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 .
Status of Amendment
The amendment filed on 15 April 2026 fails to place the application in condition for allowance.
Claims 1-10, 15-23, and 25 are currently pending and under examination.
Status of Rejections
All previous rejections are herein withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment filed 15 April 2026.
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 1-9 and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gillett et al (US 2004/0048988 A1) in view of Fischel (US 2012/0003518 A1).
As to claim 1, Gillett an apparatus for carrying out chemical reactions (“Tubular Reactor” Title, Figs. 4 or 5), the apparatus comprising
a first reactor/reaction zone for carrying out a first chemical reaction (Fig. 4/5 any one of the six reactors [0073]-[0074]) and
a second reactor/reaction zone for carrying out a second chemical reaction (Fig. 4/5 any one of the six reactors [0073]-[0074]),
wherein each reactor/reaction zone (See Fig. 1)comprises:
a. an inner surface (#3) and an outer surface (#2) which are spaced apart from each other to define a reaction volume configured such that, in use, a respective chemical reaction takes place in the reaction volume (space seen between each structure, [0070]), and wherein the inner surface and outer surface are configured for relative rotation with respect to each other ([0070] “The inner internal surface is the outer surface of rotating element [4]. The rotating element can be driven by motor [12] in direction [13], wherein the element is held at the other end by a suitable bearing [14].”),
b. an inlet for introduction of a reagent to the reaction volume (#1), and
c. an outlet through which a reaction product can leave the reaction volume (#7),
wherein the outlet of the first reactor is coupled to the inlet of the second reactor and comprise the reaction products of the first reactor/reaction zone comprise reagents of the second reactor/reaction zone ([0041] “In a further form of the invention we provide a process in which a liquid polymerisable material is subjected to polymerisation conditions in a first reactor to form a first liquid polymer composition. This composition can then be transferred to a second reactor wherein the composition may be subjected to reaction conditions, for instance reactions conditions as given before” thus the outlet/inlet must necessarily be connected in some manner, the specific manner of the instant claim, fluid conduit, being optional.).
As to the limitation “wherein the reaction products of the first reactor/reaction zone comprise reagents of the second reactor/reaction zone”, the limitation is deemed to not further structurally differentiate the instant claim language from the prior art in accordance with MPEP 2111.04 insomuch as the recitation of “reagents” , “first chemical reaction,” and “second chemical reaction” further define how the zones are used based upon the desired chemical reactions and thus not further structurally defining an apparatus as instantly claimed. Since the reactions are generic, the limitations do not impart special characteristics from one reactor to the other to enable specific chemical reactions, insomuch as the prior art is capable of a variety of different reactions ([0027]).
As to the limitation “so as to generate Taylor vortices in fluid present in the reaction volume”, the recitation is directed towards an intended use of the apparatus in accordance with MPEP 2114. Gillett discloses the reaction chamber is capable of forming Taylor vortices therein, see [0050], and thus Gillett discloses such a configuration although they may not be desired. See MPEP 2123 II. Furthermore, the limitation does not impart further structural differentiation onto the surfaces of the reaction volume.
As the instant limitations are written as and/or alternatives of each other “wherein the first and second reactors/reactor zones are independently and selectively controllable so that the speed of relative rotation of the first reactor can be selectively controllable to be the same as or different from the speed of relative rotation of the second reactor” is inherently met because the speed can only be the same or different during operation, and thus the prior art configurable as such. Gillett discloses plural reactors where each reactor as shown in Fig. 1 with a motor 12.
Gillett fails to explicitly disclose wherein the inner and outer surfaces of at least one reactor/reaction zone are configured as electrodes and wherein the chemical reaction is an electrochemical reaction.
Fischel discloses utilizing rotational electrochemical cells utilizing a Taylor vortex (Title) wherein the inner and outer surfaces of at least one reactor/reaction zone are configured as electrodes and wherein the chemical reaction is an electrochemical reaction ([0031]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have configured the reactor zone as electrodes to perform an electrochemical reaction as taught by Fischel in the apparatus of Gillett because utilizing a rotating electrode type cell increases electrochemical reaction rates ([0030] Fischel) and thus provides the expected result of configuring a similar type rotating cylinder electrode to perform an electrochemical reaction to provide an expected result of increasing a reaction rate. See MPEP 2143 C and F.
