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 .
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 § 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 1-16 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 1-16, in claim 1, the recitation on line 2 of “other compounds” is vague with use of “other” and includes compounds not explicitly described by the claim and renders the claim(s) indefinite because the claim(s) include(s) elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by "other compounds"), thereby rendering the scope of the claim(s) unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Applicant can recite “additional compounds” to overcome this rejection.
Regarding claims 1-16, in claim 1, the recitation on line 11 of “one other means” is vague with use of “other” and includes components not explicitly described by the claim and renders the claim(s) indefinite because the claim(s) include(s) elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by " other generated vapors "), thereby rendering the scope of the claim(s) unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Applicant should delete “other” and recite more explicit language to state the “means” to overcome this rejection; further recitations should be amended to agree with any changes made to claim 1.
Regarding claims 1-16, in claim 1, the recitation on lines 11-12 of “other generated vapors” is vague with use of “other” and includes compounds not explicitly described by the claim and renders the claim(s) indefinite because the claim(s) include(s) elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by " other generated vapors "), thereby rendering the scope of the claim(s) unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Applicant can recite “additional generated vapors” to overcome this rejection.
Regarding claims 1-16, in claim 1, the recitation in the last line of “other generated vapors from said holding tank are put up and operated additionally and parallel to said closed reactor” recites a confusing series of words “put up and operated additionally and parallel” that makes the metes and bounds of the claimed protection sought unascertainable; clarification of the claim language is requested for this limitation.
Regarding claim 2 the recitation “either a, the, or some of feeding ducts” uses unclear antecedent language both with “a” and “the” being used, however “feeding duct” has been claimed, therefore the antecedent basis of this claim limitation is unclear.
Regarding claims 3 and 15, the recitation “forward it” in each case is unclear what is meant by “it” and clarification is required.
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) 1-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hall et al (US 2009/0239279) taken in combination with Melnichuk et al (US 2007/0270511) and Raman et al (US 2009/0259080).
Regarding claim 1, Hall teaches a reactor system for the generation of a combustible gasmixture of carbon-monoxide, methane, carbon-dioxide, hydrogen, water, and other compounds (see [0043, 0074 0086 and 0089], fig. 1 Gasification or pyrolysis reactor 14 and fig.8] from a provided feedstock of compounds containing carbon and water ([0090], fig. 1 residual biomass stream 26), said reactor system comprising: a closed reactor (fig.1 Gasification or pyrolysis reactor 14 and fig.8 gasifier 820); means of feeding said feedstock through at least one designated opening into said closed reactor (fig. 1 residual biomass stream 26, fig.8 biomass inlet); heating means for heating said compounds inside said closed reactor (see [0074 and 0089]) at least one suction means (pump, see [0048]); at least one holding tank (see [0047-0049] where such transfer systems are not shown, however suggested as known by PHOSITA and fig.3 which depict the transfer of thermal energy between the interdependent subsystems of Hall, which would have required at least one steam holding tank); at least one other means for receiving or taking and injecting generated steam and other generated vapors from said holding tank (fig. 1 discloses H2O, H2 and waste gas exiting gasifier 14, and as discussed above adding a holding tank for any of the products would have been an obvious option for the skilled in the art), wherein said heating means is configured for heating said feedstock in at least one preheating step that precedes opening said closed reactor for feeding said feedstock ([0074], fig.8 steam driven heat exchanger 815) to a temperature that evaporates water contained in said feedstock (fig.8 H2O exits dryer 810), wherein said heating of said compounds inside said closed reactor is made to a temperature that starts a reaction and generates said gas-mixture (see [0089-0090]), said at least one suction means is configured to suck generated steam and other generated vapors from said feedstock by said preheating step in at least one suction step (see [0074]), wherein the sucked said generated steam and other generated vapors are forwarded to and stored in said at least one other means to receive or take and inject a stored said generated steam and other generated vapors from said holding-tank into said closed reactor(see [0093], fig. 1 recycle gas stream 42, adding a holding tank for the said gas is considered obvious as discussed above), wherein said at least one other means for receiving or taking and injecting said generated steam and other generated vapors from said holding tank are put up and operated additionally and parallel to said closed reactor (see fig. 1 generated heat 28 can be transferred to other subsystems, fig.3 discloses other means of receiving or taking and injecting generated steam as does the second heat exchanger 825 in fig.8, [0047-0049, 0074 and 0089]).
