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 .
Summary
This is a final office action for application 18/007,416 in response to Applicant’s arguments filed on 31 March 2026. It is acknowledged that Applicant did not amend any claims. Accordingly, claims 19-35 are under full consideration.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 31 March 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The respective arguments are addressed below:
Applicant argues that Nascimento does not discloses the catalyst-retaining core having gas passages smaller than gas passage openings of said first wall. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant’s assertion that one of ordinary skill in the art would infer that the openings of grating assembly 110 and the orifices 61 of the perforated sheet 140 have “identical sections” is not supported by the disclosure of Nascimento. As showing in Fig. 51a, wires 111 extend across flange/plate portions 120, thereby defining elongated openings between adjacent wires. Thes openings have a relatively long dimension extending longitudinally across the wires and a narrower transverse dimension corresponding approximately to the spacing between adjacent wires 111. Nascimento further discloses that the orifices of the additional perforated sheet/containing cylinders “have dimensions in the tangential plane of the order of the distance between two adjacent wires” (see [0079]), these dimensions being defined as diameters (see [0076]) and therefore necessitating a circular orifice. Accordingly, because the grating openings defined by adjacent wires 111 extend longitudinally while the circular orifices 61 are dimensioned on the order of only the spacing between adjacent wires, one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood the orifices 61 to be smaller than the overall openings defined by grating assembly 110. This understanding is further consistent with paragraph [0125], which expressly states that the additional perforated sheet 140 defines orifices 61 “of much smaller sections than the orifices of the perforated cylinder 30” and that the additional perforated sheet improves catalyst retention in the event of mechanical failure of the grating cylinder. Thus, Nascimento teaches a finer intermediate retention structure positioned between comparatively larger surrounding wall openings.
Applicant further argues that Nascimento does not discloses the catalyst retaining core including a porous medium, because the perforated sheet of Nascimento does not meet the definition of a porous medium, which Applicant defines as “a medium provided with pores, i.e. openings that have a cross section much smaller than the thickness of such medium”. Examiner respectfully disagrees and asserts that a “pore” does not necessitate the openings having a cross section much smaller than the thickness of such medium. A pore is simply a small opening that allows fluids to flow through or be stored within them. Further, Applicant argues that the openings in the perforated sheet of Nascimento are the same size of the thickness of the perforated sheet, which is simply not disclosed by Nascimento and therefore cannot be relied upon for the basis of any argument.
Applicant argues that Nascimento does not disclose the first wall having openings larger than a granule size. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant acknowledges that openings are delimited between wires 111 and flats 20 of the grating assembly. Applicant merely argues that such openings are covered by retention portions 103, 103’ when mounted. However, the claim does not require the gas-passage openings of the first wall and second wall to remain fully uncovered during operation. Rather, the claim merely requires that the wall have gas-passage openings larger than a granule size of the granular catalyst.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 19-20, 25, 27-28, and 31-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated Nascimento et al. (US-20190232245-A1), hereinafter “Nascimento”.
Regarding Claim 19, Nascimento discloses a gas-permeable wall assembly (a cylindrical wall for filtering solid particles in a fluid; see Abstract) for use in a catalytic reactor (can be applied for example in catalytic reformers; see [0001]) for retaining a granular catalyst (catalyst is simply contained; see [0005]), the gas-permeable assembly comprising: a first wall arranged to face the granular catalyst (The grating assembly 110 is intended to be in contact with a catalyst; see [0099]); a second wall spaced from the first wall and arranged to be opposed to the granular catalyst (perforated cylinder 30 arranged concentrically; see [0098] and Figs. 3-6) and a catalyst-retaining core interposed between said first wall and said second wall (“The containing cylinder can advantageously be independent of the grating cylinder”; see [0077] and [0075] and “additional perforated sheet 140 forming an additional perforated cylinder”; see [0124] and Fig. 6); wherein said catalyst-retaining core has gas passages smaller than gas passage openings of said first wall (orifices of the containing cylinder can have dimensions in the tangential plane of the order of the distance between two adjacent wires; see [0079] and Fig. 5A, Parts 111 and 120) and said second wall (The perforated sheet used for the containing cylinder can define recesses of diameters smaller than those of orifices defined in the perforated cylinder and smaller than the average size of the catalyst grains; see [0076]); wherein the catalyst-retaining core includes at least one of the following: a porous medium (perforated sheet; see [0076]); a fibrous medium; a micro-fibrous medium; a fabric; or a metallic fiber felt.
Regarding Claim 20, Nascimento discloses the gas-permeable assembly according to claim 19, wherein the catalyst- retaining core partially or completely fills the gap between the first wall and the second wall (see Fig. 6 Part 140).
