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 without traverse of Species III in the reply filed on March 31, 2025 is acknowledged.
Claim 5 (now cancelled) is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on March 31, 2025.
New claim 20 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on March 31, 2025.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the mechanical structure of the gas inlet pipe as amended in claim 1, line 25 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: The disclosure, as originally filed, does not disclose that the “mechanical structure” of the gas inlet pipe. Clarification is respectfully requested.
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 do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “mechanical structure” in claim 1 where “structure” is the placeholder and “mechanical” is the functional language.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 4 and 6-23 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The disclosure, as originally filed, does not disclose that the invention or the gas distribution cap by being displaced axially in a longitudinal direction of the gas inlet pipe, the first position being a first predetermined connecting position fixed by a mechanical structure of the gas inlet pipe and the gas distribution cap, the second position being a second predetermined connecting position fixed by the mechanical structure of the gas inlet pipe and the gas distribution cap, wherein in the second position the gas distribution cap at least partly closes at least some of the openings as amended in claim 1. In fact, the term “mechanical structure” was not disclosed in the original disclosure. Clarification is respectfully requested.
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.
Claim 23 is 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 23 recites the limitation "each of two pairs" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
The preamble of the claims fails to limit the structure of the claimed invention. If the claim preamble, when read in the context of the entire claim, recites limitations of the claim, or, if the claim preamble is ‘necessary to give life, meaning, and vitality’ to the claim, then the claim preamble should be construed as if in the balance of the claim. MPEP 2111.02. The preamble of the claims recites a “fluidized bed reactor.” The recitation “fluidized bed reactor” has been considered to merely indicate the intended use of the nozzle. Fluidized bed reactor is not a positively recited limitation and fails to structurally limit the claimed invention. It is not necessary to give life, meaning, and vitality to the claim because the body of the claim, standing alone, fully describes the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 9-12, 21 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Erickson et al. (US20100162708. Erickson hereinafter).
With respect to claim 1, Erickson discloses a gas distribution nozzle (Figs. 1-5) for a fluidized bed reactor, comprising:
a gas inlet pipe (12, 14), having
an inner surface (see Figure),
an outer surface (see Figure),
a lower (left) end section (at 32) adapted to (capable of) receive gas from an associated gas source,
an upper end section (at 38), and
a plurality of openings (opening of 16, 42, 44) formed in the gas inlet pipe, each opening of the plurality of openings extending from the inner surface (left side of 34) of the gas inlet pipe to the outer surface (right side of 34) of the gas inlet pipe; and
a gas distribution cap (14, 20, 24, 40) configured to (capable of) be connected to the gas inlet pipe, the gas distribution cap having
an upper top (20),
a lower bottom (left side of 24) arranged at a vertical distance (when 10is rotated counterclockwise for 90°) below the upper top of the gas distribution cap and surrounding the gas inlet pipe (at least 14),
a peripheral wall (of 14) having an inner surface and an outer surface (see Figure) and extending between the upper top of the gas distribution cap and the lower bottom of the gas distribution cap,
outlets (44) within the peripheral wall extending from the inner surface of the peripheral wall to the outer surface of the peripheral wall,
characterized in that
the gas distribution cap can be (capable of) connected at least in a first position (Fig. 2) and in a second position (Fig. 1) to the gas inlet pipe, by being displaced axially (at least the 24) in a longitudinal direction of the gas inlet pipe, the first position being a first predetermined connecting position fixed by a mechanical structure (22, 20) of the gas inlet pipe and the gas distribution cap, the second position being a second predetermined connecting position fixed by the mechanical structure of the gas inlet pipe and the gas distribution cap, wherein in the second position the gas distribution cap at least partly closes at least some of the openings.
With respect to claim 4, Erickson discloses wherein in the first position the gas distribution cap is arranged offset (axially) to the second position in the longitudinal direction.
With respect to claim 9, Erickson discloses the gas distribution nozzle according to claim 1, the plurality of openings of the gas inlet pipe being arranged at least in a first group of openings (44) and a second group of openings (42), the first group of openings and the second group of openings being arranged offset to each other in the longitudinal direction of the gas inlet pipe, wherein in the second position the first group of openings is at least partly closed by the gas distribution cap.
With respect to claim 10, Erickson discloses the gas distribution nozzle according to claim 9, the first group of openings being arranged in a lower (downstream) row extending (radially) in a circumferential direction of the gas inlet pipe, the second group of openings being arranged in an upper (upstream) row extending (radially) in the circumferential direction of the gas inlet pipe.
With respect to claim 11, Erickson discloses the gas distribution nozzle according to claim 1, the gas distribution cap having a collar (40) extending into (groove 26) or (internally) surrounding the upper end section of the gas inlet pipe at least in the second position, whereby the collar at least partly closes (blocking with 20) at least some of the plurality of openings (at downstream).
