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
The amendment filed on July 9, 2026 has been considered. Claim 11 is canceled. Claims 17-31 are withdrawn from further consideration. Claims 1-10, 12-16, and 32 are currently under consideration.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on July 9, 2026 have been fully considered.
Amended independent claim 1 incorporates the limitations previously presented in dependent claim 14. Therefore, the rejection of dependent claim 14 is addressed.
In summary, Applicant (see page 9, third paragraph, to page 12, second paragraph) argues that the secondary reference to Hamanaka (US 6,649,244) fails to disclose or teach “an Sdr parameter of 0.5 or more” for the internal wall surface area. Applicant notes that Hamanaka discloses a surface roughness (Ra), but “… surface roughness (Ra) and the Sdr parameter are entirely different parameters, and there is no reason to assume that a surface roughness (Ra) value of 0.51 μm or more would correspond to an Sdr parameter of 0.5 or more.” (at page 11, first paragraph).
The argument is found persuasive, and therefore, the rejection of claim 14 is withdrawn.
However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of the newly discovered prior art reference to Furuta (JP 2010/207708 A), as detailed below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-10, 12-16, and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, the recitation of “the internal surface area” (at line 11) lacks proper positive antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 3, the relationship between “an internal surface” (at line 2) and the internal surface of “the internal surface area” set forth in claim 1 (at line 11) is unclear.
Regarding claim 5, the relationship between “an internal surface” (at line 2) and the internal surface of “the internal surface area” set forth in claim 1 (at line 11) is unclear.
The remaining claims are also rejected for being dependent from a rejected base claim.
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.
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.
Claims 1-8 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Willemsen et al. (WO 2019/135678 A1) in view of Powell (US 10,287,952) and Furuta (JP 2010/207708 A).
Regarding claim 1, Willemsen et al. discloses a catalytic reactor body having a length and a width (i.e., a reactor module comprising a catalyst section including an appropriate active material for the required catalytic activity; see page 6, lines 29-33; page 7, line 5, to page 8, line 3) comprising a circumferential reactor wall (i.e., a cylindrical sidewall of a module 5, 6, 7, 32, 33, 34, 43, 44, 45, etc.; see FIG. 1-4) in a main fluid flow direction of the reactor body between a reactor inlet (i.e., an inlet for reactants at a first end face of the module) and a reactor outlet (i.e., an outlet for products at a second, opposite end face of the module) thereby forming a channel for conducting a fluid; wherein the ratio between the width of the catalytic reactor body transverse to the direction of the main fluid flow and the length of the catalytic reactor body in the direction of the main fluid flow is 1 or higher (i.e., the module is configured as a “slice”, wherein “… each module has a length along the longitudinal axis, which is less than the length of the module perpendicular to the longitudinal axis,” see page 8, lines 11-18); and a reactor bed (i.e., an inner region of the module comprising the catalyst section) arranged in the channel and being integrally formed with the circumferential reactor wall (i.e., the inner region comprising the catalyst section and the cylindrical side wall of the reactor module can be formed at the same time by an additive manufacturing (e.g., 3-D printing) process, wherein “… the reactor system comprises a reactant vessel printed into a module of the reactor system,” see page 15, lines 12-23); wherein the reactor bed forms a plurality of sub-channels for guiding the fluid from the reactor inlet to the reactor outlet (i.e., a plurality of channels passing through the module and receiving a flow of reactants; e.g., channels for receiving a reactant 46 and discharging a reaction product 42, see FIG. 4, page 4, lines 4-12), each sub-channel defining a predetermined fluid path between the reactor inlet and the reactor outlet.
Willemsen et al. suggests that each sub-channel may be configured for directing the fluid in a direction at least partly transverse to the main fluid flow direction (see FIG. 3, where the channel through the module 32, 33, 34 has sections oriented at an angle relative to the main flow direction). However, the feature is not further described in the specification.
