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 03 December 2025 is acknowledged. Accordingly, claims 1-13 are under full consideration.
Response to Arguments
In response to Applicant’s argument asserting that the melamine outlet being at the top of the second reaction zone as opposed to the bottom of the second reaction zone cannot be seen as a simple reversal of parts has been considered, but is not persuasive. There is no disclosure in the instant claims, instant specification, or drawings that presents a new or unexpected result or advantage associated with the placement of the melamine outlet. This same rationale applies to Applicant’s argument regarding the specific placement of the urea input. Applicant points to a disclosure from paragraph 8 of the instant application as support for a technical advantage regarding the forementioned features. However, the “reduction in the byproducts contained in the melamine withdrawn from the reactor and therefore to increase melamine purity” is clearly disclosed as an advantage of the placement of the gas outlet and the immersed melamine melt passage, not the melamine outlet. In context, the disclosure reads, “the outlet area for the extraction of gas from the outer reaction space can be reduced in order to increase the gas outlet velocity. The faster gas output increases the convective flow of the outlet gas; consequently, the diffusive transfer of gaseous carbon dioxide into the outer reaction zone is reduced. The invention has therefore the following advantages: the gaseous CO2 collected at the top of the reactor, above the coaxial reaction spaces, is substantially prevented from entering the outer reaction space where the secondary conversion is performed; the available reaction volume is exploited at its best; the purity of the obtained melamine is increased because the conversion of byproducts into melamine is no longer affected by the undesired diffusion of CO2”.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“separation means” in claim 1
“separation means” in claim 2
“separation means” in claim 7
“separation means” in claim 11
“means for feeding gaseous ammonia” in claim 13
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
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 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rizzi (EP-2918333-A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Rizzi discloses a reactor (see e.g. Abstract) for the high-pressure non-catalytic synthesis of melamine from urea (see e.g. Abstract), comprising an outer pressure shell (The outer shell of the reactor may be defined as being a high pressure shell; see e.g. [0016] and [0036]), a first reaction zone (inner zone/central duct; see e.g. [0017]) and a second reaction zone (peripheral zone; see e.g. [0017]) contained in said outer shell (see e.g. [0036] and [0017]), wherein the second reaction zone is an annular space (see e.g. [0017] and [0022]) arranged coaxially around the first reaction zone (The shell also delimits a substantially annular shaped region 8 outside the duct 7; see e.g. [0036], [0045], and Fig. 1), the reactor further including: a urea input (inlet for urea melt; see e.g. [0015]) arranged to direct a urea feed into the second reaction zone (see e.g. [0019]), which is a zone for conversion of urea into a crude melamine melt (see e.g. [0043]); separation means arranged to separate the first reaction zone from the second reaction zone (The shell also delimits a substantially annular shaped region 8 outside the duct 7; see e.g. [0036]); at least one communication port between the first reaction zone and the second reaction zone (the central duct 7 a descending flow is generated, said flow entering the base of the annular section 8 via the passage 9; see e.g. [0037] and [0042]) arranged to transfer the liquid crude melamine melt formed in the first reaction zone to the second reaction zone for further processing (the central duct 7 a descending flow is generated, said flow entering the base of the annular section 8 via the passage 9; see e.g. [0037], [0042] and [0043]); at least one melamine outlet for withdrawing a purified melamine-containing product (see e.g. [0041]) from top of the second reaction zone, and at least one gas passage for withdrawing overhead melamine off gas containing ammonia and carbon dioxide from said second reaction zone (off gases which are extracted from the top of the reactor; see e.g. [0041] and Fig. 1); wherein said at least one communication port has a liquid inlet section which, in operation, is located below the level of the liquid melamine melt contained in the first reaction zone (see e.g. Fig. 1, liquid level 11, and passage 9 for liquid to enter annular section or urea distributor 10), said inlet section being immersed in the liquid melamine melt (see Fig. 1, urea distributor 10 or passage 9 for liquid to enter annular section, and liquid level 11) to create a hydraulic seal between the first reaction zone and the second reaction zone (Based on the claim language, a hydraulic seal forms when an inlet section is immersed in liquid melamine melt. Rizzi discloses this structure, therefore based on the rationale of the claim language, a hydraulic seal would consequentially form in the structure discloses by Rizzi).
