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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 16 December 2025 has been entered.
Response to Argument
Applicant’s argument that the prior art fails to disclose the or teach the features of the base claim is acknowledged, but it is not persuasive. Applicant’s various arguments are addressed below:
Applicant argues that Jones discloses “mixed phase reactants”, not a mixed-phase outlet, does not disclose a dedicated gas outlet, and that the Office improperly inferred gas handling capability from mixed-phase disclosure. Examiner does not find this argument persuasive. Jones expressly discloses operation involving mixed phase reactants. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that operation involving mixed phase reactants necessarily involves handling and transport of gaseous material within the reactor system. The rejection does not rely on Jones alone to explicitly disclose the claimed gas outlet limitation. Rather, Kuske teaches a gasification reactor having a reactor outlet for synthesis gas, thereby evidencing the well-known use of gas outlet in reactor systems handling particulate material. Further, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
Applicant argues that Jones cannot be converted to a gas system because liquids are essential to operation. Specifically, Applicant argues that Jones relied on liquid hydrocarbon operation, liquids perform hydrostatic and solvating functions, so replacing liquids with gases would render Jones inoperable, and therefore one of ordinary skill would not have modified Jones. Examiner points out that Applicant’s argument attacks a modification not proposed by the Office. The rejection does not require replacing all liquid operation of Jones with gas-only operation, vaporizing all liquids, or eliminating the disclosed hydrocarbon functionality of Jones. Rather, the rejection merely modifies Jones to incorporate known purge gas recirculation ad gas monitoring features taught by Kuske and White into the existing pressurized lock-hopper reactor framework of Jones. Claim 16 does not exclude the presence of liquids within the reactor system, nor does the claim require that the reactor operate exclusively in a gas phase regime. Accordingly, Applicant’s arguments regarding alleged inoperability resulting from complete replacement of liquids with gases are not commensurate in scope with the claimed invention or the rejection presented in the previous office action. Further, incorporation of known gas recirculation and purge management features into pressurized reactor systems utilizing lock-hoppers would have represented no more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions.
Applicant also argues that Jones, Kuske, and White are from fundamentally different industries and are incompatible. This is not persuasive because obviousness does not require that references originate from identical industries or produce identical end products. Jones, Kuske, and White are all directed toward pressurized reactor systems involving particulate material transfer using lock-hopper arrangements, pressure equalization, purge systems, and reactor feed/discharge handling. Accordingly, the references are reasonably pertinent to the same problem addressed by the instant application, namely management of pressurized particulate reactor systems utilizing lock-hoppers. The fact that the references may process different feedstocks or generate different end products does not preclude combination where the references disclose analogous reactor handling technologies and associated fluid management techniques.
Applicant then argues that none of the references disclose the claimed coordinated purge gas recirculation and monitoring architecture. Namely, Applicant argues that the references fail to disclose the claimed coordinated architecture as the combined references still allegedly lack closed purge gas recirculation, purge gas storage tank integration, analyzer-controlled discharge, and integration with product gas lines. Examiner points out that Applicant’s arguments improperly attack the references individually rather than the combined teachings of the references. Kuske teaches recirculation of recycle gas through-lock hopper systems and associated gas storage functionality. White teaches use of a gas analyzer connected to concentration-controlled gas discharge circuitry. Jones teaches the pressurized lock-hopper reactor framework into which such known gas handling features would have been incorporated. The rejection relied on the combined teachings of the references, not on any single reference individually disclosing every claimed limitation. Further, incorporating of gas recirculation, gas monitoring, and concentration-controlled discharge into a pressurized reactor system would have yielded the predictable benefit of improving purge gas management, reducing gas losses, and improving pressure control efficiency.
Applicant goes on to argue that the proposed modifications change the principle of operation of Jones because the incorporation of the gas handling architecture would fundamentally alter Jones and destroy its intended purpose. However, Applicant has not sufficiently shown that incorporation of known purge gas recirculation and gas monitoring features would destroy the operability of Jones for its intended purpose. The proposed modification does not eliminate Jone’s catalyst transfer functionality, lock-hopper operation, hydrocarbon processing, or pressure equalization mechanisms. Rather, the modification merely adds known gas handling and monitoring components to improve gas circulation and control within a pressurized reactor environment. A modification that improves or supplements an existing system using known prior art techniques does not constitute a change in principle of operation merely because additional operational capabilities are introduced.