Powell, however, discloses a catalytic reactor body (see FIG. 1, 3A, 3B; column 2, lines 17-57; column 3, lines 12-34) comprising a circumferential reactor wall (i.e., a shell 12) extending in a main fluid flow direction and forming a channel for conducting a fluid, and a reactor bed (i.e., an inner region comprising a substrate 20 containing a catalyst material) arranged in the channel and being integrally formed with the wall (i.e., the substrate 20 can be manufactured together with the shell 12; see column 2, lines 50-57); wherein the reactor bed forms a plurality of sub-channels 22 for guiding the fluid from the reactor inlet to the reactor outlet, each sub-channel 22 defining a predetermined fluid flow path between the reactor inlet and the reactor outlet. Specifically, Powell, in FIG. 3A-3B, discloses sub-channels 22 configured for directing the fluid in a direction at least partly transverse to the main flow direction (i.e., by means of channels 22 which continuously curve along the length of the substrate 20 from a first end 24 to a second end 26, FIG. 3A; or channels 22 having an offset portion 38 that is curved and generally laterally offset from portions of the channels 22 that are proximate to a first end 24 and a second end 26 of the substrate 20, FIG. 3B). Such sub-channel configuration is preferred over the sub-channel configuration in FIG. 2, in which the sub-channels 22 are configured for directing the fluid in a direction parallel to the main flow direction, because the interaction of the fluid with the catalyst material on the sidewalls of the sub-channels would be further facilitated (see column 3, lines 27-34).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the sub-channels in the reactor body of Willemsen et al. to direct the fluid in a direction that was at least partly transverse to the main fluid flow direction because the interaction of the fluid with the catalytic material at the sidewalls of the sub-channels would be further facilitated, as taught by Powell (see column 3, lines 27-34).
The combination of Willemsen et al. and Powell fails to disclose or teach that an internal surface area of the reactor body has an Sdr parameter of 0.5 or more.
Applicant (see specification, at page 18, lines 10-19) states,
“The amount of surface roughness can be expressed by the Sdr parameter, also known as the developed interfacial area ratio. This parameter is a value for the additional surface area resulting from surface roughness, compared to a completely smooth surface… For example, the Sdr parameter of a completely smooth surface is 0, whereas the Sdr parameter for the same surface having twice the surface area of the completely smooth surface due to surface roughness is 1.”
Applicant (see Remarks filed on July 9, 2026, on page 10, second paragraph) also states,
“… an Sdr parameter of 0.5 or more, as specified in amended claim 1, means that the internal surface area of the reactor body is at least 50% larger than the surface area of a completely smooth internal surface.”
Furuta discloses a catalytic reactor body (i.e., a honeycomb structure which supports a catalyst; see FIG. 1A, 1B, 2; see translation) having a length and a width and comprising a circumferential reactor wall extending in a main fluid flow direction of the reactor body between a reactor inlet (i.e., at one end face 11) and a reactor outlet (i.e., at the other end face 12), thereby forming a channel (i.e., a cell 2) for conducting a fluid. Furuta further discloses that the body comprises an internal surface (i.e., a partition wall surface 3), wherein an internal surface area of the internal surface 3 is enlarged (i.e., by convex portions 4 formed on the partition wall surface 3, see FIG. 2; also, by having an average surface roughness Ra from 1.0 to 20.0 micrometers). Specifically, Furuta (see translation, page 3, second paragraph) discloses,
“In the honeycomb structure 100 of the present embodiment, the ratio of the surface area of the partition wall surface 3 (surface area ratio) to the surface area of the partition wall 1 surface (partition wall surface 3) when the partition wall 1 surface is planar is 1.5 to 5.0, and preferably 2.0 to 4.0.”
For instance, at a surface area ratio of 1.5, the partition wall surface 3 area would be 50% larger than the surface area of a planar (completely smooth) partition wall surface 3. Therefore, based on the Sdr definition, the internal surface area in the reactor body of Furuta would correspond to an Sdr parameter of 0.5.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the internal surface area to have an Sdr parameter of 0.5 or more (i.e., a surface area ratio of at least 1.5) in the modified reactor body of Willemsen et al. because such reactor body would have exhibited an optimal heat dissipation effect and strength, as well as an increased surface area for supporting a suitable amount of catalyst, as taught by Furuta (see translation at page 3, second paragraph).