Regarding Claim 25, Nascimento discloses the gas-permeable assembly according to claim 19, wherein the catalyst-retaining core is able to retain a fine catalyst not contained by the first wall and the second wall (containing cylinder… making it possible to increase reliability of the retention of catalyst in the annular space in the case of a mechanical failure of the grating cylinder; see [0075]), said fine catalyst having a nominal size of catalyst granules not greater than 1.5 mm (catalyst grains can have a diameter of between 0.7 and 1.0 mm; see [0071]). Further, the limitation stating “catalyst-retaining core has gas passages smaller than gas passage openings of said first wall and said second wall” in claim 1 naturally results in the catalyst-retaining core being capable of retaining fine catalyst not contained by the first and second wall.
Regarding Claim 27, Nascimento discloses the gas-permeable assembly according to claim 19, wherein the first wall is structurally connected to the second wall (perforated sheet 140 is kept in place by the flange element 120, thus ensuring an independent fixing of the perforated cylinder and of the grating 110; see [0126]).
Regarding Claim 28, Nascimento discloses the gas-permeable assembly according to claim 27, wherein the first wall is connected to the second wall through elements regularly spaced (each assembly element comprising a flange element 120, threaded rods 101, and nuts 102, 104; see [0108] and Fig. 4 Parts 104).
Regarding Claim 31, Nascimento discloses the gas-permeable assembly according to claim 19, wherein the first wall, the second wall, and the catalyst-retaining core are cylindrical (a structure of concentric cylinders; see [0019].
Regarding Claim 32, Nascimento discloses a reactor for the synthesis of chemical compounds (reactor; see [0081]), the reactor comprising: at least one catalytic bed of cylindrical annular shape (reactor comprising a radial flow catalyst bed wall; see [0081] and “retention of catalyst in the annular space”; see [0075]) delimited by at least one collector (fluid passes through the catalyst bed and is collected in the center pipe; see [0073]) including the gas-permeable assembly according to claim 19 (reactor comprising a radial flow catalyst bed wall as described above; see [0081]).
Regarding Claim 33, Nascimento discloses a reactor for the synthesis of chemical compounds (reactor; see [0081]), the reactor, comprising: at least one catalytic bed of cylindrical annular shape (retention of catalyst in the annular space; see [0075]) containing a granular catalyst (catalyst, can for example take the form of grains; see [0071]), wherein said catalytic bed includes at least one collector (collected in the center pipe; see [0073]) having a gas-permeable assembly (center pipe comprises… a perforated cylinder; see [0098]), wherein said gas-permeable assembly includes a first wall facing the granular catalyst (The grating assembly 110 is intended to be in contact with a catalyst; see [0099]), a second wall spaced from the first wall (perforated cylinder 30 arranged concentrically; see [0098] and Figs. 3-6), and a core element between the first wall and the second wall (The containing cylinder can advantageously be independent of the grating cylinder”; see [0077] and [0075] and “additional perforated sheet 140 forming an additional perforated cylinder”; see [0124] and Fig. 6); wherein the first wall (see Fig. 5A, parts 111 and 20, and retention portions 103, 103’ covering corresponding grating element; see [0109]) and the second wall have gas-passage openings larger than a granule size of the granular catalyst (“orifices 31 can have dimensions of… for example between 3 mm and 30 mm”; see [0101] and “catalyst grains can have a diameter of between 0.7 and 1.0 mm”; see [0071]), whilst the core element has gas passages smaller than said granule size of the catalyst (The perforated sheet used for the containing cylinder can define recesses of diameters smaller than those of orifices defined in the perforated cylinder and smaller than the average size of the catalyst grains; see [0076]), so that the granular catalyst is retained in place by the core element (retention of the catalyst; see [0125]).
Regarding Claim 34, Nascimento discloses the reactor according to claim 33. Regarding the limitation claiming “wherein the first wall and the second wall perform a structural load-bearing function”, this is a functional limitation. The Courts have held that apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art in terms of structure, not function. See In re Danley, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959); and Hewlett-Packard Co. V. Bausch and Lomb, Inc., 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (see MPEP §§ 2114 and 2173.05(g)). The manner of operating an apparatus does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art, if the prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim. See Ex Parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (BPAI 1987). Hence, the limitation of structural load-bearing does not further define the actual structure of the reactor or wall assembly, but merely sets forth a manner of operating the reactor or wall assembly. Functional limitations that do not limit the structure need not be given further due consideration in determining patentability of an apparatus.
Regarding Claim 35, Nascimento discloses the reactor according to claim 33, wherein the core element includes at least one of: a porous medium (perforated sheet 140; see [0124]); a net; an overlapping of nets; a fibrous medium; a micro-fibrous medium; a fabric; a metallic fiber felt; or a perforated plate (perforated sheet 140; see [0124]).
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 21 and 23-24 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nascimento et al. (US-20190232245-A1), hereinafter “Nascimento”, in view of Baratto et al. (WO-2019121155-A1), hereinafter “Baratto”, using (US-20210162361-A1) as reference in citations.
Regarding Claim 21, Nascimento discloses the gas-permeable assembly according to claim 19.
