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 May 18, 2026 has been received and considered. Claims 4, 5, 12-15, and 19-30 are canceled. Claims 1-3, 6-11, and 16-18 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3, 6, 16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morimoto-A (JP 7-24292 A).
The instant “reactor system” claims are considered apparatus claims.
Regarding claim 1, Morimoto-A discloses a reactor system for the production and/or treatment of particles in an oscillating process gas stream (i.e., an apparatus for production of fertilizers/feeds, powder metallurgy, granular foods, and various other granulation applications in the presence of a gas pulsation wave; see translation, e.g., at page 1, last paragraph),
wherein the reactor system (see embodiments of FIG. 1, 5, and 6) comprises:
a reactor unit (i.e., a main body 1) that has an upstream process gas feed unit (i.e., an intake pipe part 2) and a downstream process gas discharge unit (i.e., an exhaust pipe part 3), which reactor unit has at least one reaction space for particle production and/or treatment (i.e., the main body 1 defines an interior space for processing particles A) and an application device (i.e., a spray nozzle 5) for introducing a starting substance (e.g., a binder 4) into the reactor unit that comprises the reaction space, wherein the process gas that flows through the reactor unit 1 in the direction of the process gas discharge unit 3 can be fed into the reactor unit 1 by way of the process gas feed unit 2 (i.e., the process gas flows into the intake pipe part 2, upward through the interior space of the main body 1, and out through the exhaust pipe part 3); and
a pulsation device that is suitable for the production of a pulsation of a process gas (i.e., a pulsation wave generator 6 upstream of the main body 1, the pulsation wave generator 6 comprising a pulsation imparting device 61 for producing a pulsation of a process gas such as air or other gas; see also FIG. 2(a)-(b) and translation at page 5), wherein a pulsation that has a pulsation frequency and a pulsation pressure amplitude can be imposed on the process gas by means of the pulsation device 6 (i.e., a desired waveform with a predetermined pulsation frequency (x-axis) and a predetermined pulsation pressure amplitude (y-axis) can be generated by controlling the operation of the pulsation wave generator 6; see FIG. 3(a)-(b));
wherein the process gas feed unit 2 comprises a pressure loss production device that produces a pressure loss (i.e., the intake pipe part 2 comprises a pre-filter 10, a medium performance filter 11, and a heat exchanger 12, and each component produces a pressure loss, see translation at page 7, second paragraph; furthermore, in the embodiments of FIG. 5 and 6, the pulsation imparting device 61 is disposed in the intake pipe part 2, such that the pulsation imparting device 61 also produces a pressure loss).
Morimoto-A further discloses that the reaction space of the reactor unit 1 (see FIG. 1, 5) comprises a pressure loss production device that produces a pressure loss (i.e., a bag filter 13 located in the upper part of the main body 1, which produces a pressure loss). In this particular embodiment, the process gas discharge unit 3 does not comprise a pressure loss production device that produces a pressure loss.
However, Morimoto-A discloses a further embodiment of the reactor system (see FIG. 7) in which the process gas discharge unit 3 comprises a pressure loss production device (i.e., the location of the bag filter 13a is shifted from the upper part of the main body 1 to the exhaust pipe part 3; also, the location of the pulsation imparting device 61A is shifted from the intake pipe part 2 to the exhaust pipe part 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to locate a pressure loss production device in the process gas discharge unit 3 in the reactor system of Morimoto-A, so that the process gas feed unit 2 and the process gas discharge unit 3 each comprise a pressure loss production device that produces a pressure loss, because the location of a pressure loss production device inside of the reaction space (i.e., as bag filter 13, see FIG. 1, 5) or in the process gas discharge unit (i.e., as bag filter 13a, see FIG. 7) would have satisfactorily performed the same function of separating solids from the process gas being discharged from the reactor unit, and, also, the location of a pressure loss production device in the process gas feed unit (i.e., as pulsation imparting device 61, see FIG. 5, 6) or in the process gas discharge unit (i.e., as pulsation imparting device 61A, see FIG. 7) would have satisfactorily performed the same function of producing a pulsation of the process gas, as disclosed by Morimoto-A. Furthermore, the rearrangement of parts was held to be obvious. See MPEP § 2144.04 VI, C.