Regarding claim 2, Willemsen et al. discloses that the reactor body is constructed of ceramic material (see page 12, lines 14-20; page 13, lines 16-22). Willemsen et al. fails to disclose that the reactor body is constructed of a metal or a metal alloy.
Furuta (see page 4, second to last paragraph) also discloses that suitable materials for constructing the reactor body can include ceramic material or metal (i.e., sintered metal).
Thus, it would have been an obvious design consideration for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to alternatively construct the reactor body from metal in the modified catalytic reactor body of Willemsen et al., on the basis of suitability for the intended use thereof, because metal (i.e., sintered metal) would have also be considered a suitable material for forming the reactor body, as taught by Furuta.
Regarding claim 3, Willemsen et al. further discloses that the catalytic reactor body can comprise an internal surface covered by a layer of a ceramic material (i.e., a wash coat comprising ceramic particles deposited onto the walls of the channels; see page 7, lines 26-30).
Regarding claim 4, Willemsen et al. further discloses that the reactor body can comprise a ceramic material (see page 12, lines 14-20; page 13, lines 16-22).
Regarding claim 5, Willemsen et al. discloses that the reactor body can further comprise catalyst particles deposited on an internal surface of the catalytic reactor body (i.e., a metal catalyst applied by washcoat and/or chemical vapor deposition; see page 7, lines 10-20).
Regarding claim 6, Willemsen et al. further discloses that the reactor body is made by additive manufacturing (i.e., the module is preferably made by a three-dimensional printing process; see page 8, lines 19-22; page 15, line 32, to page 16, line 21).
Regarding claim 7, the reactor bodies shown in FIG. 3A-3B of Powell suggest that the sub-channels comprise a section (i.e., a curved or twisted section of channels 22, or an offset portion along the length of channels 22; see column 3, lines 12-34) oriented at an angle of 20 to 70 degrees with respect to the main flow direction. While Powell does not state that the angle degrees shown, Powell discloses that the transverse flow of the fluid relative to the main flow direction facilitates the interaction of the fluid with the catalyst present at the sidewalls of the sub-channels (see column 3, lines 27-34). Therefore, the specific angle of the section with respect to the main flow direction is not considered to confer patentability to the claim since the precise angle would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art. Accordingly, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to routinely optimize the angle at which the section of the sub-channels was oriented with respect to the main flow direction in the modified catalytic reactor body of Willemsen et al. in order to achieve the desired degree of contact between the fluid and the catalytic material at the walls of the sub-channels the intended chemical reaction, and where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 8, Willemsen et al. discloses that the reactor body can further comprise one or more secondary sub-channels (i.e., additional channels for receiving a flow of a cooling medium 41 (or a heating medium); see FIG. 4; page 4, lines 4-12; page 8, lines 29-31).
Regarding claim 14, Furuta (see translation, page 3, second paragraph) discloses,
“In the honeycomb structure 100 of the present embodiment, the ratio of the surface area of the partition wall surface 3 (surface area ratio) to the surface area of the partition wall 1 surface (partition wall surface 3) when the partition wall 1 surface is planar is 1.5 to 5.0, and preferably 2.0 to 4.0.”
For instance, at a surface area ratio of 2.0, the partition wall surface 3 area would be 100% larger than the surface area of a planar (completely smooth) partition wall surface 3. Therefore, based on the Sdr definition, the internal surface area in the reactor body of Furuta would correspond to an Sdr parameter of 1.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the internal surface area to have an Sdr parameter of 0.7 or more (i.e., a surface area ratio of at least 1.7, such as a surface area ratio of at least 2.0) in the modified catalytic reactor body of Willemsen et al. because such catalytic reactor body would have exhibited an optimal heat dissipation effect and strength, as well as an increased surface area for supporting a suitable amount of catalyst, as taught by Furuta (see translation at page 3, second paragraph).