Applicant further argues, with reference to “The Antweiler Declaration”, that replacing liquids with gases would damage the catalyst, the system would then become inoperable, and the references teach away from combination. This is not persuasive because it is directed toward hypothetical modifications beyond the scope of the actual rejection. The Office has not proposed replacing all liquids with gases, vaporizing Jones’ hydrocarbon streams, or converting Jones into an exclusively gas-phase reactor. Accordingly, the declaration does not rebut the actual combination proposed by the previously presented office actions. Moreover, the cited references collectively demonstrate that gas recirculation, purge gas monitoring, pressure equalization, and lock-hopper gas handling were known techniques in pressurized particulate reactor systems prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Thus, the declaration does not outweigh the evidence of obviousness established by the combined teachings of Jones, Kuske, and White.
Applicant’s argument regarding the indefiniteness rejections of claims 24-25 is not persuasive. While Applicant argues that the transitional term “comprising” permits additional constituents within the purge gas, the issue is not whether trace or incidental constituents may be present. Rather, the specification consistently describes the “purge gas” as the gas supplied from the purge gas storage tank, which is disclosed as containing nitrogen. Claim 17 likewise recites a “purge gas circuit fed from the purge gas storage tank. However, claim 24 recites “a purge gas comprising a high concentration of product gas”, thereby rendering unclear whether the claimed “purge gas” remains the inert purge gas supplied from the storage tank or instead refers to product/process gas after flushing operations. The claim therefore uses the same term inconsistently and fails to provide clear boundaries regarding the composition and identity of the recited “purge gas”. Applicant asserts that “The Office must take the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims but here appears to be unduly pushing to limit such”. Examiner respectfully directs Applicant to MPEP 2111, which explicitly states, when explaining broadest reasonable interpretation, “the meaning given to a claim term must be consistent with the ordinary and customary meaning of the term (unless the term has been given a special definition in the specification)”. In this case, as explained above, the term “purge gas” was given the special definition of being consistent with the gas from the storage tank. Accordingly, the metes and bounds of claim 24 remain unclear to one of ordinary skill in the art and the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is maintained.
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 24 and 25 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.
Claim 24 claims “(v-a) flushing a purge gas comprising a high concentration of product gas into the product line”, which is indefinite as the specification consistently describes the “purge gas” as the gas supplied from the purge gas storage tank, which is disclosed as containing nitrogen. Claim 17 likewise recites a “purge gas circuit fed from the purge gas storage tank. However, claim 24 recites “a purge gas comprising a high concentration of product gas”, thereby rendering unclear whether the claimed “purge gas” remains the inert purge gas supplied from the storage tank or instead refers to product/process gas after flushing operations. The claim therefore uses the same term inconsistently and fails to provide clear boundaries regarding the composition and identity of the recited “purge gas”.
Claim 25 is indefinite due to its dependence on claim 24.
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 16 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jones (US-3873441), in view of Kuske et al. (US-20110100274-A1), hereinafter “Kuske” and White et al. (US-20150217949-A1), hereinafter “White”.
