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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 1/12/2023 and 1/3/2023. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Status of the Claims
In the claim dated 12/15/2022, claims 1-16 are pending.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every features of the invention specified in the claims. The limitation "a centered metallic rod or wire is provided for forming a narrow gap between the tube inner wall" recited in claim 16, 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.
Claim Objections
Claims 6, 7, 9, 11, and 15 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 6, line 2, “the particle packed bed” lacks antecedent basis but does not render the claim indefinite. The term “the particle packed bed” should be amended as “the packed bed”.
Claim 7, line 2, “the particle packed bed” lacks antecedent basis but does not render the claim indefinite. The term “the particle packed bed” should be amended as “the packed bed”.
Claim 9, line 2, “the flow velocity of the fluid” lacks antecedent basis but does not render the claim indefinite. The term “the flow velocity of the fluid” should be amended as “a flow velocity of the fluid”.
Claim 11, line 2, “the residence time of the fluid” lacks antecedent basis but does not render the claim indefinite. The term ““the residence time of the fluid” should be amended as “a residence time of the fluid”.
Claim 15, line 2, “the magnetic source” should be “the at least one alternating magnetic field source” so that it is consistent with the language in claim 13.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 5 is 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.
Claim 5 recites the limitation: “the metal is coated for preventing oxidation and electrical insulation” 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 specification does not describe how the metal is coated to obtain the claimed result of “preventing oxidation and electrical insulation” (e.g. material(s) of the coating). For examination purposes, for the limitation “the metal is coated for preventing oxidation and electrical insulation”, the coating is construed as any kind of material which is capable of preventing oxidation and electrical insulation.
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 2-5, 8-12, 14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as failing to set forth 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.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance:
Claim 2 recites the broad recitation “the fluid to be heated is a fluid food”, and the claim also recites “in particular a beverage, like milk or juice” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. In addition, the phrase " like" renders the claim(s) indefinite because the claim(s) include(s) elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by "or the like"), thereby rendering the scope of the claim(s) unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). For examination purposes, the narrower statement “in particular a beverage, like milk or juice” is merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required.
Claim 3 recites the broad recitation “the metal comprises spheres with an average diameter between 0.1 and 10 mm”, and the claim also recites “preferably between 0.5 and 8 mm, more preferably between 1 and 4 mm” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. For examination purposes, the narrower statement “preferably between 0.5 and 8 mm, more preferably between 1 and 4 mm” is merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required.
Claim 4 recites the broad recitation “the metal comprises ferritic steel”, and the claim also recites “in particular a chemically inert ferritic steel with a high chromium and low carbon content, with high magnetic permeability and low electrical conductivity” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. For examination purposes, the narrower statement “in particular a chemically inert ferritic steel with a high chromium and low carbon content, with high magnetic permeability and low electrical conductivity” is merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required.
Claim 9 recites the broad recitation “the flow velocity of the fluid through the packed bed is 1-10 cm/s”, and the claim also recites “preferably 3-8 cm/s, more preferably 5 cm/s” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. For examination purposes, the narrower statement “preferably 3-8 cm/s, more preferably 5 cm/s” is merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required.
Claim 10 recites the broad recitation “the fluid is heated to a temperature between 80 and 200°C”, and the claim also recites “preferably between 90 and 180°C, more preferably between 95 and 160°C.” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. For examination purposes, the narrower statement “preferably between 90 and 180°C, more preferably between 95 and 160°C” is merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required.
Claim 11 recites the broad recitation “the residence time of the fluid is between 10 ms and 1 s”, and the claim also recites “preferably 10 ms and 100 ms” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. For examination purposes, the narrower statement “preferably 10 ms and 100 ms” is merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required.
Claim 12 recites the broad recitation “the alternating magnetic field is applied by using at least one induction coil with a coil number of 3-25”, and the claim also recites “preferably 5-10” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. For examination purposes, the narrower statement “preferably 5-10” is merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required.
Claim 4 recites the terms “ high chromium”, “low carbon content”, “high magnetic permeability” and “low electrical conductivity” are relative terms which render the claim indefinite. The terms “ high chromium”, “low carbon content”, “high magnetic permeability” not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 5 recites the limitation: “the metal is coated for preventing oxidation and electrical insulation” is unclear. The specification does not clearly explain the material of the coating or how the metal is coated in order to obtain the result of “for preventing oxidation and electrical insulation”. for the limitation “the metal is coated for preventing oxidation and electrical insulation”, the coating is construed as any kind of material which is capable of preventing oxidation and electrical insulation.