Claims 1, 2, 5-7, 10, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hemmatpour et al. (US 2006/0233679 A1) in view of Powell (US 10,287,952) and Furuta (JP 2010/207708 A).
Regarding claim 1, Hemmatpour et al. discloses a catalytic reactor body (i.e., a catalyst disk 5 according to a first embodiment, see FIG. 1-2; or a catalyst disk 25 according to a second embodiment, see FIG. 3-5) having a length (i.e., corresponding to a thickness “d” of the catalyst disk 5,25) and a width (i.e., corresponding to a diameter of the catalyst disk 5,25) and comprising a circumferential reactor wall (i.e., a wall defining a peripheral surface 9 of the catalyst disk 5; or a wall comprising an outer rim 28 of the catalyst disk 25) extending in a main fluid flow direction 4 of the reactor body between a reactor inlet (i.e., an inlet at a first end face of the catalyst disk 5,25) and a reactor outlet (i.e., an outlet at a second, opposite end face of the catalyst disk 5,25) thereby forming a channel for conducting a fluid; wherein the ratio between the width of the catalytic reactor body 5,25 transverse to the direction 4 of the main fluid flow and the length of the catalytic reactor body 5,25 in the direction 4 of the main fluid flow is 1 or higher (i.e., the diameter is greater than the thickness), and a reactor bed (i.e., an inner region comprising channel walls 13) arranged in the channel and being integrally formed (see paragraphs [0012]-[0014], [0027]-[0028]) with the circumferential reactor wall 9,28; wherein the reactor bed forms a plurality of sub-channels (i.e., a plurality of flow channels 6,26) for guiding the fluid from the reactor inlet to the reactor outlet, each sub-channel 6,26 defining a predetermined fluid path between the reactor inlet and the reactor outlet.
Hemmatpour et al. fails to disclose that each sub-channel 6,26 is further configured for directing the fluid in a direction at least partly transverse to the main fluid flow direction 4.
Powell discloses a catalytic reactor body (see FIG. 1, 3A, 3B; column 2, lines 17-57; column 3, lines 12-34) comprising a circumferential reactor wall (i.e., a shell 12) extending in a main fluid flow direction and forming a channel for conducting a fluid, and a reactor bed (i.e., an inner region comprising channel walls of a substrate 20) arranged in the channel and being integrally formed with the wall 12 (i.e., the substrate 20 can be manufactured together with the shell 12; see column 2, lines 50-57); wherein the reactor bed forms a plurality of sub-channels (i.e., channels or cells 22) for guiding the fluid from the reactor inlet to the reactor outlet, each sub-channel 22 defining a predetermined fluid flow path between the reactor inlet and the reactor outlet. Specifically, Powell, in FIG. 3A-3B, discloses that the sub-channels are configured for directing the fluid in a direction at least partly transverse to the main flow direction (i.e., by means of channels 22 which continuously curve along the length of the substrate 20 from a first end 24 to a second end 26, see FIG. 3A; or channels 22 having an offset portion 38 that is curved and generally laterally offset from portions of the channels 22 that are proximate to a first end 24 and a second end 26 of the substrate 20, see FIG. 3B). Such sub-channel configuration is preferred over the sub-channel configuration in FIG. 2, in which the sub-channels 22 are configured for directing the fluid in a direction that is parallel to the main flow direction, because the interaction of the fluid with the catalyst material on the sidewalls of the sub-channels would be further facilitated (see column 3, lines 27-34).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the sub-channels in the catalytic reactor body of Hemmatpour et al. to direct the fluid in a direction that was at least partly transverse to the main fluid flow direction because the interaction of the fluid with the catalytic material present at the sidewalls of the sub-channels would be further facilitated, as taught by Powell (see column 3, lines 27-34).
