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 DE on 9/14/2022. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the DE10 2022 123 547.5 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. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “heating 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 Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: in step B) first recitation of “reactor chamber” disagrees with all subsequent recitations of “the reaction chamber” recited in the claims; for purposes of consistency the first recitation should be “reaction chamber”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 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 1-20, in claim 1 (recited twice in step A) and B) respectively), 2 (recited 3 times) and 5, the phrase "in particular" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). For purposes of examination these limitations are treated as optional.
Regarding claims 1-20, in claim 1, step C), recitation “residence time of the bulk material” lacks specificity as to where the residence time is, reciting “residence time of the bulk material in the reaction chamber” would overcome this rejection.
Regarding claims 15-16, each claim recites “carried out in a reaction chamber” however claim 1 already recites this limitation, therefore each instance should recite “the reaction chamber” to overcome this rejection.
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) 1-8 and 10-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hornung et al (WO 2018/036839, with reference made to translation provided 2/18/2025) taken in combination with Paganessi et al (US 2010/0275514).
Regarding claim 1, Hornung teaches method for producing pyrolysis oil, pyrolysis gas and pyrolysis coke (title, abstract claim 1) having the following steps: A) Providing a starting material substantially comprising biomass, in particular in the form of pieces (see claim 1, 9, and P7); B) Supplying the starting material to a pyrolysis reactor ; C) Thermally treating the starting material in the pyrolysis reactor substantially in the absence of oxygen by means of at least one heating device for the reactor chamber, wherein the pyrolysis coke, the pyrolysis gases and the pyrolysis vapors are formed from the starting material to be pyrolyzed and wherein the bulk material, the pyrolysis gases and the pyrolysis vapors are guided through the reaction chamber from top to bottom, wherein the movement of the bulk material through the reaction chamber is caused substantially by gravity and the movement of the pyrolysis gases and the pyrolysis vapors through the reaction chamber is caused substantially by gas pressure building up due to the thermal treatment of the starting material; and wherein the thermal treatment takes place at least at a first temperature level of 300 to 650 C and subsequently at a second temperature level of 450 to 900 C that is higher than the first temperature level, wherein the residence time of the bulk material is 1 to 1200 minutes (abstract, claim 1, stages C and D); D) Separating the pyrolysis gases and pyrolysis vapors via an outlet arranged in the lower region of the pyrolysis reactor and separating the pyrolysis coke via a discharge device arranged in the lower region of the pyrolysis reactor and optionally providing pyrolysis oil by proportional condensation of the separated pyrolysis gas (page 7, “condensable components”).
However, Hornung is silent to the pyrolysis unit having a substantially vertically arranged reaction chamber, wherein the reactor chamber is substantially tubular, in particular substantially cylindrical and/or substantially conical, wherein the starting material is supplied in the upper region of the pyrolysis reactor so that a bed of bulk material that comprises the starting material to be pyrolyzed and optionally the pyrolysis coke is present in the reaction chamber
Paganessi teaches a biomass gasification/pyrolysis system and method of use of the system (title, abstract), Paganessi teaches the system and use of the system comprises biomass gasify/pyrolysis unit 10, comprising reactor 12, and bulk hopper 16 with feeding screw 18 to top of reactor 12 that is gravity fed the reactor being a gravity fed tube 14, having a plurality of heating elements 22 forming heating zones 1-3 , and if multiple tubes 14 are used may be used with the elements horizontally (Fig 1, [0014-0016]), the reactor may be configured as pyrolysis with heating zone around 350, a pyrolysis zone from 800C up to 1100C and ash forming zone 3 ([0021]).
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 reactor of Hornung with the reactor taught by Paganessi and arrive at the pyrolysis unit having a substantially vertically arranged reaction chamber, wherein the reactor chamber is substantially tubular, in particular substantially cylindrical and/or substantially conical, wherein the starting material is supplied in the upper region of the pyrolysis reactor so that a bed of bulk material that comprises the starting material to be pyrolyzed and optionally the pyrolysis coke is present in the reaction chamber as substantially taught and suggested by Paganessi because both Paganessi and Hornung substantially teach staged pyrolysis reaction methods and the expected result of increasing pyrolysis temperatures would be achieved in Paganessi with a vertical reactor therefore having a smaller footprint.
Regarding claim 2, Paganessi teaches the reactor pressure are plugged via feed and exit augers [0024].
Regarding claim 3, Hornung further teaches the residence time of vapors (claim 13).
Regarding claim 4, Hornung has taught the temperature differences between stages (claim 1).
Regarding claims 5-7, Paganessi has taught having a plurality of heating elements 22 forming heating zones 1-3 , and if multiple tubes 14 are used may be used with the elements horizontally (Fig 1, [0014-0016,0021])
Regarding claim 8 and 10-11, Paganessi further teaches biomass may be lignocellulosic [0002] which have water content that can be measured and determining shredding size would be routine optimization (further see Hornung claims 9-10).
Regarding claim 12 and 15-16, in modified Hornung, as set forth above, one having ordinary skill in the art would be expected to scale up and down the diameter system and determine optimum feed rates through routine experimentation based upon changes in size and shape, see MPEP 2144.04.
Regarding claim 13, Paganessi teaches feed and exit augers [0018].
Regarding claim 14, Paganessi teaches reactor heating jackets 22 (Fig 1, [0016]).
Regarding claim 17, Paganessi teaches reactor heating jackets 22 may be associated with multiple tubes 14 (Fig 1, [0016]).
Regarding claims 18-19, Hornung has substantially taught overlapping temperatures ranges with those claimed as set forth above.
Regarding claims 18-19, Hornung has substantially taught residence time with those claimed as set forth above.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hornung et al (WO 2018/036839, with reference made to translation provided 2/18/2025) taken in combination with Paganessi et al (US 2010/0275514) as applied above and further in combination with Green (US 6,830,597).
Regarding claim 9, modified Hornung teaches all limitations as set forth above, however Hornung does not teach the starting material of 85% biomass and 10-15% plastics or soil materials.
Green teaches a process and system for pyrolysis of feedstock in a vertically oriented reactor tube (title, abstract, fig 1), Green teaches the system is preferable for biomass and small percentages of, fore example plastic chips may be co-processed as a secondary feed (C3:L1-34).
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 Hornung in view of Green to co-process plastic chips with the biomass of modified Hornung and arrive at instantly claimed ranges through use of plastic chips as a secondary feed as suggested by Green to use added value functions.
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 a pyrolysis method. Saito (US 4,584,421) teaches a pyrolysis method. Schmalfeld (US 5,584,970) teaches a pyrolysis method. Rongved (US 5,628,260) teaches a pyrolysis method. Horn (US 2011/0083953) teaches a pyrolysis method. Zhu (US 2013/0126330) teaches a pyrolysis method. Balint (US 8,475,726) teaches a pyrolysis method. Falco (US 2023/0374389) teaches a pyrolysis method.
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