The further recitations with respect to the intended manner of operating the reactor system do not further differentiate the claimed reactor system from the reactor system of Morimoto-A. See MPEP § 2114. In this case, the reactor system of Morimoto-A would be operable in the recited manner:
wherein the reactor system, which has a static process gas pressure (i.e., a static pressure can be set to a desired value by a blower 60 of the intake pipe part 2 and/or an exhaust fan 8 of the exhaust pipe part 3; see FIG. 1, 5-7), is configured as an acoustic resonator that has inherent resonance frequencies that define a resonance state, and the process gas can form a gas column capable of resonance in the reactor system (i.e., in use, the process gas forms a gas column within the interior space of the main body 1, and the gas column can be subject to resonance by appropriately controlling the pulsating wave generator 6 to transmit waves having the desired pulsation frequency and amplitude; see FIG. 3(a)-(b)), so that the resonator can be excited by means of the pulsation generated by the pulsation frequency and/or the pulsation pressure amplitude that is/are generated by the pulsation device 6 and in the resonance state, the pulsation can be amplified to produce a resonance oscillation of the process gas that has a resonance frequency and a resonance pressure amplitude;
wherein the pressure loss production devices (i.e., filters 10, 11; heat exchanger 12; bag filter 13a; pulsation imparting device 61,61A) are configured such that one of the resonance states can be set (i.e., the components inherently prevent propagation of the resonance oscillation beyond the locations of the components, thereby limiting the system parts that are capable of oscillation and further defining the resonance state of the system); and
wherein the pulsation device 6 is configured for adapting the pulsation frequency and/or the pulsation pressure amplitude of the pulsation to one of the inherent resonance frequencies of the resonator, so that the selected resonance state can be achieved (i.e., a desired pulsation frequency is settable by controlling the speed at which the valve body 64 rotates within the casing 63 of the pulsation imparting device 61; a desired pulsation pressure amplitude is further settable by controlling the pressure at which a gas is admitted into the port 62a of the pulsating imparting device 61; therefore, a user would be able to adapt the pulsation frequency and/or the pulsation pressure amplitude of the pulsation to one of the inherent resonance frequencies of the system by operating the pulsating wave generator 6 in a manner that produces a pulsation having a pulsation frequency and a pulsation pressure amplitude that allows for the resonance state to be achieved; see FIG. 2(a)-(b), 3(a)-(b); translation at page 5).
With respect to the new limitations, Morimoto-A discloses that the pressure loss production devices (i.e., filters 10,11; heat exchanger 12; bag filter 13a; pulsation imparting device 61,61A; see FIG. 1, 5-7) are each arranged in a respective fixed position in the process gas feed unit 2 and the process gas discharge unit 3 when the reactor system is operating.
Morimoto-A does not specifically state that “the respective positions of the pressure loss production devices can be changed when the reactor system is not operating to adapted the reactor system to other production methods”. However, as commented above, Morimoto-A discloses that the pressure loss production devices can be suitably positioned at different locations in the reactor system. In addition, a pressure loss production device (i.e., pulsation imparting device 61) can be positioned in the process gas feed unit 2 at a location upstream of elements 10, 11, 12 (see FIG. 5) or a downstream of elements 10, 11, 12 (see FIG. 6). Also, a pressure loss production device (i.e., pre-filter 10) can be positioned immediately upstream of elements 11,12 (see FIG. 5, 6) or immediately upstream of a dehumidifier 9 (see FIG. 7).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the reactor system of Morimoto-A to be re-configurable, so that the respective positions of the pressure loss production devices were capable of being changed to any of the different locations described by Morimoto-A, depending on the intended application of the reactor system.
Regarding claim 2, Morimoto-A discloses that the pulsation device is configured as a pulsation device that works without a flame (i.e., the pulsating wave generator 6 is a mechanical device which comprises a valve body 64 that rotates within a casing 63 of the pulsation imparting device 61 for producing a pulsating wave; see FIG. 2(a)-(b)).