The combination of Hemmatpour et al. and Powell fails to disclose or teach that an internal surface area of the reactor body has an Sdr parameter of 0.5 or more.
Applicant (see specification, at page 18, lines 10-19) states,
“The amount of surface roughness can be expressed by the Sdr parameter, also known as the developed interfacial area ratio. This parameter is a value for the additional surface area resulting from surface roughness, compared to a completely smooth surface… For example, the Sdr parameter of a completely smooth surface is 0, whereas the Sdr parameter for the same surface having twice the surface area of the completely smooth surface due to surface roughness is 1.”
Applicant (see Remarks filed on July 9, 2026, on page 10, second paragraph) also states,
“… an Sdr parameter of 0.5 or more, as specified in amended claim 1, means that the internal surface area of the reactor body is at least 50% larger than the surface area of a completely smooth internal surface.”
Furuta discloses a catalytic reactor body (i.e., a honeycomb structure which supports a catalyst; see FIG. 1A, 1B, 2; see translation) having a length and a width and comprising a circumferential reactor wall extending in a main fluid flow direction of the reactor body between a reactor inlet (i.e., at one end face 11) and a reactor outlet (i.e., at the other end face 12), thereby forming a channel (i.e., a cell 2) for conducting a fluid. Furuta further discloses that the body comprises an internal surface (i.e., a partition wall surface 3), wherein an internal surface area of the internal surface 3 is enlarged (i.e., by convex portions 4 formed on the partition wall surface 3, see FIG. 2; also, by having an average surface roughness Ra from 1.0 to 20.0 micrometers). Specifically, Furuta (see translation, page 3, second paragraph) discloses,
“In the honeycomb structure 100 of the present embodiment, the ratio of the surface area of the partition wall surface 3 (surface area ratio) to the surface area of the partition wall 1 surface (partition wall surface 3) when the partition wall 1 surface is planar is 1.5 to 5.0, and preferably 2.0 to 4.0.”
For instance, at a surface area ratio of 1.5, the partition wall surface 3 area is 50% larger than the surface area of a planar (completely smooth) partition wall surface 3. Therefore, based on the Sdr definition, the internal surface area in the reactor body of Furuta would correspond to an Sdr parameter of 0.5.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the internal surface area to have an Sdr parameter of 0.5 or more (i.e., a surface area ratio of at least 1.5) in the modified catalytic reactor body of Hemmatpour et al. because such catalytic reactor body would have exhibited an optimal heat dissipation effect and strength, as taught by Furuta (see translation at page 3, second paragraph).
Regarding claim 2, Hemmatpour et al. discloses that the reactor body is constructed of a metal or a metal alloy (i.e., the catalyst disk is made from a sintered metal powder mass; see paragraphs [0013],[0027]).
Regarding claim 5, Hemmatpour et al. discloses that catalyst particles are deposited on an internal surface of the catalytic reactor body (i.e., the catalyst disk may be coated with a noble-metal layer; see paragraphs [0012],[0029]).
Regarding claim 6, Powell discloses that the reactor body can be made by additive manufacturing (i.e., any suitable 3-D manufacturing or printing process, see column 2, lines 33-57). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to manufacture the modified catalytic reactor body of Hemmatpour et al. by additive manufacturing because an additive manufacturing process, such as 3-D printing, would have been suitable for creating the sub-channels for directing the fluid in a direction at least partly transverse to the main fluid flow direction, as taught by Powell.
