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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 04 February 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that modifying Hochleitner by the sealed tubes of Serrand would render Hochleitner ineffective because the reactant gas of Hochleitner must directly contact the catalyst bed within the reactor tube, and modifying Hochleitner with sealed tubes would effectively isolate the reactant gas from the catalyst bed. Examiner respectfully disagrees. As pointed out in the claim 1 rejection of the non-final office action, and again in this office action, Hochleitner does disclose the claimed limitation of “the heat transfer chamber is a fluidized bed”, as the reaction tube is heated by temperature control units (see [0006]), making the reaction tube itself a heat transfer chamber, and a fluidized catalyst bed is incorporated in the reaction tube (see [0005]). Following this series of logic, the heat transfer chamber is effectively a fluidized bed. The limitation claiming, “the reactant gas being sealed from the fluidized bed of the heat transfer chamber” is sequentially the last limitation of the claim, and is disclosed by Serrand, as explained in the claim 1 rejection of the previous office action, and again in this office action. Specifically, Serrand discloses a plurality of reaction tubes that are immersed in a bed of fluidized particles that supply indirect heat exchange. Modifying Hochleitner with this teaching of Serrand would not require the catalyst bed within the reaction tubes of Hochleitner to be removed. Instead, it would merely replace the temperature control units of Hochleitner with the bed of fluidized particles that supply indirect heat exchange of Serrand, and heat exchange would occur between the fluidized particles outside of the sealed tube, and the contents inside the sealed tube. In this case, the fluidized catalyst bed of Hochleitner would no longer be considered the fluidized bed of the heat transfer chamber, and would instead just be a fluidized catalyst bed that assists with reaction. In summary, modifying Hochleitner by incorporating a plurality of reaction tubes that are immersed in a bed of fluidized particles that supply indirect heat exchange, as taught by Serrand, would not require isolating the reactant gas from the catalyst of Hochleitner, and would therefore not render the invention of Hochleitner ineffective.
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 1-2, and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hochleitner (DE-102009004750-A1) in view of Chandran (US-2007/0245627-A1) and Serrand (US-5365006-A).
Regarding Claim 1, Hochleitner discloses a thermal reactor (reactor; see [0003] and temperature profile; see [0006]), comprising: a heat transfer chamber (“heat, cool, or maintain temperature”; see e.g. Hochleitner [0006]), wherein the heat transfer chamber is a fluidized bed (moving fluidized bed; see [0009]) having a fluidization gas flow in a first direction (This is a necessary feature of a fluidized bed), and wherein the heat transfer chamber comprises a plurality of heating zones that are maintained at different temperatures (heat, cool, or maintain the respective temperature zones; see e.g. Hochleitner [0006]); and a reaction tube disposed in the heat transfer chamber (reaction tube of a reactor; see [0005]), wherein the reaction tube has a reactant gas flow that passes through the plurality of heating zones (reactant gas flowing through the reaction tube; see [0005] and “temperature zones of the reaction tube”; see [0006]).
Hochleitner does not explicitly teach a plurality of tubes that are perpendicular to the fluidization gas flow. However, Chandran discloses a plurality of tubes disposed in the heat transfer chamber (plurality of pulse heaters… resonance tubes associated with these pulse heaters; see e.g. Chandran [0023]) in a second direction that is perpendicular to the fluidization gas flow (see e.g. Chandran Fig. 3A parts 635 and 608A/B, and Fig. 3B parts 609 and 608A/B).
Hochleitner and Chandran are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of fluid 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 Hochleitner to incorporate the teachings of Chandran and include multiple tubes. Doing so allows modification in any given design to suit the size, feedstock type, and feedstock throughput (see e.g. Chandran [0033]). Additionally, with regards to the limitation of the tubes being perpendicular to the fluidization gas flow, KSR Rationale D (see MPEP 2141) states that it is obvious to apply a “known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results”. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to apply the known technique of cross current flow from Chandran to the reactor of Hochleitner in order to yield the predictable result of increased surface area for heat exchange, with the added benefit of better mixing of fluids. Additionally, disposing the tubes in a direction perpendicular to the fluidization flow creates an enhanced char conversion zone which provides good heat and mass transfer and high reactant concentration (see e.g. Chandran [0034]).
Modified Hochleitner does not explicitly teach the reactant gas being sealed from the fluidized bed of the heat transfer chamber. However, Serrand discloses a plurality of reaction tubes (dehydrogenation of at least some of the alkane-containing hydrocarbon feed within the tube to olefins; see Col. 9 Lines 54-56) that are immersed in a bed of fluidized particles that supply indirect heat exchange (see Col. 4 Line 61) to the tubes (see Col. 3 Line 67 – Col. 4 Line 4). The indirect heating of the tubes from the heated fluidized bed indicates that there is no mixing between the fluids of the tubes and those of the bed, meaning that the tubes are closed, or sealed, from the bed.
