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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-5 and 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wang et al. (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2017/0296998).
Regarding claim 1, Wang et al. discloses a process (abstract) wherein a process material comprising two or more distinct phases (title; [0007]) are fed continuously in a longitudinal direction to a tubular reactor containing an agitator (figure 1, #20, 24, 46, 46’, 62, 62’; figure 4, #130; [0020]-[0025]; [0055]), wherein in a natural situation, a first phase is in a first position extending along the tubular reactor and a second phase is in a second position extending along the tubular reactor ([0022]; [0034]); wherein as the phases flow along the reactor, the agitator radially displaces at least part of the first phase from the first position to within the second position where it is distributed within the second phase by the agitator (figure 1, #30; figure 2A; [0010]; [0022]; [0055]), and the agitator is designed to allow the first phase that is distributed within the second phase to flow naturally back towards the first position within the reactor as the phases pass through the reactor ([0010]; [0022]; [0034]; [0055]).
Regarding claim 2, Wang et al. discloses in which apertures, through holes, or slots are provided in the agitator which allow gases, liquids, and/or solids to pass through the agitator in a radial plane of the reactor (figure 2, reference #66; figure 3, slots between each reference #62; [0026]; [0031]; [0035]; [0042]).
Regarding claim 3, Wang et al. discloses wherein components of the phases are broken down by the agitator into smaller conglomerations thus increasing the mass transfer and mixing between the phases ([0025]).
Regarding claim 4, Wang et al. discloses wherein during rotation of the agitator, natural forces transport the phases back to their natural situation within the tubular reactor ([0007]; [0010]-[0011]; [0022]; [0034]; [0055])
Regarding claim 5, Wang et al. discloses in which the natural forces are gravity and/or buoyancy ([0022]; [0034]).
Regarding claim 31, Wang et al. discloses wherein which the phases comprise liquids in conjunction with a gas or a suspended solid ([0055]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. in view of Yoneya (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2012/0152723).
Regarding claim 6, Wang et al. discloses all the limitations as set forth above. However, the reference does not explicitly disclose the natural forces are reflection and/or refraction. Yoneya teaches another tubular reactor (title). The reference teaches using natural forces reflection and/or refraction to affect the flow and transportation of phases ([0036]-[0037]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select the type of natural force based on the desired transportation of phases, because selecting one of known designs for a natural force would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed and because said natural force being reflection or refraction would operate equally well as the one disclosed by Wang et al.
Claim(s) 9 and 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. in view of Morris (GB2545927).
Regarding claim 9, Wang et al. discloses all the limitations as set forth above. The reference further discloses in which the agitator is driven by a pneumatic or electric or hydraulic motor or actuator, however the reference only discloses the agitator driven in one direction.
Morris teaches another tubular reactor. The reference teaches in which the agitator is driven by a pneumatic or electric or hydraulic motor or actuator first in a clockwise direction, then stopped and driven in a counter clockwise direction, or vice versa (page 2, lines 11-15; page 3, lines 4-9; page 3, lines 32-36).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the driven agitator of Wang et al. to be driven first in a clockwise direction, then stopped and driven in a counter clockwise direction, or vice versa as taught by Morris. One of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect such a combination to be suitable given that both references teach tubular reactors. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do the foregoing because causes the fluid to both radially accelerate the fluid and to create turbulence/mixing (Morris page 2, lines 11-15).
Regarding claim 30, Wang et al. discloses all the limitations as set forth above; however fails to disclose wherein the agitator has a convex and/or concave profile. Morris teaches another tubular reactor wherein the agitator has a convex and/or concave profile (). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the agitator shape of Wang et al. to have a convex and/or concave profile as taught by Morris. One of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect such a combination to be suitable given that both references teach tubular reactors. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do the foregoing because an agitator with convex and concave design provide particularly good mixing generating radial turbulence in the process fluid (Morris page 3, lines 11-20; page 7, lines 25-34)
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 4/29/2026, with respect to the 35 USC 112 rejection have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 USC 112(b) rejection of claims 1-6 and 9 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 4/29/2026 with respect to the restriction and the 35 USC 102 and the 35 USC 103 rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
First, applicant argues there is unity of invention because the claims are drawn to a certain category. Examiner finds this argument unpersuasive. While the claims may be drawn to a certain category, that does not establish unity of invention by itself. There still needs to be one or more of the same corresponding special technical feature. Only if that product (tubular reactor) is a special technical feature, in that it has novelty and is non-obvious, the claims of the product and process of use of the product have unity. Even if the claims are drawn to one of the listed combinations of different categories, it was demonstrated in the restriction and in the non-final rejection and now the final rejection, that the shared technical features do not make a contribution over the prior art, and therefore lack unity of invention and may be restricted. See PCT international search and preliminary examination guidelines, chapter 10.
Second, Applicant argues Wang fails to disclose the limitations of the claims because Wang discloses different zones which are not required nor described in the present claims or the present invention and Wang makes no mention of seeking to achieve plug flow conditions. Applicant argues the anticipation rejection cannot stand because Wang functions in a different way from the present application. Examiner finds this argument unpersuasive. Applicant's arguments amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references. The language Applicant points to as being different (for example, plug flow conditions), is not recited in the claims. Applicant’s arguments are directed to the invention as a whole and not the specific language found in the claims. Applicant further points to Wang having different zones as evidence for the reference not reading on the claims; however, examiner finds this argument unpersuasive because references may have additional aspects from the claims, but that does not preclude the reference from also disclosing the limitations in the claims. As explained above in the 35 USC §102 rejection, Wang discloses all the limitations as specifically recited in the claim 1. Wang discloses feeding the two distinct phases, that are separate and distinct in two different positions in a natural situation, into the tubular reactor (figure 4, #130) where they are mixed by the agitator as they pass through zone 30 in a radial distribution (figure 2A), and then in zone 32, the phases separate so that the first phase flows naturally back towards the first position ([0034]; [0055]). Applicant has failed to specifically point out which language recited in claim 1, Wang fails to disclose and why. A general allegation directed to different functions does not satisfy this.
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 ELIZABETH INSLER whose telephone number is (571)270-0492. 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 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.
/ELIZABETH INSLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1774
Prosecution Insights