As to claim 2, Gillett further discloses wherein the first and second reactors/reaction zones are provided by first and second reactors respectively, wherein each reaction volume comprises a reaction chamber, and wherein the outlet of the first reactor is coupled to the inlet of the second reactor ([0041] “In a further form of the invention we provide a process in which a liquid polymerisable material is subjected to polymerisation conditions in a first reactor to form a first liquid polymer composition. This composition can then be transferred to a second reactor wherein the composition may be subjected to reaction conditions, for instance reactions conditions as given before” thus the outlet/inlet must necessarily be connected in some manner, the specific manner of the instant claim, fluid conduit, being optional.).
As to claim 3, the instant limitations “wherein the apparatus is configurable such that a flow rate of fluid from the outlet of the first reactor is equal to the flow rate of fluid into the inlet of the second reactor” is necessarily met because the two reactors are connected as such and the “configurable” language does not impart particular structural requirements outside of being connected as claimed.
As to claim 4, the recitation of “wherein the first and second reactors/reaction zones are provided by first and second reaction regions of a single reactor, and wherein each reaction volume comprises a portion of a reaction chamber of the single reactor defined by said inner and outer surfaces.” arbitrarily defines different sections of a same reactor with identical structures. Thus, a bottom end of a singular reactor may be deemed to be a first region and a top end of the same singular reactor may be defined as a second region. Since both regions are bound on either side by the inner and outer surfaces, the claims do not require any further structural differentiation of the claimed reactors.
As to claim 5, Gillett further discloses a third reactor for carrying out a third chemical reaction (See Fig. 4/5 any other of the 6 reactors) which is provided in parallel from the first and second reactors and comprised more than 3 reactor zones ([0065], claim 18).
As to claim 6, Gillett further discloses wherein the third reactor/reaction zone is configured for a photochemical reaction or thermal reaction ([0025]).
As to claim 7, Gillett further discloses wherein the inner or outer surfaces are configured for a photochemical reaction are formed of a material which permits electromagnetic radiation of a desired wavelength to be transmitted to the respective volume ([0025], [0034], [0054], [0070]) which necessarily satisfy the optional limitations where the wavelengths are either the same or different in each zone.
As to claim 8, Gillett further discloses wherein the electromagnetic radiation source is visible, UV, or IR radiation source (See Fig. 3 UV source, [0036]).
As to claim 9, Gillett further discloses wherein the gap size is up to 6 mm, about 3 mm ([0055] 3-4 mm).
As to claim 15, Gillett further discloses wherein the inner and outer surfaces of at least one reactor/reaction zone define a reaction chamber/reaction volume having an annular cross section, optionally wherein the inner and outer surfaces comprise approximately concentric cylindrical surfaces. (See Fig. 1 description as “tubular”, [0047]).
As to claim 16, Gillett further discloses wherein at least one reactor/reaction zone comprises a flow path configured such that fluid can flow along the flow path from the input to the output via the reaction chamber/reaction volume (See Fig. 1 space between 1 and 6).
As to claim 17, Gillett further discloses wherein a gap size between the inner and outer surfaces and/or the speed of relative rotation between the surfaces of at least one reactor/reaction zone is configurable such that, in use, Taylor vortices are generated in fluid present in the reaction chamber/reaction volume. (by disclosing avoiding Taylor vortices – [0043]-[0050] – Gillet is configurable to form Taylor vortices thus satisfying the instant claim limitations based on the velocity, radius of inner cylinder, and clearance between cylinders to determine the appropriate Taylor number).
As to claim 18, Gillett further discloses wherein at least one reactor/reaction zone comprises a rotor defining the inner surface of the reaction chamber/reaction volume (#4 Fig. 1), wherein the rotor is configured to rotate such that the inner surface rotates with respect to the outer surface of the reaction chamber (via #s 12/13 in Fig. 1 [0070]), optionally wherein the or at least one reactor/reaction zone comprises a reaction vessel defining the outer surface of the reaction chamber/reaction volume, wherein the rotor is located, at least partially, in the reaction vessel (structure defining #2 necessarily defines a reaction vessel).
As to claim 19, Gillett further discloses wherein at least one reactor/reaction zone comprises a rotor provided with a rotor jacket covering the rotor, and wherein the rotor jacket defines the inner surface of the reaction chamber/reaction volume (See annotation below), wherein the rotor is configured to rotate such that the inner surface rotates with respect to the outer surface of the reaction chamber/reaction volume, optionally wherein the or at least one reactor/reaction zone comprises a reaction vessel defining the outer surface of the reaction chamber/reaction volume, wherein the rotor is located, at least partially, in the reaction vessel. (structure defining #2 necessarily defines a reaction vessel).
