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 02 January 2026 is acknowledged. It is acknowledged that claims 1, 4, and 18 have been amended by applicant. Per the amendments, the 35 U.S.C. 112 rejections have been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02 January 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The respective arguments are addressed below:
Applicant argues that the reaction tubes in Finnerty cannot carry electric current since no electrical connections are provided. This is not persuasive because the rejection does not rely on Finnerty alone to teach the electrical resistance heating of the tubes. Rather, Wortmann teaches pipelines connected to phases of a polyphase AC source and used as electrical resistance heating elements to generate heat, as pointed out in the non-final office action.
Applicant argues that Finnerty does not teach the claimed electrical architecture, specifically the star bridge and that the connecting elements of Finnerty conduct heat rather than electric current. However, the claim merely requires that the tube sections be electrically conductively connected. Finnerty discloses thermally conductive connecting elements between reactor components. Such conductive metallic members are capable of electrically conductive connection. Furthermore, Applicant argues that the bridge must connect tubes only to each other and that the bridge must not connect to a distributor. Examiner reminds Applicant that these features are not recited in the rejected claim. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Additionally, Finnerty discloses conductive elements linking multiple reactor tubes to a common conductive manifold within the reformer assembly. Such conductive connections electrically connect the tubes to one another through the common manifold, thereby effective potential equalization between the tubes. The claim does not require the connecting element to connect tubes directly to each other or to exclude connection through a manifold. Moreover, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Lastly, the star bridge that Applicant references in their argument is not a required structural limitation of the claim. Claim 1 provides the option of the arrangement being either a connection via one or more rigid connecting elements, OR arranged as a star bridge. Examiner maintains the argument that the combined references do indeed together disclose the star bridge in question, but also points out that the star bridge is not required by the claim.
Applicant directs arguments to whether Wortmann discloses a rigid star bridge. However, Wortmann is not relied upon to disclose the claimed star bridge or connecting element. Rather, Wortmann is relied upon for teaching the use of the pipeline itself as an electrical resistance heating element and for electrical connection of the pipeline to a power source. Additionally, Wortmann explicitly encourages a rigid connecting element (possible to adjust the rigidity of the conductor… strength approaching the strength of a rigid conductor; see [0043]).
Applicant argues that the Wortmann teaches two mutually exclusive systems. Examiner points out that Wortmann’s disclosure of alternative heating arrangements does not teach away from the applied combination. A reference that discloses multiple alternative configurations does not discourage the use of any one of those configurations. Additionally, Wortmann’s disclosure that flexible connectors may be used to accommodate thermal expansion merely describes one possible implementation and does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the use of rigid connections.
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.
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 limitations recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitations are: “by means of a single rigid…” and “by means of a plurality of rigid…” in claim 1, and “by means of a single rigid…” and “by means of a plurality of rigid…” in claim 18.
Because these claim limitations are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they 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.
If applicant intends to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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 1-2 and 10-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Finnerty et al. (US-10106406-B2), hereinafter “Finnerty”, in view of Wortmann et al. (US-20140238523-A1), hereinafter “Wortmann”.
Regarding Claim 1, Finnerty discloses a reactor for carrying out a chemical reaction (a chemical reactor system; see Abstract), the reactor comprising: a reactor vessel (shell-and-tube reactor; see Col. 2 Line 23) and one or more reaction tubes (The chemical reactor can include a plurality of tubular reactor units; see Col. 2 Lines 43-44), wherein a number of tube sections of the one or more reaction tubes run between a first region for electrical heating (heating zone 205 supplied with heat from first heater unit 206. First heater unit 206… can be of a… known electrical resistance type; see Col. 10 Lines 50-53 and Fig. 2A which shows the proximity of reaction tubes 208 to the heating zone 205) and a second region within the reactor vessel (Fig. 2B shows reaction tubes 208 spanning the reactor beyond the heating zone 205), and the tube sections in the second region are either electrically conductively connected to one another as a whole by means of a single connecting element (thermally conductive elements 234… thermally linking CPOX reaction zones 209 of tubular CPOX reactor units 208; see Col. 12 Line 67 – Col. 13 Line 4) or in groups by means of a plurality of connecting elements (at least one thermally conductive element; see Col. 2 Lines 49-50), or are arranged within the reactor vessel as one or more star bridges (thermally conductive elements 234… thermally linking CPOX reaction zones 209 of tubular CPOX reactor units 208; see Col. 12 Line 67 – Col. 13 Line 4; and see Fig. 2A which shows the conductive elements 234 arranged as a star bridge) effecting a potential equalization (this is the natural effect of a star bridge).
