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 23 December 2025 is acknowledged. It is acknowledged that claims 1-12 are amended by Applicant.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 23 December 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Bosquain does not disclose the charging height of the adsorption chamber being greater than the height of the distribution and collecting ducts. Examiner respectfully disagrees. As explained in the office action, the distribution and collecting ducts in the prior art are defined as the portions of chambers 10 and 11 that do not extend beyond the perforated walls 8 and 9. Shells 80 and 90 are impenetrable to fluid flow in the prior art. Because fluid does not flow through these walls, this portion of the chamber is not considered to be a collecting or distribution chamber. Bosquain discloses “fluid at the upper end of the grills 8 and 9 to flow almost directly from the space 10 to the space 11, or vice versa, without leaking away through the reserve of particular material between the shells 80 and 90”. This directly indicates that the particular material extends beyond the portion of chambers 10 and 11 that are available for collection/distribution. This rationale also applies to the newly added amendments of the collection and distribution grids extending over the heigh of the respective ducts. As explained, the grids delimit and define the portions of chambers 10 and 11 of Bosquain which are considered to be collection and distribution ducts. This is exemplified in the annotated figure below.
PNG
media_image1.png
591
803
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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 and 5-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bosquain et al. (US-5882385-A), hereinafter “Bosquain”, in view of Garofano (GB-1261422-A).
Regarding Claim 1, Bosquain discloses a device for radial (fluid flows… radially; see Col. 2 Line 63) separation (separating gas mixtures; see Abstract) or reaction equipped with a cylindrical vessel (container is cylindrical; see Claim 9) comprising:
a lateral wall (side walls; see Col. 2 Line 32),
an upper wall (upper wall; see Claim 1),
a lower wall (bottom wall; see Col. 2 Line 35),
at least one inlet for fluid to be separated (fluid… flow almost directly from the space 10 to the space 11, or vice versa; see Col. 3 Lines 12-14; this indicates that there must be a fluid inlet above chamber 10 and/or 11),
at least one vertical distribution duct (inner chamber/space 10 or outer chamber/space 11; see Col. 3 Lines 13-14 and Fig. 4),
at least one fluid outlet (flow leaves; see Col. 2 Line 43),
at least one vertical collecting duct (inner chamber/space 10 or outer chamber/space 11; see Col. 3 Lines 13-14 and Fig. 4),
an adsorption chamber designed to contain a solid adsorbent bed (“vertical container 1… containing at least one mass 2 of particulate material, for example an adsorbent”; see Col. 1 Lines 65-67 and “annular bed of particulate material”; see Col. 1 Lines 60-61), the adsorption chamber being positioned between the distribution duct and the collecting duct (inner 10 and outer 11 chambers between which the fluid flows by passing through the mass 2 radially; see Col. 2 Lines 62-63) and extending from the upper wall to the lower wall (see Fig. 4),
at least one distribution grid positioned between the distribution duct and the adsorption chamber (perforated walls 8 and 9; see Col. 2 Line 61 and Fig. 4), the distribution grid extending over the height of the distribution duct (see Fig. 4, wherein the distribution and collection ducts are defined as the portions of chambers 10 and 11 that are delimited by the grids 8 and 9) and
at least one collecting grid positioned between the collecting duct and the adsorption chamber (perforated walls 8 and 9; see Col. 2 Line 61 and Fig. 4), the collecting grid extending over the height of the collecting duct (see Fig. 4, wherein the distribution and collection ducts are defined as the portions of chambers 10 and 11 that are delimited by the grids 8 and 9) wherein
the adsorption chamber has a charging height greater than the height of the distribution duct and the height of the collecting duct (see Fig. 4 where the distribution duct and collecting duct are defined as the portions of channels 10 and 11 that do not extend beyond the perforated walls 8 and 9).
Bosquain does not explicitly teach a solvent inlet. However, Garofano discloses the use of a washing solvent (aqueous wash liquor through the bed; see Pg. 3 Lines 72-73). When modifying Bosquain with the washing procedure of Garofano, it would naturally follow that the washing solvent would enter through the upper wall in order to contact the adsorption bed in the same way as the fluid to be separated.
Bosquain and Garofano are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of purification or separation of a fluid via adsorption. 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 Bosquain by incorporating the teachings of Garofano and including an inlet for a washing solvent. Doing so would enable regeneration of the adsorptive material (see Garofano Pg. 3 Lines 72-74).
Regarding Claim 5, Bosquain and Garofano together disclose the device according to claim 1. Bosquain further discloses a plurality of orifices that can operate as inlets (see Figs. 2 and 4, parts 5). As described in the claim 1 rejection, the relative placement of the inlets for the solvent taught by Garofano would logically follow the placement of the inlets taught by Bosquain as they are both inlets capable of handling a fluid.
Regarding Claim 6, Bosquain and Garofano together disclose the device according to claim 1. Bosquain further discloses a central wall parallel to the lateral wall (shells 80 and 90; see Fig. 4).