Claim 8 recites the limitation: “the at least one material” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear whether the limitation: “the at least one material” refers to the “at least one metal” previously recited in claim 1, line 2. For examination purposes, “the at least one material” (claim 8) is construed as the “at least one metal” (claim 1).
Claim 14 recites the limitation: “the reactor casing” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear whether the limitation “the reactor casing” refers to the “reactor” (claim 13) or a casing of the reactor. For examination purposes, the “the reactor casing” is construed as “a casing of the reactor”.
Claim 14 recites the phrase "such as" in last line renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations “glass, ceramics, plastics” following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). For examination purposes, the limitations “glass, ceramics, plastics” following the phrase are not part of the claimed invention
Claim 16 recites the limitation “the tube inner wall” in last line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim and it is unclear which element that the limitation the tube inner wall” refers to.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 12-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(2) as being anticipated by Alvarado (US20200308491A1)
Regarding claim 1, Alvarado discloses
A process for heating at least one fluid (oil, see title) by magnetic induction (see title) using at least one metal (combo 24 and 28, see fig.2-3 and para.0033: “covered on their surface by a catalyst as an example, metallic or polymeric catalyst, or the mixture of one or both components 28) as heat transfer medium (see para.0037: “ heat transfer to the fluid by means of magnetically induced structures that contain superparamagnetic or magnetic material”), wherein the metal (combo 24 and 28, see figs.2-3), is incorporated into the fluid (36, see figs.2-3) to be heated as a packed bed (See fig.3 and see para.0012: “The fluid passing through the structure with a nanoparticles base is heated as a result of the thermal gradient between the packed bed surface (induction structure) and the liquid”), and wherein a high frequency alternating magnetic field (AC-field) of at least 50 kHz (see para.0010: “the frequency of the alternating magnetic field that these nanoparticles must be subjected nominally needs to be above 100 kHz or the equivalent”) is applied for generating heat in at least a layer (24) of the metal (combo 24 and 28, see fig.2-3) and the generated heat is subsequently transferred to the fluid to be heated (See fig.3 and see para.0012: “The fluid passing through the structure with a nanoparticles base is heated as a result of the thermal gradient between the packed bed surface (induction structure) and the liquid”).
Regarding claim 2, Alvarado further discloses the fluid to be heated is a fluid food, in particular a beverage, like milk or juice, or a fluid (oil, see title) used in the chemical industry, pharmaceutical industry or biotech industry (intended use of oil. In addition, see para.003 of Alvarado, the heavy oil of Alvarado is capable of being used in any industries, including: chemical industry, pharmaceutical industry or biotech industry. In addition, see 112(b) rejections above).
Regarding claim 12, Alvarado further discloses the alternating magnetic field is applied by using at least one induction coil (22, see fig.3) with a coil number of 3-25 (See fig.3, the coil 22 with a coil number of 6).
Regarding claim 13, Alvarado further discloses A reactor (packed-bed reactor, see para.0011. See reactor in annotated fig.3 below) for heating at least one fluid (see para.0012) in a process according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above)
PNG
media_image1.png
645
648
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated fig.3 of Alvarado
comprising at least one packed bed (combo 24 and 28, see figs.2-3) of at least one metal (28, see fig.2-3 and para.0033: “covered on their surface by a catalyst as an example, metallic or polymeric catalyst, or the mixture of one or both components 28) as heat transfer medium and at least one alternating magnetic field source (22, see figs.2-3) associated with the reactor (packed-bed reactor, see para.0011) for inductive heating of the at least one metal (28) in the packed bed (combo 24 and 28, see figs.2-3).
Regarding claim 14, Alvarado further discloses the reactor casing (27, see figs.2-3) is made of material inert to magnetic induction, such as glass, ceramics, plastics (See para.0034: “the main casing can be manufactured with an electrically non-conductive or low-conductive material, such as, for example, glass, ceramic, …”. See 112(b) rejections above) in order to selectively heat the metallic heat transfer medium (28, see figs.2-3).
Regarding claim 15, Alvarado further discloses the magnetic source is an induction coil (22, see figs.3) surrounding the outer side of the reactor (see outer side of the annotated reactor in fig.3 above).