Regarding claim 3, Morimoto-A discloses a heating device for heating the process gas (i.e., a heat exchanger 12 for heating; see FIG. 1, 5, 6; translation at page 5, first paragraph).
Regarding claim 6, Morimoto-A discloses that the pulsation device is a pressure loss production device (i.e., the pulsation imparting device 61 can be provided in the intake pipe part 2, such that a pressure loss is generated by the pulsation imparting device 61, see FIG. 5-6; also, the pulsation imparting device 61A can be provided in the exhaust pipe part 3, such that a pressure loss is generated by the pulsation imparting device 61A, see FIG. 7).
Regarding claim 16, Morimoto-A discloses that the process gas feed unit 2 and the process gas discharge unit 3 have a process gas pressure regulation device, so that the static process gas pressure in the reactor system can be regulated (i.e., a static process gas pressure can be set to a desired value by means of a blower 60 of the intake pipe part 2 and/or an exhaust fan 8 of the exhaust pipe part 3; see FIG. 1, 5-7).
Regarding claim 18, Morimoto-A discloses that the pulsation device is configured as a rotary vane or a modified turnstile (i.e., the pulsation imparting device 61 comprises a valve body 64 that rotates, which reads on a rotary vane or modified turnstile; see FIG. 2(a)-(b)).
Claims 7-9, 11, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morimoto-A (JP 7-24292 A) in view of Morimoto-B (US 6,302,573 B1).
Regarding claim 7, Morimoto-A fails to disclose a process gas volume stream regulation device arranged upstream from the reactor unit 1.
Morimoto-B discloses a reactor system for the production and/or treatment of particles in an oscillating process gas stream (i.e., an apparatus for processing powdered or granular material using pulsating vibration air; see column 1, lines 12-16), wherein the reactor system (see, e.g., embodiments of FIG. 4-5; column 6, line 45, to column 8, line 20) comprises:
a reactor unit that has an upstream process gas feed unit (i.e., a unit comprising a pipe 18,29 for feeding a process gas) and a downstream process gas discharge unit (i.e., a unit comprising a pipe 21,30a,30b for discharging the process gas), which reactor unit has at least one reaction space for particle production and/or treatment (i.e., one tank 2 shown in FIG. 4 or two tanks 2 shown in FIG. 5, each tank 2 defining a space for processing particles supplied from a hopper 14) and an application device (i.e., a spray ball 35, FIG. 5) for introducing a starting substance into the reactor that comprises the reaction space; and
a pulsation device that is suitable for the production of a pulsation of a process gas (i.e., a pulsation vibration air generator (not shown) for producing a pulsation of the process gas fed by the pipe 18,29; e.g., a rotary type pulsating vibration air generation means 71 shown in FIG. 9 or a cam type pulsating vibration air generation means 91 shown in FIG. 10).
Specifically, Morimoto-B discloses that the system comprises a process gas volume regulation device (i.e., a valve 23 for controlling the supply of pulsating vibration air into each tank 2; see column 6, lines 55-56; column 7, lines 5-9) arranged upstream from the reactor unit.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a process gas volume stream regulation device arranged upstream from the at least one reactor in the modified reactor system of Morimoto-A because the process gas volume stream regulation device (i.e., a valve) would have allowed for the supply of gas into the at least one reactor unit to be controlled, as taught by Morimoto-B.
Regarding claim 8, Morimoto-B discloses that the process gas volume stream regulation device is arranged downstream from the pulsation device (i.e., the valve 23 controls the supply of pulsating vibrating air into each tank 2, which necessitates the valve 23 being arranged downstream from the pulsating vibration air generator (not shown); see FIG. 4-5).
Regarding claim 9, Morimoto-B further discloses that the process gas volume stream regulation device is configured as a regulating valve (i.e., the valve 23 controls the supply of pulsating vibration air, wherein the valve 23 can be opened to feed pulsating vibration air into the tank 2 or closed to prevent the feeding of pulsating vibration air into the tank 2; thus, the valve 23 reads on a regulating valve, since the valve regulates the flow of pulsating vibration air into each of the tanks 2).
Regarding claim 11, Morimoto-A fails to disclose that the reactor unit 1 comprises more than one reactor and a process gas stream divider device arranged upstream of the reactor unit 1, so that at least one process gas feed line can be assigned to each reactor of the reactor unit.
