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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed by Applicant on 05 January 2026 is acknowledged. Claims 1-4, 7, 10-13, 15-19, and 21-23 are currently pending in this application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Still, Examiner points out that Kelly does indeed disclose the newly added limitation of the first distributor being arranged above and outside the body (see Fig. 6 Part 158).
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.
Claims 1-4, 12-13, 15, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kelly et al. (US-8349214-B1), hereinafter "Kelly", in view of Young (US-4539940-A).
Regarding Claim 1, Kelly and Young together disclose combined reforming apparatus comprising: a body (elongated insulated housing (see Col. 5 Lines 3-4); a first distributor (inlet plenum 158; see Col. 17 Line 18) in a first cylindrical shape (see Fig. 10 Part 158) disposed outside of the body (see Fig. 6 Part 158) and vertically at one side of the body (see Figs. 6 and 10 Part 158), wherein the first distributor comprises a first chamber (outer feed tube 160 is connected to the inlet plenum; see Col. 17 Lines 19-20 and Fig. 10 Parts 160 and 158) and a second chamber (inner feed tube 162… extends through the inlet plenum 158 to an inlet region 164; see Col. 17 Lines 26-27 and Fig. 10 Parts 162, 164, and 158) which are separated from each other by a separation wall (see Figs. 10 Parts 160, 162, 164, and 158), the first chamber is in a first annular cylindrical shape (see Fig. 10 Parts 160 and 158) surrounding the second chamber (inner feed tube 162 is coaxially positioned within the outer feed tube 160 and extends through the inlet plenum 158; see Col. 17 Lines 26-27), and the second chamber is in an inner cylindrical shape (see Fig. 10 Part 162) which is radially smaller than the first cylindrical shape and surrounded by the first chamber in the first annular cylindrical shape (see Fig. 10 Parts 160, 162, and 158); a second distributor in a second annular cylindrical shape (a manifold 116 is provided for introduction of hydrogen containing stream; see Col. 13 Lines 22-23); a plurality of first catalyst tubes disposed inside the body (reactor tubes containing a catalyst; see Col. 6 Lines 41-43) and reacting at a first temperature to reform hydrocarbons (CxHy) having two or more carbon atoms into methane (CH4) (to promote the steam methane reforming reactions; see Col. 6 Lines 42-43),wherein each of the plurality of first catalyst tubes extends vertically from the second distributor at the vertically one side to the vertically opposite side (“central reactor tube 124 that contains a catalyst… several of such reactor modules…”; see Col. 15 Lines 12-19, which discloses multiple central reactor tubes, and Fig. 6 Part 124 which shows the claimed relative position), a first tube port of the each of the plurality of first catalyst tubes is connected to the second distributor (“manifold 116 would be connected to each inlet 130 of each of the reactor modules 120”; see Col. 15 Lines 26-28 and/or “outer feed tube 160 is connected to the inlet plenum… to feed the hydrogen containing stream…into the inlet sections 134 of the oxygen transport membrane tubes 122”; see Col. 17 Lines 19-25) and a first tube port of the each of the plurality of one set of catalyst tubes is connected to the first chamber of the first distributor (inner feed tube 162… extends through the inlet plenum 158 to an inlet region 164 of the central reactor tube 124; see Col. 17 Lines 26-30); a plurality of second catalyst tubes disposed inside the body (“oxygen transport membrane tubes 122”; see Col. 17 Line 25 and “catalyst particles are located in the intermediate porous layer; see Col. 15 Lines 51-54), wherein each of the plurality of second catalyst tubes includes a first extension portion extending from the first chamber of the first distributor (see Fig. 6 Parts 122 and 158), a U-shaped portion bending from one end of the first extension portion, and a second extension portion extending from the U-shaped portion toward the vertically opposite side of the body (see Fig. 7 Part 122) to the second chamber of the first distributor (see Fig. 6 Parts 122 and 158), a second tube port of each of the plurality of the second catalyst tubes is connected to the first chamber (The inlet plenum 158 is in communication with the inlet openings 156… to feed the hydrogen containing stream… into the inlet sections 134 of the oxygen transport membrane tubes 122; see Col. 17 Lines 21-25) and a second tube port of each of the plurality of second catalyst tubes is connected to the second chamber of the first distributor (The outlet openings 154 are in communication with an inlet region 164; see Col. 17 Lines 28-29), the plurality of first catalyst tubes encircle the plurality of second catalyst tubes (see Fig. 6 Parts 122 and 124); and a combustion unit (combustion of the fuel within the duct burner; see Col. 5 Lines 55-56), in a second cylindrical shape (see Fig. 5 Part 26), configured to supply heat to the plurality of first catalyst tubes and the plurality of second catalyst tubes (“oxygen transport membrane tubes to receive the heated combustion product stream”; see Col. 6 Lines 53-54 and “heated combustion product stream to the inlet of the central reactor tube”; see Col. 7 Lines 36-37); wherein the first chamber is one confined space (see Fig. 10 Part 164) which is connected only to and communicates exclusively with a first tube port of the each of the plurality of first