Regarding claim 16, Alvarado further discloses a centered metallic rod or wire (wire of the mesh 26, see figs.2-3) is provided for forming a narrow gap between the tube inner wall (27, see figs.2-3) .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alvarado in view of Howes (US20140008033A1)
Regarding claim 3, Alvarado discloses the claimed limitations as set forth in claim 1. Alvarado further discloses the metal comprises spheres (combo 24 and 28, see fig.2-3) with an average diameter (see figs.2-3), except the spheres with an average diameter between 0.1 and 10 mm, preferably between 0.5 and 8 mm, more preferably between 1 and 4 mm.
Howes discloses a heat storage system, comprising:
the spheres with an average diameter between 0.1 and 10 mm (see para.0010-0011: “Packed bed spheres 10 mm diameter”. In addition, See 112b rejections above).
It would have been obvious an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the average diameter of Alvarado’s spheres to be between 0.1 and 10 mm, as taught by Howes, for the purpose of improving heat transfer performance, because Applicant has not disclosed “the spheres with an average diameter between 0.1 and 10 mm” provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected Applicant’s invention to perform the function of heat transferring equally well with either the average diameter of Alvarado’s spheres or Howes’s spheres.
Claim 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alvarado in view of Kern (US20190358601A1)
Regarding claim 4, Alvarado discloses the claimed limitations as set forth in claim 1. Alvarado also discloses the metal (combo 24 and 28 contains metal, see fig.2-3 and para.0033: “covered on their surface by a catalyst as an example, metallic or polymeric catalyst, or the mixture of one or both components 28), except the metal comprises ferritic steel, in particular a chemically inert ferritic steel with a high chromium and low carbon content, with high magnetic permeability and low electrical conductivity.
Kern discloses an apparatus and the use thereof for preheating at least one fluid, comprising:
the metal comprises ferritic steel (See para.0045: “The heating body may at least partly be formed from at least one metal and/or at least one ceramic. The metal may be at least one element selected from the group consisting of: ferritic steels”. See 112(b) rejections above).
It would have been obvious an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the metal of Alvarado to comprise ferritic steel as taught by Kern. Ferritic s steel possesses excellent thermal conductivity, which allows heat to transfer more efficiently from the steel to the heating fluid, improving the overall thermal performance of the system.
Claim 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alvarado in view of Teichmann (US 4857233 A)
Regarding claim 5, Alvarado discloses the claimed limitations as set forth in claim 1. Alvarado also discloses the metal (combo 24 and 28 contains metal, see fig.2-3 and para.0033: “covered on their surface by a catalyst as an example, metallic or polymeric catalyst, or the mixture of one or both components 28), except the metal is coated for preventing oxidation and electrical insulation.
Teichmann discloses a nickel particle plating system, comprising:
the metal is coated for preventing oxidation and electrical insulation (see col.1, lines 53-56: “The copper coating is surrounded by a coating of silver or other noble metal on each particle to prevent oxidation of the copper and to ensure the desired electrical conductivity”. See 112(a)-(b) above).
It would have been obvious an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the metal of Alvarado to be coated for preventing oxidation and electrical insulation as taught by Teichmann. The modification prevents oxidation of the metal and to ensure the desired electrical conductivity (See col.1, lines 53-56 of Teichmann).
Claims 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alvarado in view of Laing (US 3777295 A)
Regarding claim 6, Alvarado discloses the claimed limitations as set forth in claim 1, except the particle packed bed comprises of metallic particles intermixed with inductively inert particles for providing electrical insulation between metallic particles.
Laing discloses magnetic particle cores, comprising:
the particle packed bed (combo magnetic metallic particles and electrical insulation, see claim 4: “the magnetic metallic particles are separated by electrical insulation comprising the reaction product of a metallic silicate, an inert metallic oxide…”) comprises of metallic particles (magnetic metallic particles, see claim 4) intermixed with inductively inert particles (electrical insulation, see claim 4) for providing electrical insulation between metallic particles (See claim 4).
It would have been obvious an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the packed bed of Alvarado to comprise “metallic particles intermixed with inductively inert particles for providing electrical insulation between metallic particles” as taught by Laing. Doing so avoids overheating and hotspots, and allows for high power density and uniform heat distribution.
Regarding claim 7, Alvarado discloses the claimed limitations as set forth in claim 1, except the particle packed bed comprises metallic particles that are intermixed with inert particles or are embedded into inert particles.