The same comments with respect to Morimoto-B apply (see rejection of claim 7, above).
In particular, Morimoto-B discloses that the reactor unit (see embodiment of FIG. 5) can comprise more than one reactor, with each reactor defining a reaction space (i.e., two tanks 2 arranged in parallel, with each tank 2 defining a processing space for processing the particles supplied by a hopper 14). Specifically, Morimoto-B further discloses that the reactor unit (see FIG. 5) comprises a process gas stream divider device arranged upstream from each reactor (i.e., a T for splitting the transmission pipe 29 into two pipes, with the two pipes being respectively connected to the bottom of each tank 2), so that at least one process gas feed line is assigned to each reactor 2 of the reactor unit.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further provide a process gas stream divider device arranged upstream of the reactor unit which comprises more than one reactor in the modified reactor system of Morimoto-A because the provision of a process gas stream divider device would allow for the reactor unit to comprise multiple reactors in parallel, with the multiple reactors each being fluidly connected to the process gas feed unit, and, therefore, the production capacity of the reactor system could be increased, as taught by Morimoto-B.
Regarding claim 17, Morimoto-A fails to disclose that the process gas discharge unit 3 has a plurality of process gas discharge lines, wherein each process gas discharge line has a pressure loss production device (i.e., in the modified system, the bag filter 13a located in the exhaust pipe part 3, according to FIG. 7).
The same comments with respect to Morimoto-B apply (see rejection of claim 7, above). In particular, Morimoto-B discloses that the reactor unit (see embodiment of FIG. 5) can comprise more than one reactor, with each reactor defining a reaction space (i.e., two tanks 2 arranged in parallel, with each tank 2 defining a space for processing the particles supplied by a hopper 14). Specifically, Morimoto-B discloses that the process gas discharge unit has a plurality of process gas discharge lines (i.e., two pipes 30a,30b for respectively discharging the process gas from the two tanks 2).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the process gas discharge unit to have a plurality of process gas discharge lines, with each line having the pressure loss production device (i.e., the bag filter located in the exhaust pipe part), in the modified reactor system of Morimoto-A because the provision of a plurality of discharge lines would allow for the reactor unit to comprise multiple reactors in parallel, with the multiple reactors respectively discharging the process gas into a respective discharge line of the process gas discharge unit, and, therefore, the production capacity of the reactor system could be increased, as taught by Morimoto-B.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morimoto-A (JP 7-24292 A) in view of Morimoto-B (US 6,302,573 B1), as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Sanderson (US 3,360,867 A).
Morimoto-B fails to further teach that the process gas volume stream regulation device (i.e., the valve 23 for controlling the supply of pulsating vibration air into each tank 2; see FIG. 4-5; column 6, lines 55-56; column 7, lines 5-9) comprises regulating fittings capable of achieving a regulation precision of less than or equal to 3%. Based on Applicant’s disclosure, an example of a regulation device which comprises regulating fittings capable of achieving the regulation precision is a sliding gate valve (see page 11, lines 16-26).