catalyst tubes and a second tube port of the each of the plurality of second catalyst tubes (The outlet openings 154 are in communication with an inlet region 164 of the central reactor tube 124; see Col. 17 Lines 28-30), wherein the first chamber collects steam and gas discharged from the plurality of first catalyst tubes such that the steam and gas discharged from the plurality of first catalyst tubes are uniformly mixed in the first chamber (inlet region 164 of the central reactor tube 124 where the heated combustion product stream 36 from the oxygen transport membrane tubes 122 mixes with the reactant stream 38 to form the combined stream 40 that is fed to steam methane reforming catalyst 168 contained within the central reactor tube; see Col. 17 Lines 29-34), wherein the first chamber distributes the mixed steam and gas therein to the plurality of second catalyst tubes (fed to steam methane reforming catalyst 168 contained within the central reactor tube; see Col. 17 Lines 29-34).
Regarding the limitations claiming “first tubes”, “first distributor”, “second tubes”, “second distributor”, “upward”, “downward”, etc., these are relative terms that are interchangeable. Examiner notes this because Kelly and Young together disclose a structure analogous to the structure presented in the claim, the only difference being the relative connections and how they are related to what is being considered the “first chamber”, “second chamber”, “first tubes”, etc. Specifically, the claimed connections of the outer chamber of the instant invention are the same as those of the inner chamber disclosed by Kelly. Further, the reactor disclosed by Kelly is operated inversely to the claimed invention, where outlets of Kelly’s tubes are disposed where the inlets of the claimed invention are disposed. To summarize, if the operation of the reactor of Kelly were reversed, then the reactor disclosed by Kelly would have the same order of operations as the claimed invention, which would have been an obvious modification to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Additionally, the directionality of the device in space does not render it patentable over the prior art. So, by saying that some portions the U-tubes “extend upward” and others “extend downward”, these can easily be achieved by controlling the position of the apparatus in space.
Regarding the limitations claiming that the first catalyst tubes are “reacting at a first temperature to reform hydrocarbons having two or more carbon atoms into methane” and the second catalyst tubes are “reacting at a second temperature higher than the first temperature to reform methane into synthesis gas containing hydrogen and carbon monoxide”, these do not affect the structure of the apparatus, but instead specifiy the function. The Courts have held that apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art in terms of structure, not function. See In re Danley, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959); and Hewlett-Packard Co. V. Bausch and Lomb, Inc., 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (see MPEP §§ 2114 and 2173.05(g)). Additionally, The Courts have held that the manner of operating an apparatus does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art, if the prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim. See Ex Parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (BPAI 1987). The prior art discloses a plurality of first and second catalyst tubes capable of performing reactions at given temperatures. There is no structural limitation in the claimed invention that distinguishes its ability to perform reformation reactions from that of the prior art.
Regarding the limitations claiming the second distributor is “disposed at a vertically opposite side of the body”, the U-tubes bend “toward a radially inward direction”, “such that the U-shaped portion in each of the plurality of second catalyst tubes is oriented toward the radial center”, the combustion unit is “disposed at the vertically opposite side of the body”, and “the combustion unit being surrounded by the second distributor in the second annular cylindrical shape”, these are all disclosing a mere arrangement of parts that do not present new or unexpected results. The courts have held that a mere rearrangement of parts is unpatentable if it does not modify the operation of the device, see In reJapikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). Therefore, these rearrangements would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Kelly does not explicitly teach the second distributor being outside of the body and coaxial to the first distributor. However, Young discloses a first distributor (annular distributor is employed at the inlet and outlet portions of the shell; see Col. 4 Lines 44-46) disposed below and outside of the body (annular distributor surrounds… at least a portion of the shell; see Col. 3 Lines 6-8), and a second distributor with an annular cylindrical shape (annular distributor is employed at the inlet and outlet portions of the shell; see Col. 4 Lines 44-46) disposed above and outside of the body (annular distributor surrounds… at least a portion of the shell; see Col. 3 Lines 6-8), the second annular cylindrical shape of the second distributor arranged coaxial with the first annular cylindrical shape of the first distributor so that the first and second distributors share a radial center (see Fig. 2, which shows two distributors arranged coaxially, one associated with nozzle 31 and one associated with nozzle 12).