Regarding the limitation claiming, “wherein the one or more connecting elements is or are configured for operation at a temperature of more than 700oC”, Finnerty discloses the temperature of the reaction zone reaches from about 250oC to about 1100oC (see Col. 9 Lines 63-65). While Finnerty does not explicitly teach the connecting element as being capable of such temperatures, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose a material for the connecting element that is capable of operating at the temperature of the reaction tubes of which it connects in order to make the connecting element of the reactor operable.
Finnerty does not explicitly teach a polyphase alternating current source. However, Wortmann discloses tube sections in one region being electrically connected to phase connections of a polyphase alternating current source (electrical resistance heating elements of said pipelines being connected to the… phases of an AC source; see [0021] and “n-phase AC sources”; see [0021]) and used as electrical resistors in order to generate heat (the pipeline is used as resistance heating element; see [0028]) and the tube sections in a second region are electrically conductively connected to one another as a whole (bring the pipeline sections into electrical contact with one another by means of at least one adapter conductor; see [0028]) by means of a single rigid connecting element (possible to adjust the rigidity of the conductor… strength approaching the strength of a rigid conductor; see [0043]).
Finnerty and Wortmann are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of electrical resistance heating of tubes. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Finnerty by incorporating the teachings of Wortmann and including a polyphase alternating current source in order to set a potential close to the ground potential at the ends of the electrical resistance heating elements (see Wortmann [0017]), using the tubes as the resistance elements so the current can be fed uniformly over the circumference of the pipeline (see Wortmann [0026]), conductively connecting the tubes with a connecting element in order to electrically connect the pipelines (see Wortmann [0028]), and using a rigid conductive connecting element in order to make it possible to provide a smaller number of holders (see Wortmann [0043]).
Regarding Claim 2, Finnerty and Wortmann together disclose a reactor according to claim 1. Finnerty further discloses the chemical reaction being an endothermic chemical reaction (“systems and methods described herein can apply to other reforming reactions”; see Col. 4 Lines 51-53; and “The term “reforming reaction” shall be understood to include… endothermic reactions”; see Col. 7 Lines 10-11).
Regarding Claim 10, Finnerty and Wortmann together disclose a reactor according to claim 1. Finnerty further discloses the reactor being designed as a reactor for steam cracking (The chemical reactor… is applicable to all chemical reactors in which a gaseous reaction medium is made to undergo conversion to desired products; see Col. 7 Lines 37-42).
Regarding Claim 11, Finnerty and Wortmann together disclose a reactor according to claim 1. Finnerty further discloses the tube sections in each case comprise a tube section of a plurality of reaction tubes (Fig. 2A shows a plurality of reaction tubes 208, which can be defined by sections as they span reactor), wherein the tube sections are arranged side by side in the reactor vessel in a fluidically unconnected manner (see Fig. 2A parts 208) and are in each case connected to a feed section in the first region (enters gas distributor… the gas then flowing… to its top or upper part and from there into inlets 231 of tubular CPOX reactor units 208; see Col. 12 Lines 45-51) and an extraction section in the second region (reformate exiting the reactor units at their outlet ends 160 through associated outlets 154; see Col. 10 Lines 40-41). Wortmann also discloses a feed section (connect… the first end of a plurality of pipelines to a distributor; see [0071]) and an extraction section (second end of a plurality of pipelines to a collector; see [0071]).
Regarding Claim 12, Finnerty and Wortmann together disclose a reactor according to claim 11. Finnerty further discloses the reactor being designed as a reactor for steam reforming (carry out steam reforming; see Col. 5 Lines 4-5), dry reforming (operations as… dry reforming; see Col. 1 Lines 26-27), or the catalytic dehydrogenation of alkanes (“catalytic partial oxidation reforming reaction is to be carried out”; see Col. 6 Lines 54-55; and “reactor can be adapted to carrying out… dehydrogenation”; see Col. 2 Lines 26-37).
Regarding Claim 13, Finnerty and Wortmann together disclose a reactor according to claim 1. Wortmann further discloses the connecting element and the tube sections being formed from the same material (“the pipeline, for example, from stainless steel”; see [0096]; and “the heating conductor is manufactured from a corrosion-resistant material, in particular stainless steel”; see [0057]). This would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because steel is a corrosion resistant material (see Wortmann [0057]).
