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
Applicant’s amendment filed on September 24, 2025 has been considered. Claims 19 and 20 are canceled. Claim 23 is new. Claims 1-18 and 21-23 are under consideration.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on September 24, 2025 with respect to the rejection of claims 1-5, 7, 8, 10-13, 16, 21, and 22 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dente et al. (EP 0 495 418 A1) in view of Haselden (US 4,318,870) and the rejection of claims 15 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dente et al. in view of Haselden, as applied to claims 1 and 16, and further in view of Matsumoto et al. (US 2003/0019737 A) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of the newly discovered prior art reference to McCarthy (US 2,332,243), as detailed below.
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.
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 1-5, 7, 8, 10-13, 16, and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dente et al. (EP 0 495 418 A1) in view of McCarthy (US 2,332,243).
The instant “reactor” claims are considered apparatus claims.
Regarding claim 1, Dente et al. discloses a reactor for the synthesis of urea (i.e., a reactor for the synthesis of urea from ammonia and carbon dioxide; see Figures), comprising:
a vertical shell (i.e., a cylindrical shell R); and
at least one internal perforated baffle (i.e., perforated plates SP1, SP2, SP3) arranged to define compartments (i.e., transversal compartments C1, C2, C3) of the reactor;
wherein the at least one internal perforated baffle comprises a plurality of individual perforated tiles (i.e., individual lozenge shaped elements EL1 … ELn); wherein each tile (see FIG. 4, 4A) comprises side walls (i.e., walls 4 and 4’) and a top face (i.e., a wall 2), with at least one of the side walls 4,4’ having first perforations (i.e., perforations Fi; see FIG. 5A) and said top face 2 having second perforations (i.e., perforations fi; see FIG. 5); wherein the second perforations fi are smaller than the first perforations F1 (see column 4, lines 11-19); wherein adjacent tiles are separated by gaps (i.e., the gaps between two facing side walls 4 and 4’, in which bolts are located); and wherein the first perforations F1 provide a preferential route for a liquid has and the second perforations f1 provide a preferential route for a vapor phase in the reactor.
Dente et al. fails to disclose or suggest that the at least one internal perforated baffle is formed from an “array” of individual perforated tiles, wherein the tiles are “distributed over the baffle with a two-dimensional pattern”. In contrast, the tiles EL1 … ELn each extend the full length of the baffle (see FIG. 3).
McCarthy discloses a column for vapor-liquid processing (see FIG. 1), comprising: a vertical cylindrical shell 10, wherein the shell includes internal separation baffles that divide the inside of the shell into compartments (i.e., a series of trays 11 divides the shell into compartments; each tray comprises a horizontal plate 12 with a man-way opening 25 normally closed by a cover 26). Specifically, McCarthy discloses that each baffle comprises an array of individual tiles (i.e., an array of bubble caps 23), wherein the individual tiles are distributed over the baffle (i.e., the bubble caps 23 are distributed over both the horizontal plate 12 and the cover 26 portions of each tray 11) with a two-dimensional pattern (e.g., a pattern of three rows by four columns, as shown), and adjacent tiles 23 are separated by gaps (shown).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the at least one internal perforated baffle in the reactor of Dente et al. to comprise an array of individual tiles, wherein the tiles are distributed over the at least one internal perforated baffle with a two-dimensional pattern and adjacent tiles are separated by gaps, because the array of the smaller, individual tiles would have allowed for a manway with a removable cover to be provided through the at least one internal perforated baffle, so that the interior of the reactor may be made more conveniently accessible by workmen for cleaning, inspecting, repairing, or replacing parts of any or all of the baffles, without requiring the removal of the baffles from the reactor, as taught by McCarthy et al. (see column 1, lines 1-9 and lines 23-54).
Regarding claim 2, McCarthy discloses that the array of tiles (i.e., array of bubble caps 23; see FIG. 1) includes rows of tiles aligned in a first direction and columns of tiles aligned in a second direction, the first direction being perpendicular to the second direction, and each row and each column including at least two tiles. Accordingly, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to similarly configure the array of tiles in the recited manner in the modified reactor of Dente et al.
Regarding claim 3, McCarthy discloses that the tiles (i.e., bubble caps 23; see FIG. 1) are arranged mirror-symmetrically with respect to at least one vertical plane parallel to the column axis. Accordingly, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to similarly arrange the tiles in the recited manner in the modified reactor of Dente et al.
Regarding claim 4, McCarthy discloses that the tiles (i.e., bubble caps 23; see FIG. 1) are arranged with a square pitch or a rectangular pitch to form a matrix array of tiles. Accordingly, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to similarly arrange the tiles in the recited manner in the modified reactor of Dente et al.
Regarding claim 5, Dente et al. (see FIG. 4, 4A; column 4, lines 22-25) discloses that the side wall 4,4’ of the files are vertical walls parallel to a vertical axis of the reactor and the top face 2 is perpendicular to the vertical axis of the reactor.
Regarding claim 7, Dente et al. (see FIG. 4, 4A) discloses that all tiles have the same elevation from a reference base plane (i.e., from the horizontal plane at the bottom), said elevation being the vertical distance of the top surface (i.e., of the wall 2) from the base plane.
Regarding claim 8, McCarthy discloses that each tile (i.e., each bubble cap 23; see FIG. 1) is separated from adjacent tiles by said gaps, wherein the gaps extend in directions parallel to the side walls of the tile, so that each tile forms an individual box structure. Accordingly, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to similarly configure each tile to be separated from adjacent tiles by said gaps, in the recited manner, in the modified reactor of Dente et al.