Rizzi does not explicitly teach the urea being fed to the first reaction zone, but does disclose the urea input being arranged to direct the urea feed to the second reaction zone. Additionally, Rizzi teaches the melamine outlet being at the top of the second reaction zone as opposed to the bottom of the second reaction zone. These two limitations are simple reversals of parts and do not present any new or unexpected results. These modifications would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention because a mere reversal of parts was held to be an obvious modification. See In reGazda, 219 F.2d 449, 104 USPQ 400 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding Claim 13, Rizzi discloses the reactor according to claim 1, including means for feeding gaseous ammonia to the second reaction zone (a second reaction chamber for stripping the liquid melamine with ammonia; see e.g. [0028]).
Claims 2-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rizzi (EP-2918333-A1) in view of Noe (ITMI-20081776-A1)
Regarding Claim 2, Rizzi discloses the reactor according to claim 1, wherein said separation means include an internal shell (see e.g. [0034] and [0036]) and a cover (diaphragm 6; see e.g. [0040]) wherein: said internal shell is coaxial to the pressure shell of the reactor (see e.g. [0033], [0036] and Fig. 1), arranged to separate the two reaction zones in a radial direction (see e.g. [0034]-[0036] and Fig. 1), so that the first reaction zone is inside the internal shell (see e.g. [0036] and Fig. 1) and the second reaction zone is delimited radially between said internal shell and the outer pressure shell of the reactor (see e.g. [0036] and Fig. 1), said cover is located above the internal shell in the annular region between the outer pressure shell and said internal shell (see e.g. Fig. 1, part 6); said cover having gas passages for withdrawing the melamine off gas from the second reaction zone (it flows out onto the deflector 6 which acts as an element for collecting the melamine; see e.g. [0047]).
Rizzi does not explicitly teach the cover extending into the first zone. However, Noe discloses a cover having a lower portion extending in the first reaction zone and below an upper edge of an internal shell (see e.g. [0095] and Fig. 1, Part D).
Rizzi and Noe are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of reactors for high pressure synthesis of melamine. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Rizzi by incorporating the teachings of Noe and disposing the cover at a height below an upper edge of an internal shell. Doing so would ensure a positive hydraulic head corresponding to the difference in height between the liquid level in each zone (see e.g. Noe [0095]).
Regarding Claim 3, Rizzi and Noe together disclose the reactor according to claim 2. Noe further discloses said lower portion of the cover extending in the first reaction zone coaxially to at least an upper portion of the internal shell (see e.g. Fig. 2 parts D and C), so that an annular passage for the melamine melt is delimited between said lower portion of the cover and upper portion of the internal shell (see e.g. Fig. 2 parts D and C). Doing this ensures a positive hydraulic head corresponding to the difference in height between the levels of liquid in the zones (see e.g. Now [0095]).
Regarding Claim 4, Rizzi and Noe together disclose the reactor according to claim 3. Rizzi further discloses the internal shell being cylindrical (see e.g. [0033]). Noe further discloses the lower portion of the cover being cylindrical (concentric cylinder bulkheads; see e.g. [0070]). Making the cover cylindrical allows it to delimit portions of the reactor that communicate with each other (see e.g. Noe [0070]).
Regarding Claim 5, Rizzi and Noe together disclose the reactor according to claim 2. Rizzi further discloses the gas passages of the cover for withdrawing the melamine off gas being located in the proximity of the outer pressure shell (see e.g. Fig. 1, part 6 and part E, and [0100]).
Regarding Claim 6, Rizzi and Noe together disclose the reactor according to claim 2. Rizzi further discloses said gas passages of the cover including holes or slots (see e.g. annotated Fig. 2 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
711
461
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 7, Rizzi discloses the reactor according to claim 1 wherein said separation means include an internal shell which is coaxial to the pressure shell of the reactor (by another inner shell; see e.g. [0017] and Fig. 1).
Rizzi does not explicitly teach portions of the inner shell having different radial distances from the outer shell. However, Noe discloses a lower portion of an internal shell at a first radial distance from the outer pressure shell (see e.g. Fig. 1 Part D): an upper portion of an internal shell at a second radial distance from the outer pressure shell which is less than said first radial distance (see e.g. Fig. 1 Part D), the upper portion being therefore closer to the outer pressure shell than the lower portion (see e.g. Fig. 1 Part D); a transition portion connecting the lower portion with the upper portion (see e.g. Fig. 1 Part D). The particular arrangement of the shells inside the reactor ensures complete segregation of the incoming liquid flow from the outgoing one, limiting the possibility of by-pass of the incoming and not totally converted urea towards the bottom discharge (see e.g. Noe [0101]).