Regarding claim 7, the illustrations of the catalytic reactor bodies in FIG. 3A-3B of Powell et al. suggest that the sub-channels comprise a section (i.e., the curved or twisted section of the channels 22, or the offset portion along the length of the channels 22; see column 3, lines 12-34) oriented at an angle of 20 to 70 degrees with respect to the main flow direction. While Powell does not specifically state the degree of the angles shown, Powell discloses that the transverse flow of the fluid relative to the main flow direction serves to facilitate the interaction of the fluid with the catalyst material present at the sidewalls of the sub-channels (see column 3, lines 27-34). Therefore, the specific angle of the section with respect to the main flow direction is not considered to confer patentability to the claim since the precise angle would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art. Accordingly, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to routinely optimize the angle at which the section of the sub-channels was oriented with respect to the main flow direction in the modified catalytic reactor body of Hemmatpour et al. in order to achieve the desired degree of contact between the fluid and the catalytic material present at the walls of the sub-channels for the intended chemical reaction, and where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 10, Hemmatpour et al. discloses a length in the direction of the main fluid flow of 10 cm or less (i.e., the catalyst disk preferably has a thickness “d” of 20 mm (or 2 cm); see paragraph [0023]).
Regarding claim 13, Hemmatpour et al. discloses that the diameter of the sub-channels is 1 mm or higher (i.e., each flow channel 6,26 has an opening surface ranging from 1 mm2 to 1.2 mm2, see paragraph [0023]; for square-shaped sub-channels, the hydraulic diameter therefore ranges from approx. 1 mm to 1.1 mm).
Regarding claim 14, Furuta (see translation, page 3, second paragraph) discloses,
“In the honeycomb structure 100 of the present embodiment, the ratio of the surface area of the partition wall surface 3 (surface area ratio) to the surface area of the partition wall 1 surface (partition wall surface 3) when the partition wall 1 surface is planar is 1.5 to 5.0, and preferably 2.0 to 4.0.”
For instance, at a surface area ratio of 2.0, the partition wall surface 3 area would be 100% larger than the surface area of a planar (completely smooth) partition wall surface 3. Therefore, based on the Sdr definition, the internal surface area in the reactor body of Furuta would correspond to a Sdr parameter of 1.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the internal surface area to have an Sdr parameter of 0.7 or more (i.e., a surface area ratio of at least 1.7, such as a surface area ratio of at least 2.0) in the modified catalytic reactor body of Hemmatpour et al. because such catalytic reactor body would have exhibited an optimal heat dissipation effect and strength, as taught by Furuta (see translation at page 3, second paragraph).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hemmatpour et al. (US 2006/0233679 A1) in view of Powell (US 10,287,952) and Furuta (JP 2010/207708 A), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kashima (JP S64-83812 A).
Hemmatpour et al. (see FIG. 1) fails to further disclose one or more holes for alignment of the reactor body 5 with a second catalytic reactor body 5’,5’’, etc.
Kashima discloses a catalytic reactor body (i.e., a honeycomb 1 comprising an exhaust gas catalyst; see FIG. 1-3, translation) comprising a circumferential wall and a plurality of sub-channels (i.e., cells) for guiding a fluid from an inlet to an outlet, each sub-channel defining a predetermined fluid path between the inlet and the outlet. Specifically, Kashima discloses that the catalytic reactor body 1 comprises one or more holes (i.e., a hole part 4 for receiving a bar 12) for alignment of the reactor body 1 with a second catalytic reactor body 1.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further provide one or more holes in the modified reactor body of Hemmatpour et al. because the hole would allow for the insertion of a bar through the reactor body for aligning the reactor body with another reactor body and supporting the reactor body with reduced stress at its circumference wall, as taught by Kashima.
Claims 12, 16, and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hemmatpour et al. (US 2006/0233679 A1) in view of Powell (US 10,287,952) and Furuta (JP 2010/207708 A), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ramani et al. (US 2002/0198429).
Regarding claims 12 and 32, Hemmatpour et al. discloses that the catalytic body has a length in the direction of the main fluid flow of 10 cm or less (i.e., the catalyst disk preferably has a thickness “d” of 20 mm (or 2 cm); see paragraph [0023]).
In addition, the illustrations in FIG. 3A-3B of Powell suggest that the sub-channels 22, which are configured for directing the fluid in a direction at least partly transverse to the main fluid flow direction (i.e., by means of the curved portions 34 and the offset portions 38), have a tortuosity of 1.1 or higher (where “tortuosity” has been defined by applicant as the length of each sub-channel divided by the shortest length between the reactor inlet and the reactor outlet). Powell, however, does not specifically state that the tortuosity is 1.1 or higher.