Regarding Claim 16, Jones discloses a reactor (see e.g. Abstract), comprising: a carrier storage hopper (see Fig. 1 Part 6) to deliver feed granular material to at least one upper lock-hopper (see e.g. Col. 2 Lines 15-18 and Fig. 1 Part 13), the at least one upper lock-hopper comprising a first inlet shut-off facility (see e.g. Col. 2 Lines 11-12, part 8) and a first outlet shut-off facility (see e.g. Col. 2 Lines 30-32, part 17), an upper granular material feeder connected from the at least one upper lock-hopper to a reaction chamber (see e.g. Col. 2 Lines 23-27 and Fig. 1, parts 13 and 1), the reaction chamber comprising a reaction section (see e.g. Col. 3 Line 56, “moving-bed reaction zone”) and at least one upper carrier hopper (see e.g. Col. 2 Lines 65), at least one lower product hopper (see e.g. Col. 2 Lines 47-49), a lower granular material feeder connected from the reaction chamber to at least one lower lock-hopper (see e.g. Col. 2 Lines 40-45), the at least one lower lock-hopper comprising a second inlet shut-off facility and a second outlet shut-off facility (see e.g. Fig. 1 Parts 26 and 34), a solid product collection hopper (see e.g. Col 2 Lines 61-65), a product line outside the reaction chamber in fluid communication with the at least one upper lock-hopper, the at least one lower lock-hopper (see e.g. Fig. 1 Part 27), and a product line (see e.g. Fig. 1 Part 3). While Jones does not explicitly disclose connecting a product line to downstream units, it is a standard, well-known practice in the art to do so, therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention
Jones does not explicitly teach a circulation system for purge gas. However, Kuske discloses a recirculation line in fluid communication with the at least one upper lock-hopper (“recycle gas to the lock hopper”; see e.g., Kuske [0067]), the at least one lower lock-hopper (“… lock hoppers 5. The represented example shows two of them 5a, 5b”; see e.g. Kuske [0064] and Fig. 1 exemplifies that “lock hopper” refers to more than one lock hopper), and a purge gas storage tank (“recycling excess gas from feed tank 13 as recycle gas to the lock hopper”; see e.g. Kuske [0067]) permitting circulation of purge gas from the purge gas storage tank to the at least one upper lock-hopper and/or the at least one lower lock-hopper, and back to the purge gas storage tank (see e.g. Kuske [0067] and Fig. 2, parts 13, 20, 5, and 12). More specifically, excess gas 21 is used as recycle gas, and also used for substituting purge gases (see [0068]), effectively making it a purge gas and the tank in which it exits (feed tank 13) a purge gas storage tank.
Jones and Kuske are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of moving bed 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 Jones to incorporate the teachings of Kuske and include a recycle system for the purge gas. Doing so would reduce the demand for gas (see Kuske [0067]).
While Jones teaches a mixed phase operation of the reaction chamber, implying the outward flow of gas, Jones does not explicitly teach a gas outlet of the reaction chamber. However, Kuske teaches a gasification reactor (see Abstract) in which synthesis gas is produced (see [0002]). Further, Kuske teaches a gasification reactor outlet (see [0013]). It is understood that the outlet of a gasification reactor, in which synthesis gas is produced, is structurally designed as a gas outlet for the synthesis product gas. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Jones by including a gas outlet because the system of Jones is clearly designed with capabilities of handling both gas and liquid products and reactants, as Jones discloses mixed phase operation. Because the system is designed to withstand both phases of matter, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the system of Jones could have been used for mixed phase operation, including gases. Jones discloses that the method may be used on a vapor phase operation (see Col. 7 Lines 41-42). It would logically follow that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have known to use a gas outlet for a system designed to handle gas phases.
Jones fails to teach a gas analyzer as well. However, White discloses at least one gas analyzer (a gas analyzer”; see [0063]) that is connected to a control valve for concentration-controlled gas discharge from a purge gas circuit (see e.g., White [0063]). It is understood by those of ordinary skill in the art that the analyzer would have been connected to the control circuit as the control circuit controls recirculation (see [0042]). Additionally, Fig. 3 shows that the entire system is connected, indicating that the control of recirculation also affects the feed gas and the purge gas circuit. So, even though it is not explicitly disclosed, the design of the system of White, and the placement of the gas analyzer, consequentially has an effect on the concentration and control of gas discharge from a purge gas circuit. It is also understood that the gas analyzer is used to analyze gas concentration, as that is the function that gas analyzers are specifically designed to carry out.
Jones and White are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of evacuation of particles from a reactor. 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 Jones to incorporate the teachings of White and include a gas analyzer. Doing so would enable analysis of the recycle stream (see e.g., White [0063]).
Regarding Claim 31, Jones, Kuske, and White together disclose the reactor of claim 16. Regarding the limitation claiming, “the gas outlet is configured for crude product gas to be processed or connected to a gas purification unit”, please refer to the rejection of claim 16 as the rejection of claim 31 follows the same logic. If a main product line connects a gas outlet to downstream units, as claimed in claim 16, then it is naturally configured to send gas to a processor or purification unit downstream. The configuration of a gas outlet would not necessarily change depending on the type of unit downstream.