Hochleitner and Serrand are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of tubular reactors and fluidized beds. 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 Hochleitner with the teachings of Serrand and seal the tubes from the fluidized bed for indirect heat exchange. Doing so would allow the reactants to be endothermically dehydrogenated, and the fluidized bed particles to be cooled (see Serrand, Abstract).
Regarding Claim 2, Hochleitner, Chandran, and Serrand together teach the thermal condensation reactor of claim 1. Chandran further teaches the fluidization gas flow being vertical and the reactant gas flow being horizontal (see e.g. Chandran Fig. 3A parts 637 and 635). Modifying Hochleitner to incorporate the flow directions taught by Chandran 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 separation of the reactant from the char reaction zone (see e.g. Chandran [0035]).
Regarding Claim 21, Hochleitner, Chandran, and Serrand together teach the thermal condensation reactor of claim 1. Serrand further discloses the fluidized bed within the heat transfer chamber surrounding the plurality of reaction tubes (tubes are immersed in a bed of fluidized particles at an elevated temperature… the temperature within the tubes being maintained within said temperature range by heat-transfer from the fluidized bed; see Claim 1) as each reaction tube of the plurality of reaction tubes extends through the heat transfer chamber (see Fig. 2, fluidized bed part 33 and tube 42). This configuration 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 have enabled indirect heating for endothermic dehydrogenation (see Serrand, Abstract).
Regarding Claim 22, Hochleitner, Chandran, and Serrand together teach the thermal condensation reactor of claim 1. Hochleitner further discloses the heat transfer chamber extending in the second direction from a first end of the heat transfer chamber to a second end of the heat transfer chamber (a heat transfer chamber, or any 3-dimensional object, inherently has this property, as a heat transfer chamber is necessarily a continuous body occupying or creating space between two opposite extremities), and the reaction tube extending through the heat transfer chamber in the second direction from the first end of the heat transfer chamber to the second end of the heat transfer chamber (The temperature profile divides the reaction tube in its longitudinal direction; see [0005] and Fig. 1).
Hochleitner does not explicitly teach the reactant gas being sealed from the fluidized bed of the heat transfer chamber as it flows through each reaction tube. However, as explained in the claim 1 rejection, Serrand discloses this feature. Further, regarding the plurality of tubes, Chandran discloses this feature which is also explained in the claim 1 rejection. Please refer to the rejection of claim 1 for the associated rationale.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hochleitner (DE 102009004750 A1) in view of Chandran (2007/0245627 A1) Serrand (US-5365006-A), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Frenklach et al. (WO 9012754 A1), hereinafter “Frenklach”.
Regarding Claim 3, Hochleitner, Chandran, and Serrand together teach the thermal condensation reactor of claim 1.
Hochleitner does not explicitly teach a shroud gas. However, Frenklach discloses a shroud gas flowing through a portion of the plurality of reaction tubes (a concentric shroud gas injected; see e.g. Frenklach Col. 10 Line 17).
Hochleitner and Frenklach are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of tubular reactors (see e.g. Frenklach Col. 22 Line 5). 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 Hochleitner to incorporate the teachings of Frenklach and introduce a shroud gas to the reaction tubes. Doing so would enable the formation of a curtain between the hot, reactive zone and the cooled walls (see e.g. Frenklach Col. 10 Lines 20-22).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hochleitner (DE 102009004750 A1) in view of Chandran (2007/0245627 A1), Serrand (US-5365006-A), and Frenklach et al. (WO-9012754-A1), as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Seiler et al. (US-3706776), hereinafter “Seiler” and Hoekje (US-3475123-A).
Regarding Claim 4, Hochleitner, Chandran, Serrand, and Frenklach together teach the thermal condensation reactor of claim 3.
Hochleitner does not explicitly teach vinyl chloride and trichlorosilane as the reactant gases. However, Seiler discloses the reactant gas being a mixture of vinly chloride and trichlorosilane (see e.g. Seiler et al. Col. 1 Lines 31-33).
Hochleitner and Seiler are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of tubular 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 Hochleitner to incorporate the teachings of Seiler and use vinyl chloride and trichlorosilane as the reactant gases. Doing so would enable to production of vinyl trichlorosilane (see e.g. Col. 1 Lines 53-54).
Additionally, Hochleitner does not explicitly teach the use and composition of a shroud gas. However, Hoekje discloses the use of an inert gas stream as a shroud gas (see e.g. Hoekje Col. 7 Lines 37-38), and later suggests incorporating silicon tetrachloride with the shroud gas stream (see e.g. Hoekje Col. 11 Lines 24-27).