Regarding Claim 8, Rizzi and Noe together disclose the reactor according to claim 7. Rizzi further discloses an annular space for withdrawal of the melamine off gas (the header for collecting the crude melamine is advantageously formed above the deflector 6, thus allowing the product to be uniformly collected along the whole circumference of the reactor; see e.g. [0047]) being defined between the outer pressure shell and the upper portion of the internal pressure shell (see e.g. [0047] and Fig. 2). Noe also discloses an annular space for withdrawal of the melamine off gas being defined between an outer pressure shell and upper portion of an internal pressure shell (see e.g. [0100] and Fig. 1, Parts D, E, and 8). This allows the gases to be collected in the upper space of the reactor (see e.g. Noe [0100]).
Regarding Claim 9, Rizzi and Noe together disclose the reactor according to claim 7. Noe further discloses at least one communication port for the liquid crude melamine melt (the liquid stream of raw melamine coming from the Main Reactor enters from above into compartment 5, delimited by bulkhead A and the external wall of the Post-Reactor, reaches the bottom of the Post-Reactor itself and then rises into the annular compartment 6, delimited by bulkheads A and B, and flows into the annular compartment 7; see e.g. [0098]) including passages provided in the lower portion of said internal shell (The liquid stream then descends compartment 7 towards the bottom of the Post-Reactor and then rises again into the annular compartment 8; see e.g. [0098] and Fig. 1), which are located below the level of the melamine melt in operation (see e.g. [0098] and Fig. 1). Doing this ensures complete segregation of the incoming liquid flow from the outgoing one, limiting the possibility of by-pass of the incoming and not totally converted urea towards the bottom discharge (see e.g. Noe [0101]).
Regarding Claim 10, Rizzi and Noe together disclose the reactor according to claim 7. Rizzi further discloses the lower portion and upper portion of the internal shell being cylindrical (see e.g. [0016]). Noe further discloses the transition portion being conical or substantially conical (see e.g. Fig. 1 and [0070]). Specifically, Noe discloses the bulkheads as being cylindrical in [0070], and then shows bulkhead D in Fig. 1 as including the transition portion as being tapered. It logically follows that this would form a conical section.
Regarding Claim 11, Rizzi discloses the reactor according to claim 1 wherein said separation means include an internal shell (inner shell; see e.g. [0017]) which is coaxial to the pressure shell of the reactor (see e.g. [0017] and Fig. 1) and includes: a lower portion that radially separates the first reaction zone from the second reaction zone (see e.g. [0017] and Fig. 1).
Rizzi does not explicitly teach the internal shell having a sealed upper portion or a nozzle. However, Noe discloses an upper portion of an internal shell configured to cover a second reaction zone in a sealed manner (Bulkhead P has no radial openings; see e.g. [0114] and Fig. 4, Part P), wherein the reactor further includes nozzles on the outer pressure shell for withdrawing the melamine off-gas from the second reaction zone (see e.g. [0100]). Providing these modifications would force the liquid current present in one compartment to spill into another collection compartment, from which the liquid can be extracted (see e.g. [0114]) and would enable the off-gases to be conveyed outside (see e.g. Noe [0100]), respectively.
Regarding Claim 12, Rizzi and Noe together disclose the reactor according to claim 11. Noe further discloses the lower portion of the internal shell including submerged passages, for the melamine melt, from the first reaction zone to the second reaction zone (The liquid stream then descends compartment 7 towards the bottom of the Post-Reactor and then rises again into the annular compartment 8; see e.g. [0098] and Fig. 1). Doing this ensures complete segregation of the incoming liquid flow from the outgoing one, limiting the possibility of by-pass of the incoming and not totally converted urea towards the bottom discharge (see e.g. Noe [0101]).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALYSSA LEE KUYKENDALL whose telephone number is (571)270-3806. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday 9:00am-5:00pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Claire Wang can be reached at 571-270-1051. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/A.L.K./Examiner, Art Unit 1774
/CLAIRE X WANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1774