Kelly and Young are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of tubular vessels with associated distributors. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kelly by incorporating the teachings of Young and disposing the distributors in such a configuration. Doing so would have enabled tangential flow (see Young, Col. 2 Lines 59-62).
Lastly, the coaxial arrangement of the distributors, as well as the disposal of the distributors outside of the body, are obvious matters of design choice and a mere rearrangement of parts that do not present new or unexpected results over the prior art. The courts have held that a mere rearrangement of parts is unpatentable and is held to be an obvious matter of design choice if the operation of the device is not modified. In this case, the instant specification nor the drawings present any evidence that the claimed arrangement produces any unexpected results, or modifies the operation, in comparison to the prior art. See In reJapikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) and In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975).
Regarding Claim 2, Kelly and Young together disclose the combined reforming apparatus according to claim 1. Kelly further disclsoes wherein pyrolysis gas generated through pyrolysis of waste and steam is supplied to the plurality of first catalyst tubes (hydrocarbons and steam are reacted to produce a synthesis gas; see Col. 8 Line 49 and Lines 56-64).
While Kelly does not explicitly disclose the use of pyrolysis gas, the use of a hydrocarbon stream containing steam, carbon dioxide, and methane, all of which are components consistent with a composition of pyrolysis gas. Further, this is a functional limitation that does not further limit the structure of the apparatus, but merely sets forth a manner of operating the apparatus. The Courts have held that apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art in terms of structure, not function. See In re Danley, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959); and Hewlett-Packard Co. V. Bausch and Lomb, Inc., 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (see MPEP §§ 2114 and 2173.05(g)). The manner of operating an apparatus does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art, if the prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim. See Ex Parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (BPAI 1987).
Regarding Claim 3, Kelly and Young together disclose the combined reforming apparatus according to claim 1. Kelly further discloses wherein combustion gas discharged from the combustion unit supplies heat to the plurality of second catalyst tubes and to the plurality of first catalyst tubes (oxygen transport membrane tubes to receive the heated combustion product stream. The outlet manifolds are connected to the inlets of the central reactor tubes such that the heated combustion product stream is combined; see e.g. Col. 6 Lines 53-58).
Regarding Claim 4, Kelly and Young together disclose the combined reforming apparatus according to claim 3. Kelly further discloses wherein the combustion gas is discharged through a center portion of the body (outlet openings communicate between the outlet passages and the inlet of the central reactor tube to feed the heated combustion product stream to the inlet of the central reactor tube; see e.g. Col. 7 Lines 34-37).
Regarding Claim 12, Kelly and Young together disclose the combined reforming apparatus according to claim 1. Kelly further discloses wherein the second distributor distributes hydrocarbon gas and steam to be supplied to the plurality of first catalyst tubes (“a manifold 116 is provided for introduction of hydrogen containing stream” and “A manifold 118 is provided for… the combined stream 40 for introduction into the catalytic reactors; see e.g. Col. 13 Lines 22-28). Further, this is a functional limitation that does not further limit the structure of the apparatus, but merely sets forth a manner of operating the apparatus. The Courts have held that apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art in terms of structure, not function. See In re Danley, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959); and Hewlett-Packard Co. V. Bausch and Lomb, Inc., 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (see MPEP §§ 2114 and 2173.05(g)). The manner of operating an apparatus does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art, if the prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim. See Ex Parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (BPAI 1987).
Regarding Claim 13, Kelly and Young together disclose the combined reforming apparatus according to claim 12. Kelly further discloses wherein the second distributor comprises a third chamber to which one or more supply units through which the steam and the hydrocarbon gas are supplied are connected and to which the first tube input port of each of the plurality of first catalyst tubes are connected (“manifold 118… would in part be incorporated into such structure with an additional manifold to distribute reactant stream 38 to the inlet 128 of each feed assembly 126” and/or “manifold 116 would be connected to each inlet 130 of each of the reactor modules 120”; see Col. 15 Lines 20-28).