PNG
media_image1.png
818
512
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As to claim 20, Gillett further discloses wherein at least one reactor/reaction zone comprises a reaction vessel defining the outer surface of the reaction chamber/reaction volume (structure defining #2 necessarily defines a reaction vessel) or wherein the outer surface is provided by a jacket covering the outer wall of the reaction vessel (#9); optionally wherein the reaction vessel comprises a jacketed vessel through which heating or cooling fluid can be circulated for controlling a temperature of fluid flowing through the reactor (#9 [0070] “A jacket [9] is provided for heating or cooling as desired; the diagram shows a jacket inlet [10] and a jacket outlet [11].”).
As to claims 21-22, Gillett further discloses wherein at the first and second reactors/reaction zones comprises a rotor defining the inner surface of the reaction chamber/reaction volume (#4 Fig. 1), wherein the rotor is configured to rotate such that the inner surface rotates with respect to the outer surface of the reaction chamber (via #s 12/13 in Fig. 1 [0070]), and further comprising a motor (#12) because Gillett discloses explicitly using plural reactors which each have their own structures.
As the instant limitations “wherein the first and second reactors/reactor zones are independently configurable so that the speed of relative rotation of the first reactor is the same as or different from the speed of relative rotation of the second reactor” and “such that the rotation of each rotor can be controlled independently.” is necessarily met because the speed can only be the same or different during operation, and thus the prior art configurable as such. Gillett discloses plural reactors where each reactor as shown in Fig. 1 with a motor 12.
As to claim 25, the recitation “wherein the inner and/or outer surface of the first reactor/reaction zone permits radiation of a first desired wavelength to be transmitted, and the inner and/or outer surface of the second reactor/reaction zone permits radiation of a second desired wavelength to be transmitted, wherein the first and second wavelengths are the same or different.” Does not further limit the instant claim limitations due to the ability to transmit the same wavelength. Furthermore, it further recites an ability to transmit different wavelengths at each zone, but does not preclude each zone from permitting both identified desired wavelengths.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gillett, as modified by Fischel, as applied to claim 1, view of Joo et al (US 2021/0340013 A1).
As to claim 23, Gillett, as modified by Fischel, fails to explicitly disclose wherein the apparatus comprises a pump configured to pump fluid through the first and second reactors/reaction zones such that a flow rate of fluid from the outlet of the first reactor/reaction zone is equal to the flow rate of fluid into the inlet of the second reactor/reaction zone.
Joo discloses utilizing a pump with a rotating cylinder apparatus configured to pump fluid through the first and second reactors/reaction zones such that a flow rate of fluid from the outlet of the first reactor/reaction zone is equal to the flow rate of fluid into the inlet of the second reactor/reaction zone. ([0032]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have included a pump to inject fluid into the reactors as taught by Joo in the apparatus of Gillett, as modified by Fischel, because it allows for stock fluid to be injected into the inlet of the reactors (Joo [0032]) where the flow rate through the reactors would necessarily be equal to the flow rate provided by the pump when the reactors are connected via outlet to inlet OR when the reaction zones are arbitrarily defined within a singular reactor.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 14 April 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to Applicant’s arguments that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, over Gillet in view of Fischel, now incorporated into claim 1 as a response to Applicant’s amendment, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, the ability of providing different reaction either in a singular reactor or in separate reactors aligns with the predictable result of increasing the type of reactions a system is able to perform.
The difference noted by Applicant on pg. 13 that Fischel provides rotation in a different manner is noted. However, this difference is not deemed persuasive to overcome the prima facie obvious nature of using different reactors with different types of reactions. It is established that the reactor of Gillet is capable of generating the necessary Taylor vortices, even if that’s not the desired reaction of Gillet. The claims are drawn towards an apparatus and not replacing the methods of Gillet, but rather adding an additional functionality to the apparatuses therein to enable different reactions, i.e. electrochemical. Furthermore, it is noted the internal cylinder may be made of a stainless steel (Gillett [0072]) thus already able to operate as an electrode if desired.
No further arguments are presented.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 LOUIS J RUFO whose telephone number is (571)270-7716. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 9 am to 5 pm.
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, Luan Van can be reached at 571-272-8521. 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.
/LOUIS J RUFO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1795
Prosecution Insights