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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, claims 1-6 and 9 in the reply filed on 6/24/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the Office has not established how or why the claims do not meet one of the enumerated categories, in particular a product and a process of use or a process and an apparatus. This is not found persuasive because Applicant is arguing based on the U.S. practice of restriction, while the current restriction falls under the 371 unity of invention restriction requirement which does not require different classifications based on product and process, but rather a technical relationship among the inventions.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 11-19, 22-23 and 29 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 6/24/2025.
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 1-6 and 9 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 1 recites the limitation, “flow naturally back towards its original distinct position within the reactor as the phases pass through the reactor”. It is unclear what “original distinct position” means. It is unclear if it means the second phase flows backwards to its starting position or inlet, and if so then how could it read on the last part of the phases passing through the reactor. It is unclear if it means the second phase separates out again. The specification and claims fail to define what “original distinct position” means. As such the claim is indefinite for failing to distinctly claim the invention. Claims 2-6 and 9 are also rejected under 35 USC 112(b) by virtue of their dependency on claim 1.
Claim 4 recites the limitation, “a tipping point of rotation of the agitator”. It is unclear what is meant by this limitation. It is unclear if the tipping point is a physical location of the agitator if it is a timing or step in the rotation. The specification and claims fail to define “a tipping point of rotation of the agitator”. As such the claim is indefinite for failing to distinctly claim the invention. Claims 5-6 are also rejected under 35 USC 112(b) by virtue of their dependency on claim 4.
Claim 4 recites the limitation, “natural situation”. It is unclear what is meant by “natural situation”, and whether it is the same or different as “original distinct position” as recited in claim 1. The specification and claims fail to define “natural situation”. As such the claim is indefinite for failing to distinctly claim the invention. Claims 5-6 are also rejected under 35 USC 112(b) by virtue of their dependency on claim 4.
Claim 5 recites the limitation, “the natural forces are selected from gravity and buoyancy”. Natural forces are by definition naturally occurring and therefore cannot be selected. It is unclear how a natural force can be selected or who or what selects the natural force. As such the claim is indefinite for failing to distinctly claim the invention.
Claim 6 recites the limitation, “the natural forces are selected from gravity and buoyancy”. Natural forces are by definition naturally occurring and therefore cannot be selected. It is unclear how a natural force can be selected or who or what selects the natural force. Furthermore, reflection and refraction are not natural forces, but rather the result of waves which are produced by an outside force which is not a natural force. As such the claim is indefinite for failing to distinctly claim the invention.
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 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 to a tubular reactor containing an agitator (figure 1, reference #20, 24, 46, 46’, 62, 62’; [0020]-[0025]), wherein as the phases flow along the reactor, the agitator displaces at least part of a first phase from its distinct position to within a second phase where it is distributed within the second phase by the agitator ([0010]; [0022]), and the agitator is designed to allow the first phase that is distributed within the second phase to flow naturally back towards its original distinct position within the reactor as the phases pass through the reactor ([0010]; [0022]).
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 at a tipping point of rotation of the agitator, natural forces transport the phases back to their natural situation within the reactor tube ([0007]; [0010]-[0011]; [0022])
Regarding claim 5, Wang et al. discloses in which the natural forces are selected from gravity and buoyancy ([0022]).
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 selected from reflection and refraction. Yoneya teaches another tubular reactor (title). The reference teaches using natural forces selected from reflection and 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 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).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Mills (U.S. Patent No. 2,520,424) discloses the process wherein a process material comprising two or more distinct phases are fed continuously to a tubular reactor containing an agitator, wherein as the phases flow along the reactor, the agitator displaces at least part of a first phase from its distinct position to within a second phase where it is distributed within the second phase by the agitator (column 2, lines 34-50), and the agitator is designed to allow the first phase that is distributed within the second phase to flow naturally back towards its original distinct position within the reactor as the phases pass through the reactor (column 3, lines 9-14). Berti et al. (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2007/0142594) discloses wherein a process material comprising two or more distinct phases are fed continuously to a tubular reactor containing an agitator, wherein as the phases flow along the reactor (figure 1), the agitator displaces at least part of a first phase from its distinct position to within a second phase where it is distributed within the second phase by the agitator ([0039]), and the agitator is designed to allow the first phase that is distributed within the second phase to flow naturally back towards its original distinct position within the reactor as the phases pass through the reactor ([0028]-[0029]; [0032]). Lilja et al. (U.S. Patent No. 5,188,808) discloses wherein a process material comprising two or more distinct phases are fed continuously to a tubular reactor containing an agitator, wherein as the phases flow along the reactor, the agitator displaces at least part of a first phase from its distinct position to within a second phase where it is distributed within the second phase by the agitator, and the agitator is designed to allow the first phase that is distributed within the second phase to flow naturally back towards its original distinct position within the reactor as the phases pass through the reactor (abstract; column 2, lines 8-20; column 4, lines 16-36).
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