Hochleitner and Hoekje are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of temperature-controlled reactions. 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 Hochleitner to incorporate the teachings of Hoekje and use silicon tetrachloride as a shroud gas. Doing so would repress agglomeration (see e.g. Hoekje Col. 11 Lines 27-28).
Claims 5 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hochleitner (DE-102009004750-A1) in view of Chandran (US-2007/0245627-A1), Serrand (US-5365006-A), and Matovich (US-4056602).
Regarding Claim 5, Hochleitner, Chandran, and Serrand together teach the thermal condensation reactor of claim 1.
Hochleitner does not explicitly teach a sealing gland material. However, Matovich discloses each of the plurality of reaction tubes being associated with a sealing gland integrated with an interior liner comprising either graphite, carbon fiber carbon composite, silicon carbide-coated isomolded graphite, or silicon carbide (a layer of pyrolytic graphite… permits control of the porosity; see e.g. Matovich Col. 6 Lines 15-29).
Hochleitner and Matovich are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of fluidized reactors. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Hochleitner to incorporate the sealing gland material taught by Matovich. Doing so would stiffen the material sufficiently to withstand the pressure differential maintained (see e.g. Matovich Col. 6 Lines 23-27).
Regarding Claim 20, Hochleitner, Chandran, and Serrand together teach the thermal condensation reactor of claim 1. Chandran further discloses the fluidization gas being non-reactive (the fluidization medium may consist of… nitrogen; see [0040]). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use a non-reactive fluidization because this would establish an inert environment, which is beneficial because using an inert fluid can provide a protective blanket, as taught by Matovich (see Col. 4 Lines 41-42).
Claims 6-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hochleitner (DE 102009004750 A1) in view of Chandran (2007/0245627 A1), and Serrand (US-5365006-A), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Conneway et al. (US 20110034709 A1), hereinafter “Conneway”.
Regarding Claim 6, Hochleitner, Chandran, and Serrand together teach the thermal condensation reactor of claim 1.
Hochleitner does not explicitly teach a bonnet. However, Conneway discloses a bonnet for covering the gas flow inlets of the plurality of reaction tubes (see e.g. Conneway Abstract). In the abstract, Conneway teaches an inlet head defining an inlet head space, which acts as a bonnet as the inlet head plays the role of sealing, protecting, and containing the internal environment of the reactor while allowing material input and supporting pressure and structural integrity.
Hochleitner and Conneway are both considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of tubular reactors. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify Hochleitner by incorporating the teachings of Conneway and providing a bonnet or inlet head. Doing so would create an inlet head space (see [0006]).
Regarding Claim 7, Hochleitner, Chandran, and Serrand together teach the thermal condensation reactor of claim 1.
Hochleitner does not explicitly teach a floating head. However, Conneway discloses a floating head for covering the gas flow outlets of the plurality of reaction tubes, wherein the floating head is moveable in the second direction (see e.g. Conneway [0059]). Conneway describes a removable outlet head and the importance of employing a method to prevent differential thermal expansion.
KSR Rationale D (see MPEP 2141) states that it is obvious to apply a “known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results”. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to apply the known technique of a floating head in order to yield the predictable result of decreased thermal expansion, with the added benefits of reduced stress and easier access for maintenance.
Regarding Claim 8, Hochleitner, Chandran, Serrand, and Conneway together teach the thermal condensation reactor of claim 7. Conneway further discloses a cooling transition unit that encompasses the floating head (heat exchanger positioned at least partially in the outlet head. The heat exchanger can be used to quickly cool; see e.g. Conneway [0070]), and Hochleitner further discloses the cooling zone being a fluidized bed (in the second zone the gas is cooled; see e.g. Hochleitner [0020] and fluidized bed; see [0009]). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a cooling transition unit around the floating head to quickly cool the product gases (see Conneway [0070]).
Regarding Claim 9, Hochleitner, Chandran, and Serrand together teach the thermal condensation reactor of claim 1.
Hochleitner does not explicitly teach roller supports. However, Conneway discloses one or more roller supports associated with the heat transfer chamber (support cylinders, which can traverse the space and transfer the load; see e.g. Conneway [0034]). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include roller supports because it would allow traversal of the space (see Conneway [0034]).
Regarding Claim 10, Hochleitner, Chandran, and Serrand together teach the thermal condensation reactor of claim 1.
Hochleitner does not explicitly teach baffles. However, Conneway discloses one or more baffles disposed in the heat transfer chamber (“additional supports can be provided… additional supports can include… baffles”; see Conneway [0020]). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide a baffle to the heat exchange chamber because it would provide additional support (see e.g. Conneway et al. [0020]).
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 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