Regarding Claim 14, the limitations of this claim do not exceed those of claim 13, except in the phrase “or from materials whose electrical conductivities differ from one another by not more than 30%”. As explained in the claim 13 rejection, the material of the conductive connecting element and the tubes are the same, and therefore meet the limitation of differing less than 30%.
Regarding Claim 15, the limitations of this claim do not exceed those of claim 13, except in the phrase “or from materials whose electrical conductivities differ from one another by not more than 10%”. As explained in the claim 13 rejection, the material of the conductive connecting element and the tubes are the same, and therefore meet the limitation of differing less than 10%.
Regarding Claim 16, Finnerty and Wortmann together disclose a reactor according to claim 1. Wortmann further discloses the use of stainless steel for both the tubes and the conductive connecting element, as described in the claim 13 rejection. Wortmann further discloses the use of St 2.4856 stainless steel (see [0057]), which has the claimed chemical composition of “0.1 to 0.5 wt% carbon, 20 to 50 wt% chromium, 20 to 80 wt% nickel, 0 to 2 wt% niobium, 0 to 3 wt% silicon, 0 to 5 wt% tungsten and 0 to 1 wt% other constituents, preferably 20 to 40 wt% chromium, 20 to 50 wt% nickel, 0 to 10 wt% silicon, 0 to 10 wt% aluminum and 0 to 4 wt% niobium”. The limitation claiming “wherein the contents of the specified constituents in each case complement one another to form the non-ferrous fraction”, this is not a structural limitation, but rather a consequential property of the composition. Therefore, because the material disclosed by Wortmann meets the claimed composition, it would naturally follow that the constituents complement each other to form a non-ferrous fraction. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used St 2.4856 stainless steel because it is a corrosion resistant material (see Wortmann [0057]).
Regarding Claim 17, Finnerty and Wortmann together disclose a reactor according to claim 1. Wortmann further discloses surrounding the connecting element at least in part by a conducting element made of a material which has a higher specific electrical conductivity than the material from which the connecting element is formed (if the metal strip is manufactured from the same material as the pipeline, for example from stainless steel… it is possible, for example, to apply a layer of a material with good electrical conductivity, for example, copper, to the metal strip; see [0096]). This would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because it would have improved conductivity (see Wortmann [0096]).
Regarding Claim 18, the limitations of the claim do not exceed those of claim 1. The only difference is that claim 18 claims a “method” using a reactor that has limitations identical to the limitations of claim 1. The only method step disclosed is that the connecting element is being operated at a temperature of more than 700oC. This differs from claim 1 in that claim 1 claims that the connecting element is configured to operate at such a temperature, but does not claim actual operation at such temperature. However, Finnerty does disclose operation at such temperatures, as explained in the claim 1 rejection. Please see the claim 1 rejection for the associated rationale.
Claims 3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Finnerty et al. (US-10106406-B2), hereinafter “Finnerty”, in view of Wortmann et al. (US-20140238523-A1), hereinafter “Wortmann” and Warren (US-6423279-B1).
Regarding Claim 3, Finnerty and Wortmann together disclose a reactor according to claim 1. Finnerty further discloses each of the tube sections of the reaction tubes being arranged at least partially side by side in the reactor vessel (see Fig. 2A parts 208).
Finnerty does not explicitly teach a U-bend. However, Warren discloses each tube having two sections that are arranged side by side in a reactor vessel (reaction chamber having two generally tubular legs extending in generally parallel; see Col. 3 Lines 41-42) and wherein the respective two tube sections pass into one another in a first region via a U-bend (reaction chamber has U-shape; see Col. 2 Lines 55-56). Wortmann also discloses a u-bend (the pipelines generally have a u-shaped profile; see [0048])
Finnerty and Warren are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of tubular reactors. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Finnerty by incorporating the teachings of Warren and using U-tubes or hairpin tubes as the reactor tubes. Doing so enables a compact and thermally efficient design (see Warren Col. 2 Line 29).
Regarding Claim 5, Finnerty, Wortmann, and Warren together disclose a reactor according to claim 3. Finnerty further discloses the plurality of reaction tubes being connected to the one connecting element (conductive elements 234… thermally linking CPOX reaction zones; see Col. 13 Lines 1-3; and Fig. 2A). When modifying Finnerty with Warren, it would naturally follow that each section of the U-tube is connected in the same manner that the tubes of Finnerty are connected.
