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 .
The specification, abstract, drawings and claims of April 1, 2025 are under examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) was/were submitted on August 28, 2025. The submission(s) is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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) 1-4, 8, 12, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lacroix (USPN 2919159).
Regarding Claim(s) 1, Lacroix (USPN 2919159) teaches a lockhopper (see Figure 3)for the safe handling of hot solids, the lockhopper comprising: an outer vessel (wall of injector means 22); an inner vessel (column 21) positioned within the outer vessel to form an annulus volume between an exterior of the inner vessel and an interior of the outer vessel (an annular space is shown between the column 21 the wall of the injector means 22) ; and insulation positioned within the annulus volume (asbestos sheets 24 are positioned inside the annular space).
Regarding Claim(s) 2, Lacroix teaches a means for solids filtration between the inner and outer vessel (the asbestos sheet 24 would provide some level of filtration).
Regarding Claim(s) 3, Lacroix teaches a means for providing aeration gas to the inner vessel (orifices 26).
Regarding Claim(s) 4, Lacroix teaches a means for providing thermal isolation between the inner and outer vessels (the asbestos sheet 24 would provide some level of thermal isolation along with the empty air space in the injector means).
Regarding Claim(s) 8, Lacroix teaches an array of filtered ports (orifices 26 are covered by asbestos sheet 24, which would provide a level of filtration).
Regarding Claim(s) 12, Lacroix teaches a gas gap and insulation fill the annulus volume. The space inside the injector means is considered a gas gap and asbestos sheet (24) is considered insulation.
Regarding Claim(s) 15, Lacroix teaches removable fasteners (clamps 25).
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.
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) 5, 6, 13, 14, 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lacroix as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Berggren (USPN 7581905).
Regarding Claim(s) 5, Lacroix teaches the limitations described above, yet fails to teach a means for allowing thermal expansion of the inner vessel. Berggren teaches an inner vessel (14) and an outer vessel (10) and teaches a means for allowing thermal expansion of the inner vessel [Col. 3:45-51]. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide a means for allowing thermal expansion to reduce thermal stress.
Regarding Claim(s) 6, Lacroix teaches the limitations described above, yet fails to teach the inner vessel includes an inner outlet positioned within an outer outlet of the outer vessel, the inner outlet and the outer outlet not bonded with respect to each other. In Figure 2, the outlet of the inner vessel (14) is not bonded to the outlet of the outer vessel (10) to allow thermal expansion [Col. 3:45-51]. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to not bond the inner outlet and the outer outlet to allow for thermal expansion and reduce thermal stress.
Regarding Claim(s) 13. Lacroix teaches the limitations described above, yet fails to teach the inner vessel includes an inner inlet bonded to an outer inlet of the outer vessel. Berggren (USPN 7581905) teaches an inner vessel (14) including an inner inlet (near 15 in Figure 2) that is bonded to an outer inlet of an outer vessel (10) by bolts. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to bond an inner inlet of the inner vessel to an outer inlet of the outer vessel to maintain the positional relationship of the inlets.
Regarding Claim(s) 14, Lacroix teaches the limitations described above, yet fails to teach the inner vessel is bonded to the outer inlet of the outer vessel with bolts or welds. Berggren teaches bonding the inner vessel to the outer vessel using bolts [Col. 3:14-16]. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to bond the inner vessel to the outer inlet of the outer vessel with bolts or welds as taught by Berggren in order to fix the positional relationship of the vessels.
Regarding Claim(s) 16, Lacroix teaches the limitations described above, yet fails to teach the outer vessel is flanged at an inlet and an outlet. Berggren teaches flanges (11, 12). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide flanges to connect the lockhopper to other elements of a system.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7, 9-11 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. USPN 5042169 discloses an apparatus having an inner vessel and outer vessel.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM RAY HARP whose telephone number is (571)270-5386. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8am-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, MICHAEL MCCULLOUGH can be reached at (571) 272-7805. 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.
/WILLIAM R HARP/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3653
Prosecution Insights