Sanderson discloses a reactor system for the production and/or treatment of particles, the reactor system (see FIG. 1-2) comprising: a reactor unit that has an upstream process gas feed unit (i.e., a unit including a hot air manifold 12 and pipes 19 for feeding hot air into the reactor unit) and a downstream process gas discharge unit (i.e., a discharge chamber 21 having an air discharge), which reactor unit has at least one reaction space (i.e., drying chambers 17, 18, 19, 20) for particle production and/or treatment; and a process gas volume stream regulation device (i.e., an interrupter valve V1, V2, V3, V4) arranged upstream from each reaction space. Specifically, Sanderson discloses that each process gas volume stream regulation device is configured as a sliding gate valve (i.e., each interrupter valve V1, V2, V3, V4 comprises a slide 35 (sliding gate) that moves in a groove formed in a slide housing 36 positioned in each pipes 29, wherein the slide 35 completely closes the pipe 29 to block the flow of air or completely opens the pipe 29 to allow the air to pass in response to a actuation by a respective fluid motor VA1-VA4; see FIG. 2; column 4, line 72, to column 5, line 13).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the sliding gate valve of Sanderson for the process gas volume stream regulation device in the modified reactor system of Morimoto-A because the sliding gate valve would have enabled a complete opening of a process gas feed line of the process gas feed unit to allow for the process gas to pass or a complete closing of the process gas feed line to block the flow of the process gas, and the rapid actuation achievable by the sliding gate valve would have allowed for an immediate resumption or cut-off of the process gas flow to the reaction space, as taught by Sanderson. As best understood from Applicant’s disclosure, the sliding gate valve of Sanderson would be capable of achieving a regulation precision of less than or equal to 3%.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on May 18, 2026 have been fully considered. In particular, Applicant (at the paragraph bridging pages 6 and 7) argues,
“As amended, the system of claim 1 includes pressure loss production devices that are each arranged in a respective fixed position in the process gas feed unit and the process gas discharge unit when the reactor system is operating, and the respective positions of the pressure loss production devices can be changed when the reactor system is not operating to adapt the reactor system to other production methods. This is advantageous if, for example, a different starting substance is used and/or a different resonance frequency is desired. See Specification, pg. 16. This limitation is not disclosed or suggested in Morimoto-A. As mentioned, a portion of this limitation previously appeared in claim 5. The Office Action rejects claim 5 on the basis that the filters (10, 11) and the heat exchanger (12) located at the intake pipe portion and the bag filter (13a) located at the exhaust pipe portion constitute pressure loss production devices meeting this limitation. However, the positions of these components do not appear to be changeable to adapt the system to other production methods. In addition, since Morimoto-A does not discuss the use of the filters (10, 11) and the heat exchanger (12) to set the resonance states of the system, it would not have been obvious to change the relative positions of these elements.”
The Office respectfully disagrees.
As discussed with respect to the rejection of claim 1, above, Morimoto-A discloses that the pressure loss production devices (i.e., the filters 10, 11; heat exchanger 12; bag filter 13a; pulsation imparting device 61, 61A; see FIG. 1, 5-7) are each arranged in a respective fixed position in the process gas feed unit 2 and the process gas discharge unit 3 when the reactor system is operating.
While Morimoto-A does not state that “the respective positions of the pressure loss production devices can be changed when the reactor system is not operating to adapted the reactor system to other production methods”, Morimoto-A discloses that the pressure loss production devices can be suitably positioned at different locations in the reactor system. For instance, a pressure loss production device (i.e., pulsation imparting device 61,61A) can be located in either the process gas feed unit 2 (see FIG. 5, 6) or the process gas discharge unit 3 (see FIG. 7). In addition, a pressure loss production device (i.e., pulsation imparting device 61) can be located in the process gas feed unit 2 at a location upstream of the elements 10,11,12 (see FIG. 5) or a downstream of the elements 10,11,12 (see FIG. 6). Also, a pressure loss production device (i.e., pre-filter 10) can be positioned immediately upstream of the elements 11,12 (see FIG. 5, 6) or immediately upstream of a dehumidified 9 (see FIG. 7).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the reactor system of Morimoto-A to be re-configurable, so that the respective positions of the pressure loss production devices were capable of being changed to any of the locations described by Morimoto-A, depending on the intended application of the reactor system.
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).
Lastly, with respect to the argument that “… Morimoto-A does not discuss the use of the filters (10, 11) and the heat exchanger (12) to set the resonance states of the system”, the reason or motivation to modify a reference may often suggest what the inventor has done, but for a different purpose or to solve a different problem. It is not necessary that the prior art achieve the same advantage or result discovered by applicant. See MPEP §2144, IV.
Applicant’s arguments (at page 7, last two paragraphs) with respect to the rejection of dependent claims 7-11 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. 103 are based upon the asserted deficiencies in the primary reference to Morimoto-A. Accordingly, the examiner’s same comments apply.
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 JENNIFER A LEUNG whose telephone number is (571)272-1449. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:30 AM - 4:30 PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, CLAIRE X WANG can be reached at (571)270-1051. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JENNIFER A LEUNG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1774
Prosecution Insights