Claims 4, 6-7, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Finnerty et al. (US-10106406-B2), hereinafter “Finnerty”, in view of Wortmann et al. (US-20140238523-A1), hereinafter “Wortmann”, Warren (US-6423279-B1), and Eder (WO-2015197181-A1).
Regarding Claim 4, Finnerty, Wortmann, and Warren together disclose a reactor according to claim 3, wherein the tube sections in the second region are electrically conductively connected to one another as a whole by means of the plurality of rigid connecting elements, which are integrally connected to the one or more reaction tubes (see the claim 1 rejection where this limitation is addressed).
Modified Finnerty does not explicitly teach different conductive connections associated with different tube sections. However, Eder discloses one tube section of the tube sections of the plurality of tubes being connected to a first connecting element, and the other tube section being connected to a second connecting element (pipe section are… electrically conductively connected to the… neutral conductor… whereas the middle sections of the respective pipe sections are each preferably… connected to an associated outer conductor; see [0063]).
Finnerty and Eder are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of electrical resistance heating of tubes. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Finnerty by incorporating the teachings of Eder and connecting the different tube sections to different conductors. Doing so makes it possible to reduce the number of insulations usually provided (see Eder [0012]).
Regarding Claim 6, Finnerty and Wortmann together disclose a reactor according to claim 1. Finnerty further discloses an even number of four or more tube sections of a reaction tube (see Fig. 1B).
Modified Finnerty does not explicitly teach the reaction tubes connected in series via U-bends. However, Eder discloses the tubes being connected in series (the pipelines can be connected in series; see [0066]) via bends (middle section of the respective leg preferably forms an end or a reversing bend; see [0064] and Fig. 3), wherein the number of bends is one less than the number of tube sections (see Fig. 3 which shows 6 tube sections and 5 bends), and wherein the bends are arranged alternately in the first region and in the second region (see Fig. 3). Connecting the reaction tubes in series would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because it would have allowed successive fluid flow between the tubes (see Eder [0066] and [0067]).
Modified Finnerty does not explicitly teach U-bends. However, U-bends are disclosed by Warren as explained in the claim 3 rejection. Please refer to claim 3 for the associated rationale.
Regarding Claim 7, Finnerty, Wortmann, Warren, and Eder together disclose a reactor according to claim 6. Eder further discloses the bends that are arranged in one of the regions being formed in the connecting element (Reversing bend, on which the respective electrical contact to the associated outer conductor is preferably provided (see [0052]) and in which the tube sections extend from the connecting element in the second region to a first region (a return bend of a middle section 101b of the first leg 101, from which the middle section 101b of the first leg 101 extends back to a second end section; see [0130]). This arrangement would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because it allows for the bends to be connected to one conductor, while the other sections are connected to another contact (see [0131]). For the rationale disclosing the bends being U-bends, please refer to the rejection of claim 3.
Regarding Claim 9, Finnerty, Wortmann, Warren, and Eder together disclose a reactor according to claim 6. Wortmann further discloses the tube sections and connecting element being welded together (connected to the heating conductor, and connecting… to the pipeline, by a welded joint; see [0050]). Welding is a choice that would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because it aids in a connection with good electrical conductivity (see Wortmann [0050]). The limitation claiming “the U- bends in the second region are formed in the connecting elements” is addressed in the rejection of claim 7 and Examiner advises Applicant to see the claim 7 rejection for the associated rationale.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Finnerty et al. (US-10106406-B2), hereinafter “Finnerty”, in view of Wortmann et al. (US-20140238523-A1), hereinafter “Wortmann”, Warren (US-6423279-B1), and Eder (WO-2015197181-A1), further in view of Wilson (Expanding Mechanical Design and Fabrication Horizons).
Regarding Claim 8, Finnerty, Wortmann, Warren, and Eder together disclose a reactor according to claim 6. Modified Finnerty does not explicitly teach a casted connection between the tubes and the connecting element. However, casting is a very well-known and commonly used technique in metal manufacturing, as taught by Wilson. KSR Rationale D (see MPEP 2141) states that it is obvious to apply a “known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results”. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to apply the known technique of casting as taught by Wilson in order to yield the predictable result of significant savings in cost and time (see Wilson Pg. 512, Para. 4).
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