Regarding Claim 15, Kelly and Young together disclose the combined reforming apparatus according to claim 3. Kelly further discloses wherein the body includes a combustion gas discharge unit through which the combustion gas is discharged outside (outlet openings 154 to the grooves 152 from which the heated combustion product stream is discharged; see e.g. Col. 17 Lines 2-5).
patentable. See In reJapikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) and MPEP §§2114.
Regarding Claim 21, Kelly and Young together disclose the combined reforming apparatus according to claim 1. Kelly further discloses wherein a number of the plurality of the first catalyst tubes that discharges the steam and gas to the first chamber is smaller than a number of the plurality of second catalyst tubes that receives the mixed steam and gas from the first chamber (see e.g. Col. 5 Line 58 – Col. 6 Line 6). Additionally, the courts have held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. See in reHarza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) and MPEP 2144. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the number of catalyst tubes of each kind in order to achieve the desired results.
Claims 7, 10 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kelly (US-8349214-B1) in view of Young (US-4539940-A), and Aaron et al. (US-20060045828-A1), hereinafter “Aaron”.
Regarding Claim 7, Kelly and Young together disclose the combined reforming apparatus according to claim 1.
Kelly does not explicitly teach a distributor that discharges the syngas out of the system. However, Aaron teaches a manifold that collects the synthesis gas containing hydrogen and carbon monoxide from the plurality of second catalyst tubes (product outlet 43 which can be a manifold; see e.g. [0039]). Further, the second chamber operating to collect synthesis gas is a functional limitation that does not further limit the structure of the apparatus, but merely sets forth a manner of operating the apparatus. The Courts have held that apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art in terms of structure, not function. See In re Danley, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959); and Hewlett-Packard Co. V. Bausch and Lomb, Inc., 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (see MPEP §§ 2114 and 2173.05(g)). The manner of operating an apparatus does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art, if the prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim. See Ex Parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (BPAI 1987).
Kelly and Aaron are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of catalytic reactors. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kelly to incorporate the teachings of Aaron and include an outlet manifold. Doing so allows for the collection and redistribution of the product stream (see e.g. Aaron [0047]).
Regarding Claim 10, Kelly, Young, and Aaron together disclose the combined reforming apparatus according to claim 7. Kelly further discloses wherein the plurality of second catalyst tubes are connected to a synthesis gas discharge unit through which the synthesis gas is discharged outside (outlets at the other end of the reactor tubes to discharge the synthesis gas stream; see e.g. Col. 6 Lines 38-45).
Kelly does not explicitly teach the synthesis gas discharge unit being connected to the second catalyst tubes -via the second chamber. However, Aaron teaches the discharge unit being connected to a manifold or like structure to discharge to product stream (product outlet 43 which can be a manifold or like structure and discharged as a hydrogen-containing, synthesis gas product stream; see e.g. [0039]). This would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because it allows for the collection and redistribution of the product stream (see e.g. Aaron [0047]).
Regarding Claim 18, Kelly and Young together disclose the combined reforming apparatus according to claim 12.
Kelly does not explicitly teach spiral tubes. However, Aaron discloses the plurality of catalyst tubes being spiral tubes (reaction tubes are of helical configuration and are arranged in a substantially coaxial relationship to form a coil-like structure; see e.g. Abstract). This modification would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because doing so would minimize pressure drop and improve heat transfer characteristics (see e.g. Aaron Abstract).
Regarding Claim 19, Kelly, Young, and Aaron together teach the combined reforming apparatus according to claim 18. Kelly further teaches linear input and output portions connected to the respective distributors (see e.g. Kelly Fig. 6 Parts 130 and 132). Aaron also further teaches the plurality of catalyst tubes including a linear input portion (see e.g. Aaron Fig. 4 Part 66) connected to the second distributor (see e.g. Aaron [0046]), a spiral intermediate portion (see e.g. Aaron Fig. 4 Parts 62, 63, and 64), and a linear output portion (see e.g. Aaron Fig. 4 Part 68) connected to the first distributor (see e.g. Aaron [0046]). Modifying Kelly with the spiral intermediate portion of the catalyst tubes taught by Aaron would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because it would minimize pressure drop and improve heat transfer characteristics (see e.g. Aaron Abstract).
Claims 11 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kelly et al. (US-8349214-B1), hereinafter “Kelly” in view of Young (US-4539940-A) and Wakasugi et al. (US-0090064579-A1), hereinafter “Wakasugi”.