Claims 17-23, and 26-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jones (US-3873441), in view of Kuske (US-20110100274-A1) and White (US-20150217949-A1) as applied above, and further in view of Sechrist et al. (US-5338440), hereinafter “Sechrist”.
Regarding Claim 17, Jones discloses a method for operating a descending bed (“downward falling catalyst”, see Col. 8 Lines 6-7) in the reactor (“a hydrotreating process utilizing these methods of catalyst addition and catalyst withdrawal”; see Col. 9 Lines 20-21) according to claim 16 with flowable granular material, the method comprising: in the at least one upper lock-hopper: (i) filling the at least one upper lock-hopper with granular material (see e.g. Jones Col. 1 Lines 65-67), (ii) flushing the at least one upper lock-hopper with the purge gas (see e.g. Jones Col. 1 Line 67 - Col. 2 Line 3), (iii) filling the reaction chamber (see e.g. Jones Col. 2 Line 40-45), comprising a descending (“flow of catalyst downward”; see Col. 2 Lines 57-58), pre-existing moving bed (see e.g. Jones Col. 1 Line 50), with the granular material from the at least one upper lock-hopper (see e.g. Jones Col. 2 Line 40-45), wherein a pressure equalization between the reaction chamber and the at least one upper lock-hopper (see e.g. Jones Col. 2 Line 18-27) is achieved with gas taken from the reactor chamber (see e.g. Jones Col. 3 Line 48-51), (iv) relieving pressure of the at least one upper lock-hopper (see e.g. Jones Col. 3 Lines 1-5) and in the at least one lower lock-hopper ((see e.g. Jones Col. 3 Lines 1-5):(i) emptying the granular material from the at least one lower lock-hopper (see e.g. Jones Col. 3 Lines 31-34), and flushing the at least one upper lock-hopper with the purge gas (see e.g. Jones Col. 1 Line 67 – Col. 2 Line 10) into the product line or discharging an effluent stream (see Fig. 1 part 3), (iii) emptying the reaction chamber into the at least one lower lock-hopper (see e.g. Jones Col. 2 Lines 40-49), (iv) relieving pressure of the at least one lower lock-hopper (see e.g. Jones Col. 3 Lines 10-11), and (v) flushing the at least one lower lock-hopper with purge gas (see e.g. Jones Col. 2 Lines 53-54). Jones discloses the use of hydrocarbon liquid as a means of purging the lock-hoppers, but the amount or phase of fluid used in purging or pressurization is a conclusion drawn from routine experimentation to discover the optimum working conditions of a process, and is therefore not inventive. Additionally, Jones does not explicitly disclose the flushing of the lower lock-hopper, but it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply methods used on one lock-hopper to any other lock-hoppers in the system.
Regarding the limitations claiming, “a pressure equalization between the reaction chamber and the upper lock-hopper is achieved with gas taken from a head space of the reactor chamber” and “wherein the pressure equalization between the reaction chamber and the at least one lower lock-hopper is achieved with the gas taken from the head space of the reactor chamber”, Jones teaches the equalization of the reaction chamber and upper lock-hopper (see e.g. Col. 2 Line 18-27) as well as the lower lock hopper (see e.g. Col. 3 Lines 1-4) but does not explicitly disclose using the head space gas to do so. Jones does disclose, however, the use of the reactor effluent to manipulate pressures in the system (see e.g., Col. 3 Line 48-51) which effectively changes the pressure within the reactor vessel. Based on Jones’ disclosure of pressure equalization between the lock-hopper and reaction chamber, someone of ordinary skill in the art can infer that the effluent release either maintains or achieves pressure equalization. Jones also discloses the equalization of the lower lock hopper and reaction chamber by opening a valve between the two vessels (see e.g., Col. 3 Line 1-4). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to equalize any of the lock hoppers using the same method. Additionally, releasing gas from the head space of a reactor to achieve a desired pressure is a very common practice in the art and therefore would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Jones further teaches the connection of the reactor outlet to downstream units (see e.g., Jones Col. 7 Lines 41-50). Additionally, it is a well-known practice in the art to connect reactor outlets to downstream units, therefore it would be obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date.
Jones fails to teach the use of a purge gas circulation system. However, Kuske discloses recirculating at least part of the purge gas in the purge gas circuit fed from the purge gas storage tank and recirculated to the purge gas storage tank (see e.g., Kuske [0067] and Claim 16 rejection above).