However Hall does not teach the heating from outside said closed reactor.
Melnichuk teaches a method and apparatus for producing ethanol from biomass via steam gasification. Initially, biomass is dried in a steam dryer (102), and the extracted water vapour (104) is recovered, superheated, and reintroduced as fluidization steam (105) into a steam gasifier (106) (paragraph [0037]), the gasifier is a box-shaped vessel (201) with a fluidized bed (203) that is heated indirectly via an internal heat exchanger (202) comprising a plurality of tubes carries hot flue gases (110) from an external burner (109) through the bed to maintain reaction temperature, the reactor features a distributor plate (205) floor fitted with capped cylinders (209) that inject the superheated steam to evenly fluidize the bed ([0050]), Biomass is introduced by a tapered screw feeder (211) that creates a biomass plug to prevent back-pressure and an elevated outlet (206) in the ceiling and a sufficient freeboard space (207) are maintained to prevent entrainment of bed minerals. Particulate matter is removed from the produced syngas (114) using cyclone separators (111 a, 111 b) (see Figs 1A, 2-2A, [0038-0041,0050-0064]).
Both Hall and Melnichuk are substantially directed to gasifier systems and it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to improve the system of Hall in view of the teachings of Melnichuk to improve heating and controllability of temperature of gasification in the system of Hall as taught by Melnichuk to incorporate indirect heating to supplement oxygen heating in the system of Hall.
However due to unclear claim language (see 112(b) rejection above) Hall does not explicitly teach the other means are put up and operated additionally and parallel to said closed reactor.
Raman teaches a catalytic gasification system (title, abstract), Raman teaches the Feedstock is provided to Gasification reactor 1, where the generated gases and separated in gas purified 2, with further methane and gas separation steps to separated H2, H2O and CO 7/8, and this is sent back as recycled syngas 6, and teaches that “heat input that may be required for the catalytic gasifier can be provided by superheating a gas mixture of steam and recycle gas feeding the gasification reactor by any method known to one skilled in the art. In one method, compressed recycle gas of CO and H2 can be mixed with steam and the resulting steam/recycle gas mixture can be further superheated by heat exchange with the catalytic gasifier effluent followed by superheating in a recycle gas furnace” [0033] (see Fig 1, [0025-0033,0057-0062,0108-0112]).
Both Hall and Raman are substantially directed to gasifier systems and it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to improve the system of Hall in view of the teachings of Raman to incorporate substantial parallel and direct recycle steam generation for performing the gasification reaction in the system of Hall as taught by Raman.
Regarding claim 2, Melnichuk teaches feeding duct 211 with worm within sleeve in manner as claimed.
Regarding claims 3-5 and 15, in modified Hall as set forth above, adding holding tanks and additional features as claimed would be routine skill for PHOSITA as suggested by Hall as set forth above.
Regarding claims 6-10, in modified Hall as set forth above, Raman teaches recycling gases and heating, including steam and returning gases and steam to gasification reactor 1 (see Raman [0057-0062]).
Regarding claim 11, the outlet of modified Hall is understood as at top of reactor for exiting gas (Hall Fig 8; Melnichuk Fig 2).
Regarding claim 12, in modified Hall, Raman teaches gas purifier 2 that includes absorbers (see Raman [0068]).
Regarding claim 13, in modified Hall, Melnichuk has taught heat exchange element as set forth above.
Regarding claims 14 and 16, in modified Hall, Melnichuk teaches plenum 208 with burner jet atomizers 209 for promoting gasification (see Melnichuk Fig 2 [0051-0052]).
Pertinent Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Further citations to gasification systems include Gorin (US 2,705,672), Benson (US 3,615,298), Linden (US 3,708,269), Forney (US 4,244,706), Hillinger (US 4,684,374), Norbeck (US 2005/0256212), Babu (US 2015/0175414), Tiverios (US 2020/0255754).
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