Regarding Claim 11, Kelly and Young together disclose the combined reforming apparatus according the claim 3. Kelly further discloses wherein the plurality of first catalyst tubes and the plurality of second catalyst tubes are arranged in parallel along a longitudinal direction of the body (inlet and outlet sections 134 and 136 are parallel to one another and the central reactor tube; see Kelly Col 16 Lines 27-28 and Fig. 7).
Kelly does not explicitly teach a first wall extending from a portion of the body. However, Wakasugi discloses a first wall extending from a portion of the body that is disposed between the plurality of first catalyst tubes and the plurality of second catalyst tubes (standing walls divide the reforming passage into a plurality of parallel passages; see e.g. Wakasugi [0085]).
Kelly and Wakasugi are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of catalytic reactors. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kelly to incorporate the teachings of Wakasugi and include partition walls in the device. Doing so would create passages for heat exchange (see e.g. Wakasugi [0086]).
Regarding Claim 16, Kelly, Young, and Wakasugi together teach the combined reforming apparatus according to claim 11. Wakasugi further discloses a plurality of partition walls partially extending in a first inward direction from an inner surface of the first wall and the remainder extending in a second inward direction opposite to the first inward direction from the inner surface of the first wall (standing walls 62 are made substantially parallel with the outer walls; see [0090]; and “flow portion 52A that are separated by partition wall portions 62A of the standing walls 62; see [0091], and Fig. 2 parts 60, 62, 56 and 62A). Modifying Kelly to incorporate the teachings of Wakasugi and include more partition walls would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because it would also create passages for heat exchange (see e.g. Wakasugi [0090]).
Regarding Claim 17, Kelly, Young, and Wakasugi together teach the combined reforming apparatus according to claim 16. Wakasugi further teaches the partition walls extending in the first inward direction and the partition walls extending in the second inward direction being alternately arranged (see Fig. 2 Parts 56 and 62).
Claims 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kelly et al. (US-8349214-B1), hereinafter “Kelly”, in view of Young (US-4539940-A) and Chong (EP-1230974-A1).
Regarding Claim 22, Kelly and Young together disclose the combined reforming apparatus according to claim 1.
Kelly does not explicitly teach differing U-shaped portion geometry. However, Chong discloses an extension length in a radial direction (see Fig. 1 Parts 45) of the U-shaped portion of at least one from among the plurality of the second catalyst tubes is longer than an extension length in the radial direction of the U-shaped portion of another one from among the plurality of the second catalyst tubes (the distance between parallel first and second arms of a first type of U-shaped heat transfer tube may be greater than the distance between parallel first and second arms of a second type of U-shaped heat transfer tube; see [0015]).
Kelly and Chong are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of catalytic reactors. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kelly by incorporating the teachings of Chong and providing U shaped tubes that differ in U-shaped portion extension length. Doing so can deliver improved heat transfer (see Chong [0001]).
Regarding Claim 23, Kelly and Young together disclose the combined reforming apparatus according to claim 1.
Kelly does not explicitly teach the specific radial positions of the inlets and outlets of the U-shaped tubes. However, Chong discloses the plurality of U-shaped tubes includes an outer tube and an inner tube, which are arranged such that: the input port of the outer U-shaped tube is positioned radially outer than the input port of the inner U-shaped tube, the output port of the outer U-shaped tube is positioned radially inner than the output port of the inner U-shaped tube (U-tubes 145, 150, 155 of three different arm spans are distributed in a repeating pattern throughout the interior reactor vessel; see [0024] and Fig. 2), and the input port and the output port of the outer U-shaped tube and the input port and the output port of the inner U-shaped tube are positioned on a straight line in a radial direction (see Fig. 2 which shows parts 155 in a straight line in a radial direction, parts 145 in a straight line in a radial direction, and parts 150 in a straight line in a radial direction). This modification would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because it would provide heat exchange as evenly as possible (see Chong [0024]). Further, positioning the tubes in a radial direction is a mere arrangement of parts that does not present new or unexpected results. The courts have held that a mere rearrangement of parts is unpatentable if it does not modify the operation of the device, see In reJapikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). Therefore, these rearrangements would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALYSSA LEE KUYKENDALL whose telephone number is (571)270-3806. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday 9:00am-5:00pm.
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, Claire Wang can be reached at 571-270-1051. 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.
/A.L.K./Examiner, Art Unit 1774