Laing discloses magnetic particle cores, comprising:
the particle packed bed (combo magnetic metallic particles and electrical insulation, see claim 4: “the magnetic metallic particles are separated by electrical insulation comprising the reaction product of a metallic silicate, an inert metallic oxide…”) comprises metallic particles (magnetic metallic particles, see claim 4) that are intermixed with inert particles (electrical insulation, see claim 4).
It would have been obvious an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the packed bed of Alvarado to comprise “metallic particles that are intermixed with inert particles” as taught by Laing. Doing so avoids overheating and hotspots, and allows for high power density and uniform heat distribution.
Claim 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alvarado in view of Theodor (WO2019211786A1)
Regarding claim 8, Alvarado discloses the claimed limitations as set forth in claim 1, except the packed bed of the at least one material is at least one flat packed bed, a cone-like shaped packed bed or a hollow diamond-like shaped packed bed.
Theodor discloses a thermal energy storage facility, comprising:
the packed bed (12, see fig.12) of the at least one material (metal, see page 7, 1st paragraph, lines 1-6) is flat packed bed (See page 12, 2nd paragraph, lines 1-2: “the flat top surface (16) of the packed bed (12) ...”)
It would have been obvious an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the packed bed of Alvarado to be flat packed bed as taught by Theodor, for the purpose of improving heat transferring, because Applicant has not disclosed “the packed bed of the at least one material is one flat packed bed” provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected Applicant’s invention to perform the function of heat transferring equally well with either the shape(s) of Alvarado’s packed bed or of Theodor’s packed bed.
Claim 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alvarado in view of Humphreys (US 20130205652 A1)
Regarding claim 9, Alvarado discloses the claimed limitations as set forth in claim 1, Alvarado discloses the flow velocity of the fluid (oil, see abstract) through the packed bed (combo 24 and 28, see fig.2-3), except the flow velocity of the fluid is 1-10 cm/s, preferably 3-8 cm/s, more preferably 5 cm/s.
Humphreys discloses Ballistic Heating Process, comprising:
the flow velocity of the fluid is 1-10 cm/s (See table 7: “mean velocity of the fluid flowing through the reactor 3 Cm/s”. See 112b rejections above).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the flow velocity of the fluid through the packed bed of Alvarado to be 1-10 cm/s as taught by Humphreys. Doing so allows to achieve an optimal balance between efficient heat transfer, minimal pressure drop, and controlled fluid dynamics.
Claim 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alvarado in view of Martin De Julian (US20120289441A1)
Regarding claim 10, Alvarado discloses the claimed limitations as set forth in claim 1, except the fluid is heated to a temperature between 80 and 200°C, preferably between 90 and 180°C, more preferably between 95 and 160°C.
Martin De Julian discloses a process for recovering used industrial and motor lubricating oils, comprising:
the fluid is heated to a temperature between 80 and 200°C (See para.0041: “ Mixing the used lubricating oils with clay in a reactor, and heating the mixture to temperatures from 105° C. to 200° C”, see 112(b) rejections above).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the fluid of Alvarado to be is heated to a temperature between 80 and 200°C, for the purpose of obtaining the desired temperature of the fluid.
Claim 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alvarado in view of Shafe (US 20150000313 A1)
Regarding claim 11, Alvarado discloses the certain residence time of the fluid when passing the packed bed (see figs.2-3), except the residence time of the fluid is between 10 ms and 1 s, preferably 10 ms and 100 ms.
Shafe discloses an apparatus and process are disclosed for the quenching of hot reactor fluid, comprising:
the residence time of the fluid is between 10 ms and 1 s (see para.0037: “the residence time of the fluid in the reactor portion of the supersonic flow reactor is between about 0.5-100 ms in one example, about 1.0-50 ms in another example, and about 1.5-20 ms in another example”, which overlaps the claimed range. See 112(b) rejections above).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the residence time of the fluid of Alvarado to be between 10 ms and 1 s as taught by Shafe. Doing so allows to directly control the total thermal energy transferred to the fluid, allowing for precise temperature control and preventing undesirable side effects like thermal degradation.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 20220176344 A1 discloses an apparatus for capturing a water content from a water containing gas.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIFFANY T TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3673. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday, 10am - 6pm.
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, Helena Kosanovic can be reached on (571) 272-9059. 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 or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TIFFANY T TRAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761