Jones also fails to mention oxygen concentrations. However, Sechrist discloses a first effluent gas comprising a concentration of oxygen being discharged (see e.g., Sechrist Col. 14 Lines 46-48), and in the upper lock-hopper, (ii-b) a first purge gas comprising a low concentration of oxygen gas (see e.g., Sechrist Col. 14 Lines 50-61) is recirculated in the purge gas circuit fed from the purge gas storage tank (see e.g., Sechrist Col. 14 Lines 23-28).
Regarding the limitation claiming “wherein the concentration of oxygen is detected by the at least one gas analyzer”, White discloses a gas analyzer while Sechrist discloses the importance of knowing the oxygen concentration in the streams, as explained above. Using a gas analyzer for concentration control is also a well-known practice in the art. It therefore would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply this method.
Regarding the limitation claiming that the purging “in the at least one upper lock-hopper and in the at least one lower lock-hopper are conducted synchronously or offset to each other in time”, these are the two most common practices in a continuous process. Additionally, this limitation is claiming that the purging of the two lock-hoppers can happen at the same time, or at different times, which encompasses all patterns of purging the lock-hoppers. Therefore, any continuous system of the like would fall under the limitations of synchronous purging or offset purging. 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 employ synchronous or offset purging.
Regarding the limitation claiming in the lower lock-hopper, a second effluent stream with a high oxygen concentration and a second purge stream with a low oxygen concentration, Sechrist discloses the importance of the purge stream being separate from the effluent stream that contains oxygen, which is applied to a single lock hopper. Sechrist does not disclose a second lock-hopper, however, Jones does disclose a multitude of lock-hoppers. As explained above and below, 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 Jones by incorporating the teachings of Sechrist to provide separate streams with different oxygen concentrations. Because it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Sechrist to the upper lock-hopper of Jones, it would have also been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the same method to any lock-hopper taught by Jones.
Jones and Sechrist are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of evacuation of particles from a reactor. 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 have modified Jones to incorporate the teachings of Sechrist and include the separation of high and low oxygen streams. Doing so would inhibit the contamination of the purge stream (see e.g., Sechrist Col. 14 Lines 56-60).
Regarding Claim 18, MPEP 2144.05.II states that “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation”. Because such a range is chosen as a result of the capacity, desired filling/emptying rates, etc., routinely experimenting with and coming up with an operation cycle of the upper lock-hopper being equal to one tenth to ten cycle periods of an operation cycle of the lower lock-hopper so as to adapt to the “capacity of the lock-hoppers, reaction chamber, storage hoppers, the filling/emptying rate etc.”, as stated in the specification of the instant application, would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding Claim 19, Jones, White, Kuske, and Sechrist together disclose the method according to claim 17. Sechrist further discloses the importance of maintaining the purge/recycle stream as separate from the effluent stream (see e.g., Sechrist Col 10 Line 65 – Col. 11 Line 13). Claim 19 of the instant application provides the limitation claiming “a mode of operation is switched from (ii-a) to (ii-b) as an oxygen concentration in the purge gas circuit falls below a threshold value between 1 vol% O2 to 20 vol% O2”, in which (ii-a) describes a mode in which a high oxygen concentration effluent stream is released, and (ii-b) broadly describes a mode in which a low oxygen concentration stream is recirculated. Sechrist discloses both a mode of recycle of a low oxygen concentration stream, and a mode of “once through” in which the effluent is kept separate from the recycle stream (see e.g. Sechrist Col 10 Line 65 – Col. 11 Line 13). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that a high oxygen concentration effluent stream should not be recycled, and a low oxygen concentration stream should be recycled. Regarding the limitation of switching modes when “an oxygen concentration in the purge gas circuit falls below a threshold value between 1 vol% O2 to 20 vol% O2”, MPEP 2144.05.II states that “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation”. Routinely experimenting with and coming up with a recycle stream that contains less than 1 vol% O2 to 20 vol% O2 to prevent oxygen contamination would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Additionally, the specification of the instant application state “The implementation of the control loop is known to persons skilled in the art,” indicating further obviousness of the claimed technique.