Nascimento does not explicitly teach the material of the catalyst-retaining core. However, Baratto discloses a catalyst-retaining core that includes a porous medium and said porous medium is a metal sintered plate (“gas collector may be in the form of a…gas-permeable wall”; see [0017] and “The outer collector and inner collector… include… a sintered metal fibre filter”; see [0030]). It is understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art that sintered metal fiber filters are most typically manufactured as flat panels or plates. Further, the walls of Baratto exist as plate like elements that have been positioned upright, as seen in Fig. 1 (parts 11 and 12). Therefore, when the sintered metal fiber filter takes on the shape of the wall, whether it exists as the wall or as part of the wall, it then exists as a plate like element as well.
Nascimento and Baratto are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of gas permeable wall assemblies for catalytic 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 use a sintered metal fiber. Doing so aids in the holding of the fine catalyst (see Baratto [0029]).
Regarding Claim 23, Nascimento discloses the gas-permeable assembly according to claim 19. Nascimento does not explicitly teach the material of the catalyst-retaining core. However, Baratto discloses a catalyst-retaining core that includes a fabric and said fabric includes a ceramic or a sintered metal (The outer collector and inner collector… include… a sintered metal fibre filter; see [0030]). This would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because doing so aids in the holding of the fine catalyst (see Baratto [0029]).
Regarding Claim 24, Nascimento discloses the gas-permeable assembly according to claim 19. Nascimento does not explicitly teach the material of the catalyst-retaining core. However, Baratto discloses a catalyst-retaining core that includes a mesh element sandwiched between reinforcing perforated plates (inner wall and outer wall made with wider meshes and a central wall made with a close-knit mesh; see [0031]). This would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because doing so allows retaining the catalytic beds and at the same time provides mechanical resistance to the collectors (see Baratto [0033]).
Regarding Claim 26, Nascimento discloses the gas-permeable assembly according to claim 19. Nascimento does not explicitly teach a catalyst-retaining core stiffness. However, Baratto discloses said catalyst- retaining core having a stiffness suitable to transfer part of said pressure exerted by the granular catalyst from the first wall to the second wall (a central wall 24… is providing the structural resistance to the catalytic bed; see [0061]). Because Baratto discloses a concentric 3 wall structure (see [0061]) and specifies that the central wall provides the structural resistance, this necessarily means that the middle wall has a sufficient stiffness/modulus to take on some of the catalyst’s pressure and transfer it outward, rather than allowing the innermost wall to bear the entire load. 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 aided in structural resistance (see [0061]).
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nascimento et al. (US-20190232245-A1), hereinafter “Nascimento”, in view of Baratto et al. (WO-2019121155-A1), hereinafter “Baratto”, using (US-20210162361-A1) as reference in citations, further in view of Boegger (Sintered Felt).
Regarding Claim 22, Nascimento discloses the gas-permeable assembly according to claim 19. Nascimento does not explicitly teach the material of the catalyst-retaining core. However, Baratto discloses a catalyst-retaining core that includes a fibrous medium and said fibrous medium is non-woven (The outer collector and inner collector… include… a sintered metal fibre filter; see [0030]). This would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because doing so aids in the holding of the fine catalyst (see Baratto [0029]). It is well known in the art that sintered metal fibre filters can exist as non-woven felts, as Boegger teaches “sintered metal fiber felt is manufactured from… sintering… the non-woven metal fiber has superior filtration” (see Pg. 1).
Claims 29-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nascimento et al. (US-20190232245-A1), hereinafter “Nascimento”, in view Tarozzo et al. (US-9138712-B2), hereinafter “Tarozzo”.
Regarding Claim 29, Nascimento discloses the gas-permeable assembly according to claim 19.
Nascimento does not explicitly teach the patterns of the perforations. However, Tarozzo discloses the first wall having openings arranged according to a first pattern (slits 18 of the wall 14; see Col. 8 Line 4) and the second wall having openings arranged according to a second pattern (holes 21 of the wall 15; see Col. 8 Line 6) different from said first pattern (see Fig. 4 Parts 21 and 18).
Nascimento and Tarozzo are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of gas permeable wall assemblies for catalytic 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 Nascimento by incorporating the teachings of Tarozzo and including different patterns of perforations on each wall. Doing so avoids direct impact of the gases with the catalyst (see Col. 7 Lines 26-29).
Regarding Claim 30, Nascimento and Tarozzo together disclose the gas-permeable assembly according to claim 29. Tarozzo further discloses the openings of the first wall and the openings of the second wall have an elongated shape (slits 18 of the wall 14; see Col. 8 Line 4) or a shape of circular holes (holes 21 of the wall 15; see Col. 8 Line 6). Slits, or elongated openings, and holes, would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date because, respectively, longer slits result in a positive effect in terms of process efficiency (see Col. 2 Lines 30-32), and holes aid in the gases that cross the holes to undergo a load loss in the interspace (see Col. 5 Lines 7-8).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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
Prosecution Insights