With respect to claim 12, Erickson discloses the gas distribution nozzle according to claim 1, the outlets (44) of the gas distribution cap and the plurality of openings (at least 42) of the gas inlet pipe being arranged offset to each other in the longitudinal direction of the gas inlet pipe.
With respect to claim 21, Erickson discloses a gas distribution nozzle (Figs. 1-5) for a fluidized bed reactor, comprising:
a gas inlet pipe (12, 14) adapted to (capable of) receive gas from an associated gas source, the gas inlet pipe having a plurality of openings (opening of 16, 42, 44) formed in the gas inlet pipe, each of the plurality of openings extending from an inner surface of the gas inlet pipe to an outer surface of the gas inlet pipe (see Figure) and being disposed in one of one or more (two) rows arranged in a circumferential direction of the gas inlet pipe; and
a gas distribution cap (14, 20, 24, 40) configured to (capable of) be connected to the gas inlet pipe in either of at least two predetermined connecting positions (Figs. 1 or 2), the gas distribution cap including a peripheral wall (of 14) surrounding one (inner) end of the gas inlet pipe, the peripheral wall having outlets (44) extending from an inner surface of the peripheral wall to an outer surface of the peripheral wall to communicate with at least some of the plurality of openings when the gas distribution cap is connected to the gas inlet pipe,
wherein the gas distribution cap is configured to (capable of) be connected to the gas inlet pipe in a first predetermined connecting position (Fig. 2) of the at least two first predetermined connecting is positions and is further configured to be connected to the gas inlet pipe in a second predetermined connecting position (Fig. 1) of the at least two predetermined connecting positions by being displaced axially in a longitudinal direction of the gas inlet pipe,
wherein, in the first predetermined connecting position, the outlets of the peripheral wall communicate with all of the plurality of openings, and
wherein, in the second predetermined connecting position, the gas distribution cap at least partly closes at least one row of the plurality of openings.
With respect to claim 22, Erickson discloses the gas distribution nozzle according to claim 21, wherein each of the first and second predetermined connecting positions is fixed by a mechanical structure (22, 20) of the gas inlet pipe and the gas distribution cap.
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) 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Erickson in view of Moss et al. (GB1396588. Moss hereinafter).
With respect to claim 22, Erickson discloses the gas distribution nozzle according to claim 1 except for a fluidized bed reactor including a plurality of gas distribution nozzles according to claim 1.
However, Moss teaches a gas distribution nozzle for a fluidized bed reactor, comprising: a gas inlet pipe (11, 21 and 22), having an inner surface (see Figure), an outer surface (see Figure), a lower end section (at 18) adapted to receive gas from an associated gas source, an upper end section (at 19), and a plurality of openings (15, lower opening of 11 and opening of 22 and 21) formed in the gas inlet pipe, each opening of the plurality of openings extending from the inner surface of the gas inlet pipe to the outer surface of the gas inlet pipe; and a gas distribution cap (13 and 14) configured to be connected to the gas inlet pipe, the gas distribution cap having an upper top (see Figure), a lower bottom (see Figure) arranged at a vertical distance below the upper top of the gas distribution cap and surrounding the gas inlet pipe, a peripheral wall (12 and 13) having an inner surface and an outer surface (see Figure) and extending between the upper top of the gas distribution cap and the lower bottom of the gas distribution cap, outlets (16 and 17) within the peripheral wall extending from the inner surface of the peripheral wall to the outer surface of the peripheral wall, characterized in that the gas distribution cap can be connected at least in a first position (fully align 15 with 16 before welding) and in a second position (partially align 15 with 16 vertically and horizontally (or radially) before welding) to the gas inlet pipe and a fluidized bed reactor including a plurality of gas distribution nozzles (fluid distributing orifices).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of installing the nozzle into a fluidized bed reactor, as taught by Moss, to Erickson’s nozzle, in order to provide fluid distribution to a fluidized bed reactor (Page 1 right column, line 72 to page 2, left column, line 23).
With respect to claim 14, Erickson’s nozzle added into Moss’ fluidized bed reactor, Erickson and Moss disclose the fluidized bed reactor with gas distribution nozzles as in claim 13 except for wherein the gas distribution nozzles of a first group have their gas distribution caps connected in the first position to their gas inlet pipes and the gas distribution nozzles of a second group have their gas distribution caps connected in the second position to their gas inlet pipes. Since the first position and the second position can be performed by the gas distribution nozzle, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make a first group have their gas distribution caps connected in the first position to their gas inlet pipe and the gas distribution nozzles of a second group have their gas distribution caps connected in the second position to their gas inlet pipe in order to provide a desire or even gas distribution as possible into a vessel (A common requirement for a distributor for distributing a fluid into a vessel which is to contain a bed of fluidizable solid particles is that it should distribute the fluid as evenly as Possible into the vessel. Page 1, left column lines 19-23).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 21 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 CHEE-CHONG LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-1916. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am -5pm.
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, Arthur O. Hall can be reached on (571)270-1814. 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.
/CHEE-CHONG LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752 August 18, 2025