Regarding Claim 20, Jones, White, Kuske, and Sechrist together disclose the method according to claim 17. Jones further discloses the reaction chamber having a throughput of the granular material through the reaction section of 0.1 kg/min to 10,000 kg/min (see e.g. Jones Col. 8 Lines 59-63).
Regarding Claim 21, Jones, White, Kuske, and Sechrist together disclose the method according to claim 17. Jones further discloses an absolute pressure of the reaction chamber between 0.1 bar and 100 bar (see e.g. Jones Col. 5 Lines 41-43).
Regarding Claim 22, Jones, White, Kuske, and Sechrist together disclose the method according to claim 17. Sechrist discloses the importance of a low oxygen concentration in the purge stream, and specifies the components of the purge stream as nitrogen. While Sechrist does not explicitly disclose the oxygen concentration of the purge gas, it is common knowledge in the art that even when oxygen levels are minimized, there is still a trace amount of oxygen around 0.1 vol% present in most purge gas. Additionally, MPEP 2144.05.II states that “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation”. Routinely experimenting with and coming up with a purge gas containing an oxygen concentration of 0.1 vol% to 10 vol% to flush ambient oxygen out of the lock-hoppers, as stated in the specification of the instant application, would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding Claim 23, Jones, White, Kuske, and Sechrist together disclose the method according to claim 17. While Jones does not explicitly disclose exchanging a gas volume 2 to 20 times when purging a lock hopper, Jones does teach purging the lock hopper “as may be required”. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to exchange as much gas volume as required to effectively purge the lock hopper.
Regarding Claim 26, Jones, White, Kuske, and Sechrist together disclose the method according to claim 17. Jones further discloses the reaction section being connected to one lower product hopper and one upper carrier hopper (see e.g. Jones Fig. 1, parts 24 and 13). Kuske further discloses recirculating granular material (see e.g. Kuske [0055]). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to recirculate granular material because it would allow the material to be further used in the process (see Kuske [0055]).
Regarding Claim 27, Jones, White, Kuske, and Sechrist together disclose the method according to claim 17. Jones further discloses the at least one upper lock-hopper consisting of one upper lock-hopper (see e.g. Jones Fig. 1 part 6) and the at least one lower lock-hopper consisting of two lower lock-hoppers (see e.g. Jones Fig. 1 parts 24 and 28). Jones does not explicitly disclose parallel lock-hoppers. However, Kuske discloses the two lower lock-hoppers connected in parallel (see e.g. Kuske Fig. 1 parts 5a and 5b). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to connect lock hoppers in parallel because it allows coupling of the lock hoppers in a timely overlapping manner to ensure an almost uninterrupted conveying of solid material (see Kuske [0065]).
Regarding Claim 28, Jones, White, Kuske, and Sechrist together disclose the method according to claim 17. Jones further discloses the reaction chamber comprising a descending moving bed (“moving-bed reaction zone”; see Jones Col. 1 Lines 50-53 and “catalyst flows downward”; see Col. 2 Line 26).
Regarding Claim 29, Jones, White, Kuske, and Sechrist together disclose the method according to claim 17. Kuske further discloses an endothermic reaction being operated in the reaction chamber (see e.g. Kuske Abstract). Kuske does not explicitly state that an endothermic reaction occurs, however, Kuske does teach a coal gasification reaction being carried out, which is an endothermic reaction. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to carry out a gasification reaction, or an endothermic reaction, because doing so would enable the production of synthesis gas (see Kuske [0002]).
Regarding Claim 30, Jones, White, Kuske, and Sechrist together disclose the method according to claim 28. Sechrist further discloses a gas feed being passed countercurrent to the descending moving bed (see e.g. Sechrist Col. 7 Lines 41-45). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to flow gas countercurrently to the descending moving bed of catalyst because it would allow the catalyst withdrawal conduits to be shorter (see Sechrist Col. 10 Lines 41-48).
Conclusion
All claims are identical to or patentably indistinct from, or have unity of invention with claims in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 (that is, restriction (including a lack of unity of invention) would not be proper) and all claims could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to entry under 37 CFR 1.114. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action after the filing of a request for continued examination and the submission under 37 CFR 1.114. See MPEP § 706.07(b). 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
/CLAIRE X WANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1774
Prosecution Insights