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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant’s submission filed on 22 Jan. 2026 has been entered.
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.
Claims 1, 3-5 and 7-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fischer et al. US 6,293,526 and further in view of “Column internals Our complete program for optimal performance” RVT, published Dec. 2014 (hereafter RVT), Siver “Mechanistic Effects of Porosity on Structural Composite Materials” UCLA Electronic Theses and Dissertations published 2014 accessed at <https://escholarship.org/uc/item/7gz7m8b3> (hereafter Siver), and Kurz et al. “Porosity determination of carbon fiber reinforced plastics (CFRP) in aviation applications using ultrasound without a back wall echo” 19th World Conference on Non-Destructive Testing 2016 published 17 Jun. 2016 (hereafter Kurz).
Regarding claim 1, Fischer teaches a liquid distributor for a separation device (col 1 lines 5-37), the liquid distributor comprising:
at least one distributor member (11) having two or more outlet openings (12) for an outflow of liquid in a form of jets (col 2 lines 27-53); and
at least one screen (6) arranged in front of the outlet openings so that liquid jets outflowing through the outlet openings of the at least one distributor member impinge onto a surface of the at least one screen and are deformed thereon to thin flowing liquid films (col 2 lines 27-53),
and the at least one screen being affixed to the at least one distributor member with a screw (16).
Fischer does not teach: at least one of the at least one screen being made at least partially of a fiber reinforced carbon; the fiber reinforced carbon having a porosity of 5 to 30%.
RVT teaches column internals (“Column Internals, page 2) wherein carbon reinforced carbon is temperature and chemical resistant (page 16, Special constructions, where carbon reinforce carbon is a fiber reinforced carbon) and has high structural stability (Example, page 17).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the material of the Fischer screen (6) by incorporating the fiber reinforced carbon of RVT (page 16, Special constructions) in order to have high temperature resistance, high chemical resistance, and high structural stability (page 16, Special constructions; Example, page 17).
The modification would result in at least one of the at least one screen being made at least partially of a fiber reinforced carbon.
Further, MPEP §2144.07 states that a prima facie case of obviousness exists to choose a known material based on its suitability for its intended use. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the material of the Fischer screen (6) by incorporating the fiber reinforced carbon of RVT (page 16, Special constructions) as a matter of obvious use of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use (MPEP §2144.07).
The Fischer RVT combination teaches fiber reinforced carbon, but does not teach the specific properties of the material.
Fischer does not teach wherein the fiber reinforced carbon has a porosity of 5 to 30%.
Siver teaches where the manufacture of carbon composite materials induces a porosity (page 8, section 1.3), where using cheaper materials achieve the desired performance (page 13, section 2.1), and where the carbon composite has predictable strength properties between 0 and 40% porosity (page ii, abstract).
MPEP §2144.05 I states that where the prior art and claimed ranges overlap, a prima facie case of obviousness exists to choose a portion of the overlapping ranges. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the material of the Fischer screen (6) by incorporating the 5 to 30% porous carbon composite material of Siver in order to use cheaper materials and have predictable strength properties (page 8, section 1.3; page 13, section 2.1; page ii, abstract).
Further, Kurz teaches carbon reinforced carbon (abstract) where the porosity is known to be, for instance, 9.5 and 16.3 % (Table 1, page 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the carbon reinforced carbon to have a porosity of, for instance 9.5 or 16.3 % because the porosities are characteristics of the material.
Regarding claim 3, Fischer in view of RVT, Siver, and Kurz teaches all the limitations of claim 1.
Fischer does not teach wherein the fiber reinforce carbon is a carbon fiber reinforced carbon.
RVT teaches wherein the fiber reinforced carbon is a carbon fiber reinforced carbon (Example, page 17; CFC of page 16) in order to have high temperature resistance, high chemical resistance, and high structural stability (page 16, Special constructions; Example, page 17).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the material of the Fischer screen (6) by incorporating the carbon fiber reinforced carbon material of RVT (Example, page 17) in order to have high temperature resistance, high chemical resistance, and high structural stability (page 16, Special constructions; Example, page 17).
Further, MPEP §2144.07 states that a prima facie case of obviousness exists to choose a known material based on its suitability for its intended use. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the material of the Fischer screen (6) by incorporating the carbon fiber reinforced carbon of RVT (page 16, Special constructions) as a matter of obvious use of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use (MPEP §2144.07).
Regarding claim 4, Fischer in view of RVT, Siver, and Kurz teaches all the limitations of claim 1.
Fischer does not teach wherein at least one of the at least one screen consists of the fiber reinforced carbon.
RVT teaches wherein the fiber reinforced carbon (Example, page 17) is used in order to have high temperature resistance, high chemical resistance, and high structural stability (page 16, Special constructions; Example, page 17).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the material of the Fischer screen (6) by incorporating the fiber reinforced carbon of RVT (Example, page 17; CFC page 16) in order to have high temperature resistance, high chemical resistance, and high structural stability (page 16, Special constructions; Example, page 17).
The modification would have resulted in wherein at least one of the at least one screen consists of the fiber reinforced carbon.