Regarding claim 10, Dente et al. further discloses that the first perforations Fi are arranged on all of the side walls 4,4’ (see FIG. 4, 4A).
Regarding claim 11, Dente et al. further discloses the second perforations fi are circular holes (see FIG. 5).
Regarding claim 12, as shown in FIG. 3 of Dente et al., six tiles EL1 ... ELn are arranged to cover the cross-section of the reactor. For the reactor R in FIG. 1, eight tiles E1… ELn are provided. In the modified reactor of Dente et al., the tiles would be made up of a larger number of smaller tiles, so as to form the array of the two-dimensional pattern of tiles. While the combination of Dente et al. and McCarthy does not specifically disclose that each baffle has 12 to 30 tiles, it would have been an obvious design consideration for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a suitable number of tiles for each baffle in the modified reactor of Dente et al., depending on reactor size, in order to cover of the cross-section of the reactor with the array of tiles and produce an even distribution, with a permanent flow, of the vapor phase in the reactor (see Dente et al., column 2, line 56, to column 3, line 14).
Regarding claim 13, Dente et al. discloses that the second perforations fi (see FIG. 5) are gas holes of a circular shape, with a diameter not greater than 4 mm (i.e., a diameter of 3 mm, see column 6, lines 43-45; a diameter of 1.5 to 3.5 mm, preferably 2.5 mm, see ref. claim 5).
Regarding claim 16, Dente et al. discloses that each tile includes a plurality of metal sheets, including a folded metal sheet which defines the top face 2 and the two opposite side walls 4,4’ (see FIG. 4A), and one or more additional metal sheets which form other side walls of the tile (i.e., “after the plate has been shaped it is essential that the baffles are closed at the ends with vertical walls welded to the terminal sections creating a seal to avoid gas escaping from the sides,” see column 6, lines 7-11).
Regarding claim 21, McCarthy discloses that the tiles (i.e., bubble caps 23; see FIG. 1) are arranged mirror-symmetrically with respect to two orthogonal vertical plane parallel to the column axis. Accordingly, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to similarly arrange the tiles in the recited manner in the modified reactor of Dente et al.
Regarding claim 22, as shown in FIG. 3 of Dente et al., six tiles EL1 ... ELn are arranged to cover the cross-section of the reactor. For the reactor R in FIG. 1, eight tiles E1… ELn are provided. In the modified reactor of Dente et al., the tiles would be made up of a larger number of smaller tiles, so as to form the array of the two-dimensional pattern of tiles. While the combination of Dente et al. and McCarthy does not specifically disclose that each baffle has 18 to 26 tiles, it would have been an obvious design consideration for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a suitable number of tiles for each baffle in the modified reactor of Dente et al., depending on reactor size, in order to cover of the cross-section of the reactor with the array of tiles and produce an even distribution, with a permanent flow, of the vapor phase in the reactor (see Dente et al., column 2, line 56, to column 3, line 14).
Regarding claim 23, Dente et al. further discloses that the reactor R is used for the synthesis of urea from the reaction of ammonia and carbon dioxide under high pressure (see column 1, lines 1-5). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a pressure shell for the vertical shell in the modified reactor of Dente et al. because the pressure shell would have enabled the reactor to withstand the high pressure that was required of the urea synthesis reaction.
Claims 15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dente et al. (EP 0 495 418 A1) in view of McCarthy (US 2,332,243), as applied to claims 1 and 16 above, and further in view of Matsumoto et al. (US 2003/0019737 A).
Regarding claim 15, Dente et al. discloses a supporting element for the fixation of the at least one internal perforated baffle to the wall of the shell R of the reactor (i.e., a supporting element, as shown in FIG. 2, to which a flange at the bottom 3 of the element EL1 has been fastened by means of a bolt). Dente et al., however, fails to disclose a supporting ring.
Matsumoto et al. discloses an apparatus (see FIG. 10) comprising: a vertical shell and internal perforated baffles (i.e., perforated trays 1001a, 1001b, etc.). Specifically, Matsumoto et al. (see FIG. 5, paragraph [0051]-[0053]) discloses respective supporting rings 611 for the fixation of each internal perforated baffle to the vertical shell.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a respective supporting ring for the fixation of each internal perforated baffle to the vertical shell in the modified reactor of Dente et al. because the supporting ring would ensure that the at least one internal perforated baffle was adequately supported and secured inside of the vertical shell, as taught by Matsumoto et al.
Regarding claim 17, Dente et al. fails to disclose that the at least one internal perforated baffle includes supporting beams and at least one of the metal sheets of each tile is secured to said supporting beams.
Matsumoto et al. discloses an apparatus (see FIG. 10) comprising: a vertical shell and internal perforated baffles (i.e., perforated trays 1001a, 1001b, etc.). Specifically, Matsumoto et al. discloses that the at least one internal perforated baffle includes supporting beams 613, wherein the metal sheets that form the at least one internal baffle are secured to the supporting beams (i.e., using bolt nuts 627; see FIG. 6, paragraph [0052]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide supporting beams to which at least one of the metal sheets of each tile is secured in the modified reactor of Dente et al. because the supporting beams would ensure that the at least one internal perforated baffle was adequately supported and secured inside of the vertical shell, as taught by Matsumoto et al.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6, 9, 14, and 18 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
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER A LEUNG whose telephone number is (571)272-1449. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:30 AM - 4:30 PM EST.
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 X 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.
/JENNIFER A LEUNG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1774