatus and controller for producing petroleum from raw mixed plastics materials in a pyrolysis system (title, abstract), Schabel teaches controller box 86, with processor 88 and memory 89, is connected to temperature sensors 91, 93, 140, 142, 144, via exhaust vents 40, 42, 120, 122, 124 (extraction locations), each line having flow control devices 44, 46, 130, 132, 134 (extraction devices), as well as sensors 92, 94, 150, 152, 154 for control of the flow control devices, and having sweep gas supply 84 and feed line 82 to sweep gas into line 38 through the reactor 100 to outlets (See Figs 2-3, [0056-0057,0068-0070,0080]), the controller controls parameters in the reactor such as temperature, to adjust the flow control devices and therefore controls the products evolved from the reactor outlet ports ([0081-0086]).
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 Abfalterer in view of the teachings of Schabel to arrive at the system comprising temperature sensors connected to a control device, wherein at least one temperature sensor is associated with the heating system and at least one temperature sensor is associated with the distillation unit; an extraction device for extracting gases from the reaction unit, wherein the extraction device is connected to the control device nor an exhaust gas line for discharging exhaust gases from the reaction unit, the exhaust gas line connecting reaction unit to the distillation unit and including a connecting element for connecting to a device for introducing a gaseous flushing medium into the reaction unit because Schabel teaches measuring parameters of the reactor such as temperature and by using a controller to control the parameters of the reactor control the products generated by the pyrolysis system.
However Abfalterer does not teach the system wherein the extraction device is for generating negative pressure inside the reaction unit.
Lin teaches a system and method of use for dry distillation pyrolysis cracking of raw materials such as biomass wastes to extract oils (title, abstract), Lin teaches that reactor 1 comprises vacuum pump 4 to decrease pressure of reaction vessel 1 to a low vacuum condition to evolve cracking gases generated that can be distilled in condenser 2, thus preventing generated gases from being in the high temperature environment for too long which would cause them to be scorched excessively (Fig 1, [0026-0034], claim 1).
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 Lin in view of the teachings of Schabel to arrive at the system wherein the extraction device is for generating negative pressure inside the reaction unit, by incorporating vacuum pump which would prevent generated gases from being in the high temperature environment for too long which would cause them to be scorched excessively as taught by Lin.
Regarding claim 38, in modified Abfalterer as set forth above, incorporating the temperature sensors of Schabel would arrive at the system wherein the temperature sensors include at least two temperature sensors for determining the temperature within the reaction unit that are arranged in an intermediate space formed between the reaction unit and a jacket element of the heating system when the heating system is in the closed state as modified.
Regarding claim 39, in modified Abfalterer as set forth above, Abfalterer has taught the heating system connected with the exhaust line 11a/b (Fig 3-5, [0116]).
Regarding claim 40, in modified Abfalterer as set forth above, incorporating the temperature sensors of Schabel would arrive at the system wherein at least one of the temperature sensors is arranged on the exhaust gas line
Regarding claim 41-42, in modified Abfalterer as set forth above, further incorporating fans were known to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to increase convection heat transfer and therefore further increase heat exchange rates and would be incorporated through routine experimentation with the expected result of increasing heat exchange rates of the cooling section.
Regarding claim 43, in modified Abfalterer as set forth above, Lin has taught the extraction device 4 is arranged downstream of an oil tank 36 (see Lin Fig 1, [0032]).
Regarding claim 44-49, in modified Abfalterer as set forth above, Abfalterer has taught details of the heating system having top element 7 jacket element 8 and support elements 6 that form hood with the system in the manners as claimed (see Abfalterer Figs 3-4, [0111-0121]).
Pertinent Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Nagai (US 5,584,969) teaches pyrolysis system. Ballantine (US 2003/0010266) teaches thermolysis. Bernd (US 2005/0234274) teaches a pyrolysis system. Ni (US 2015/0184090) teaches waste gasification 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