Further, MPEP §2144.07 states that a prima facie case of obviousness exists to choose a known material based on its suitability for its intended use. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the material of the Fischer screen (6) by incorporating the fiber reinforced carbon of RVT (page 16, Special constructions) as a matter of obvious use of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use (MPEP §2144.07).
Regarding claim 5, Fischer in view of RVT, Siver, and Kurz teaches all the limitations of claim 1.
Fischer does not teach wherein each of at least one screen is made at least partially of the fiber reinforced carbon.
RVT teaches wherein the fiber reinforced carbon material (Example, page 17; CFC page 16) is used in order to have high temperature resistance, high chemical resistance, and high structural stability (page 16, Special constructions; Example, page 17).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the material of the Fischer screen (6) by incorporating the carbon composite material of RVT (Example, page 17) in order to have high temperature resistance, high chemical resistance, and high structural stability (page 16, Special constructions; Example, page 17).
The modification would have resulted in wherein each of at least one screen is made at least partially of the fiber reinforced carbon.
Further, MPEP §2144.07 states that a prima facie case of obviousness exists to choose a known material based on its suitability for its intended use. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the material of the Fischer screen (6) by incorporating the fiber reinforced carbon of RVT (page 16, Special constructions) as a matter of obvious use of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use (MPEP §2144.07).
Regarding claim 7, Fischer in view of RVT, Siver, and Kurz teaches all the limitations of claim 1.
Fischer further teaches where the liquid distributor is designed for a packing column (col 1 lines 5-10), wherein the at least one distributor member has a trough shape (shown in Figs 3-5; col 1 lines 40-45) and the at least one screen is arranged so as to shield the outlet openings against a gas stream flowing upwardly (col 2 lines 54-57).
Regarding claim 8, Fischer in view of RVT, Siver, and Kurz teaches all the limitations of claim 1. Fischer further teaches wherein the at least one screen is arranged in front of the outlet openings so that in an event of a maximum outflow of liquid, the liquid jets outflowing through the outlet openings of the at least one distributor member impinge onto the surface of the at least one screen at angles of less than 60° (col 2 lines 45-55), and each of the angles is an angle between the direction of liquid jet outflowing through the outlet openings and a tangent at a point of the surface of the screen, where the liquid jet impinges (col 2 lines 45-55).
Regarding claim 9, Fischer in view of RVT, Siver, and Kurz teaches all the limitations of claim 1. Fischer further teaches wherein at least one of the at least one screen has a shape of a sigmoidal curve in a vertical direction as well as in a jet-parallel section, and the sigmoidal curve is curved downwardly or has a largely constant curvature in the region in which the liquid jets impinge onto the surface of the at least one screen (col 3, lines 14-25).
Regarding claim 10, Fischer in view of RVT, Siver, and Kurz teaches all the limitations of claim 1. Fischer further teaches wherein the at least one screen is arranged in front of the outlet openings so that liquid jets outflowing through the outlet openings of the at least one distributor member impinge onto the surface of the at least one screen essentially tangentially (col 3 lines 14-25).
Regarding claim 11, Fischer in view of RVT, Siver, and Kurz teaches all the limitations of claim 1.
Fischer does not teach wherein the at least one distributor member is a metal or a plastic, the metal is titanium, tantalum or zirconia, or the at least one distributor member is a fiber reinforced carbon.
RVT teaches where zirconium, tantalum, and CFC is temperature and chemical resistant (pages 16-17, where zirconium and tantalum liquid distributors are taught as two embodiments and where CFC distributors are taught in the “Special Constructions”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the material of the Fischer screen (6) by incorporating the tantalum, zirconium, and/or CFC of RVT (page 16 Special constructions) in order to have high temperature resistance and high chemical resistance (page 16, Special constructions).
The modification would have resulted in wherein the at least one distributor member is a metal or a plastic, the metal is titanium, tantalum or zirconia, or the at least one distributor member is a fiber reinforced carbon.
Further, MPEP §2144.07 states that a prima facie case of obviousness exists to choose a known material based on its suitability for its intended use. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the material of the Fischer distributor (1) by incorporating the tantalum, zirconium, and/or fiber reinforced carbon of RVT (page 16, Special constructions) as a matter of obvious use of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use (MPEP §2144.07).
Response to Arguments
The following is a response to Applicant’s arguments filed 22 Jan. 2026:
Applicant argues that Fischer teaches welding or soldering the screen to the distribution member and therefore does not teach the claimed screw.
Examiner disagrees. While one embodiment of Fischer teaches welding/soldering (col 3 lines 40-41), another embodiment teaches affixing the screen to the distributor member with a screw (col 3 lines 14-25).
Applicant makes arguments similar to those made in the Appeal Brief filed 29 Aug. 2024. A response to those arguments can be found in the Reply Brief filed 31 Jan. 2025.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHEN HOBSON whose telephone number is (571)272-9914. The examiner can normally be reached 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, Jennifer Dieterle can be reached at 571-270-7872. 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.
/STEPHEN HOBSON/Examiner, Art Unit 1776