Regarding Claim 7, Bosquain and Garofano together disclose the device according to claim 1. Bosquain further discloses the distribution duct and the collecting duct (8) are suitable for fluid downflow or fluid upflow (see Fig. 4 Parts 10 and 11). Specifically, Bosquain discloses that the fluid “flows almost directly from the space 10 to the space 11” (see Col. 3 Lines 13-14), indicating that the channels are suitable for fluid flow. Further, Bosquain discloses deflecting surfaces that force the fluid to flow horizontally through the annular mass (see claim 5 and Col. 2 Line 65), none of which are disposed in the spaces 10 and 11. Because there is not any structure in spaces 10 and 11 that is directing flow, then the channels are suitable for fluid flow in any direction.
Regarding Claim 8, Bosquain and Garofano together disclose the device according to claim 1. Bosquain further discloses the distribution duct being central and the collecting duct being peripheral, or the distribution duct being peripheral and the collecting duct being central (see Fig. 4 Parts 10 and 11).
Regarding Claim 9, Bosquain and Garofano together disclose the device according to claim 1. Bosquain further discloses that the bottom limit of the adsorption chamber corresponds to the bottom limits of the distribution duct and of the collecting duct (see Fig. 4, Part 6).
Regarding Claim 10, Bosquain and Garofano together disclose the device according to claim 1. Bosquain further discloses the device disposed in a column (the container is cylindrical; see Claim 9), and Garofano further discloses a column or an adsorption tower (see Pg. 2 Lines 81-83). Further, it is well known in the art that adsorption for fluid separation and/or purification is most commonly done in adsorption towers or columns.
Regarding Claim 11, Bosquain and Garofano together disclose the device according to claim 1. Bosquain further discloses a method which comprises introducing a fluid into the distribution duct, the fluid is distributed in the adsorption chamber and collected in the collecting duct (“force the fluid at the upper end of the grills 8 and 9 to flow almost directly from the space 10 to the space 11, or vice versa”; see Col. 3 Lines 11-14 and “inner 10 and outer 11 chambers between which the fluid flows by passing through the mass 2; see Col. 2 Lines 62-63).
Bosquain does not explicitly teach multiple columns or introducing a washing solvent. However, Garofano discloses a plurality of adsorption columns (group of columns arranged in parallel; see Pg. 2 Lines 84-85) in order to operate continuously (see Pg. 2 Line 85), and the use of a wash solvent introduced into the adsorptive material (aqueous wash liquor through the bed; see Pg. 3 Lines 72-73) in order to regenerate the adsorptive material (see Garofano Pg. 3 Lines 72-74). Because modified Bosquain is designed to move the fluid into and out of the inner and outer chambers, it would naturally follow that the wash solvent of Garofano would behave in the same manner as the fluid disclosed by Bosquain.
Regarding Claim 12, Bosquain and Garofano together disclose the device according to claim 11. Finding an appropriate solvent flow rate is a matter of routine experimentation, and is a well-known method in the art. MPEP 2144.05.II states that “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation”. Specifically, Garofano discloses altering, from time to time, the flow rate of the aqueous wash liquor (see Pg. 3 Lines 84-86) in order to achieve a state of incipient fluidization (see Pg. 3 Lines 86-87).
Claims 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bosquain et al. (US-5882385-A), hereinafter “Bosquain”, in view of Garofano (GB-1261422-A) and Smolarek (US-5759242-A).
Regarding Claim 2, Bosquain and Garofano together disclose the device according to claim 1.
Modified Bosquain does not explicitly teach the exact ratios of the ducts compared to the charging height. However, Smolarek discloses the charging height being at least 1% greater than the height of the distribution duct and the height of the collecting duct (The screen walls extend above adsorbent bed 14… This height is between 2-4% of the bed’s vertical length; see Col. 5 Line 65 – Col. 6 Line 1).
Bosquain and Smolarek are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of purification or separation of a fluid via adsorption. 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 Bosquain by incorporating the teachings of Smolarek and including such proportions. Doing so would have allowed for a variation in the adsorbent level at initial loading or due to a variation caused by settling (see Smolarek Col. 6 Lines 1-3). Additionally, the claimed height dimensions do not present any new or unexpected results and is a matter of routine experimentation. MPEP 2144.05.II states that “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation”.
Regarding Claim 3, Bosquain, Garofano, and Smolarek together disclose the device according to claim 2. Please see the claim 2 rejection for the associated rationale as the ratio disclosed by Smolarek still falls within the range of 1-10% as claimed in claim 3. Additionally, the claimed height dimensions do not present any new or unexpected results and is a matter of routine experimentation. MPEP 2144.05.II states that “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation”.
Regarding Claim 4, Bosquain, Garofano, and Smolarek together disclose the device according to claim 3. Please see the claim 2 rejection for the associated rationale as the ratio disclosed by Smolarek still falls within the range of 1.5-7% as claimed in claim 4. Additionally, the claimed height dimensions do not present any new or unexpected results and is a matter of routine experimentation. MPEP 2144.05.II states that “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation”.
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