Ramani et al. discloses a catalytic reactor body (i.e., a monolith 12 supporting a catalyst 14; see FIG. 1-3) comprising a plurality of sub-channels (i.e., tortuous paths) for guiding a fluid from an inlet (i.e., at an upstream end 18) to an outlet (i.e., at a downstream end 20); wherein each sub-channel defines a predetermined flow path between the inlet and the outlet and is configured for directing the fluid in a direction at least partly transverse to a main flow direction (i.e., the fluid flows through a tortuous flow path provided by twists, turns, curves, winding, misalignments, crooks, or any other flow path that is not substantially parallel to the sides of the wall 30, see paragraph [0053]). Specifically, Ramani discloses that the tortuosity should be greater than 1.0 because, by increasing the tortuosity of the sub-channels, fluid reactants are able to mix and, thus, more of the reactants come into contact with the catalyst material provided on the internal surface of the body and an improved and more complete reaction can be achieved (see paragraphs [0007], [0054]-[0055]).
Therefore, the specific tortuosity of the sub-channels is not considered to confer patentability to the claim since the precise tortuosity would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art. Accordingly, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to routinely optimize the tortuosity of the sub-channels in the modified catalytic reactor body of Hemmatpour et al. in order to obtain the desired degree of mixing and contact between the fluid and the catalyst material within the sub-channels of the reactor body for the intended chemical reaction, and where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Hemmatpour et al. and Powell fails to disclose a specific pressure drop of 0.5 bar or less per meter of the reactor body in the direction of the main fluid flow, when measured under the recited testing conditions.
Ramani et al., however, further recognizes the importance of minimizing the pressure drop of the fluid, since high pressure drops within a system require an increase of energy input into the system (see paragraph [0005]). Ramani et al. therefore discloses that, “a zero pressure [drop] across the catalyst bed 10 is the ultimate goal.” (at paragraph [0061]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further configure the modified catalytic reactor body of Hemmatpour et al. to exhibit a minimal pressure drop which was as close to zero as possible, while also balancing the increase in turbulence generated by the sub-channels, so that an improved and complete reaction can be achieved without causing an undesirable increase in the required amount of energy to be input into the system, as suggested by Ramani et al.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hemmatpour et al. (US 2006/0233679 A1) in view of Powell (US 10,287,952) and Furuta (JP 2010/207708 A), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Carmello et al. (EP 1110605 A1).
Hemmatpour et al. and Powell fails to disclose or teach that the volume of solid material relative to the total volume of the catalytic reactor body is 0.7 cm3 per cm3 or less.
Carmello et al. discloses a catalytic reactor body (i.e., a monolith such as a metallic support for carrying a catalyst on the walls of the monolith; see FIG. 1, paragraphs [0020]-[0021]). Specifically, Carmello et al. (at paragraph [0015]) discloses,
“The volume fraction of the metallic support is preferably less than 0.9, more preferably between 0.15 and 0.6. The reduced fraction of metallic support represents an advantage since it allows the maintenance of high monolith void fractions, thus further reducing pressure drops. Further, a reduced volume fraction of the support allows an important saving of expensive support material and a reduction of the reactor weight.”
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the volume of solid material relative to the total volume of the catalytic reactor body to be 0.7 cm3 per cm3 or less in the modified catalytic reactor body of Hemmatpour et al. because the reduced volume fraction of the solid material (between 0.15 and 0.6) would allow for the reactor body to maintain a high void fraction for reducing pressure drops, and furthermore, an important saving of expensive solid material and a reduction in the weight of the reactor body would be achieved, as taught by Carmello et al.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER A LEUNG whose telephone number is (571)272-1449. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:30 AM - 4:30 PM EST.
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 X 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.
/JENNIFER A LEUNG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1774
Prosecution Insights