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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 25 June 2026 has been entered.
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 13, 23, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dachs et al. (US 2006/0024222).
Regarding claim 13, the reference Dachs et al. teaches a modified reactor tube (2) for use in a fixed bed tubular reactor, which includes
a reactor tube (2) having a cylindrical internal reaction cavity (3), wherein the reactor tube includes catalyst particles (4) in the internal reaction cavity providing a catalyst bed (6) (see paras. [0025]; [0047]; Figs. 2a, 2b); and
at least one reactor internal component (200) comprising a tubular insert (200) seated in the internal reaction cavity, the at least one reactor internal component (200) being located at an upstream section of the catalyst bed (6) in the reactor tube (2) (see paras. [0046]-[0050]; Fig. 2a),
wherein the tubular insert (200) has:
a tubular wall with an outer surface shaped and dimensioned to fit into the internal reaction cavity of the reactor tube (see paras. [0051]; [0054]; Figs. 2a, 2b);
an inner passage of varied diameter which is operable to change a profile of the internal reaction cavity (see para. [0053]; Fig. 2a);
two ends (202), a first end (202) operable to be positioned before a second end (202), relative to a direction of flow (G) in the fixed bed tubular reactor (2), such that the flow is from the first end (202) to the second end (202) (see para. [0053]; Fig. 2a);
a neck portion (201) positioned between the two ends (202), the neck portion being defined at a position at which an inner diameter of the inner passage is the smallest, the neck portion (201) separating the tubular insert (200) into a funnel portion (i.e., the portion corresponding to a converging section of the tubular insert 200) and a functional tube portion (i.e., the portion corresponding to a diverging section of the tubular insert 200), the funnel portion being defined by a section of the tubular insert (200) between the first end (202) and the neck portion (201) and the functional tube portion being defined by a section of tubular insert (200) between the neck portion (201) and the second end (202) (i.e., the inner passage of the tubular insert 200 is provided in the shape of a venturi tube (see para. [0053]; Fig. 2a);
wherein at the functional tube portion, the inner passage of the tubular insert (200) gradually increases in diameter in an axial direction, from the neck portion (201) to the second end (202) which changes a profile of the internal reaction cavity (3), and decreases a diameter of the internal reaction cavity (3) in at least a portion of the reactor tube (2) (see para. [0053]; Fig. 2a),
wherein the at least one reactor internal component (200) stabilizes the temperature distribution profile of the reactor tube (2) when the fixed bed reactor is operational by distributing reactor heat over a longer axial distance (see paras. [0016]-[0018]; [0021]; [0025]; [0048]-[0050]; Figs. 2a, 2b).
The reference Dachs et al., however, does not specifically specify that the neck portion (201) is positioned at the start of the catalyst bed (6) such that catalyst particles of the catalyst bed (6) are disposed in the passage of the functional tube portion up to the neck portion (201) but not in the funnel portion. However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the at least one reactor internal component (200) within the internal reaction cavity (3) of Dachs et al. such that the neck portion (201) is positioned at the start of the catalyst bed (6) and have the catalyst particles of the catalyst bed (6) disposed in the passage of the functional tube portion (i.e., the portion corresponding to a diverging section of the tubular insert 200) up to the neck portion (201) but not in the funnel portion, since the reference Dachs et al. teaches that the reactor internal component (200) can suitably be partially embedded in the catalyst bed (see para. [0025]; Fig. 2a).
Regarding claim 23, the reference Dachs et al. is silent with respect to the catalyst bed (6) having an axial length selected to compensate for a volume occupied in the reactor tube by the reactor internal component (200), thereby maintaining a total catalyst loading of the reactor tube. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to fill catalyst particles in the modified reactor tube (2) of Dachs et al. such that the catalyst bed (6) has an axial length selected to compensate for a volume occupied in the reactor tube by the reactor internal component (200), since the reference Dachs et al. teaches that the reactor internal component (200) is designed to be inserted into the reactor tube and completely or partially embedded in the catalyst filing within the reactor (see para. [0025]).
Regarding claim 24, the reference Dachs et al. does not specifically specify wherein the neck portion (201) is positioned at a boundary between the catalyst bed in the passage of the functional tube portion and a ceramic ball layer in the passage of the funnel portion. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the neck portion (201) positioned at a boundary between the catalyst bed in the passage of the functional tube portion and a ceramic ball layer in the passage of the funnel portion, since the reference Dachs et al. teaches that the modified reaction tube (2) can also be partially filled with inert particles (see para. [0025]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 25 June 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that one of ordinary skill in the art, comparing Applicant's tubular insert with the inserts of Dachs, would not understand Dachs as teaching or suggesting the claimed neck. A comparison of Dachs' FIG. 2a and Applicant's FIG. 2 shows that the inserts are fundamentally different (see Remarks, page 6).
The examiner respectfully disagrees. A comparison of Dachs' FIG. 2a and Applicant's FIG. 2 shows that the inserts are in fact fundamentally same. This is because they are both designed to create a venturi effect. Each tubular insert has a converging section, a neck portion, and a diverging section, which fundamentally define a venturi tube. To plainly illustrate how the inserts are in fact fundamentally same, Figure 2a of the reference Dachs et al. and Applicant's Figure 2 are reproduced below with added annotations.
PNG
media_image1.png
797
851
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Applicant also argues that unlike the tubular insert of Dachs et al. which is designed as a “flame arrester,” the tubular inset of the present application is installed in the catalyst bed for suppressing hot spot formation at the start of the catalyst bed (see Remarks, pages 7-8).
The examiner respectfully disagrees. Contrary to applicant assertion, the reference Dachs et al. makes clear that the provision of the tubular insert (200) within the reactor tube (2) is to suppress or arrest migration of hot spot (7), not flame, towards the top boundary of the catalyst filling (4, 6), and thereby, prevent the hot spot from becoming a source of ignition for a reaction gas mixture (G) present in the space above the start of the catalyst filling (4, 6) (see paras. [0016]; [0021]; [0049]; [0050]; Fig. 2a). The reference Dachs et al. further specifies that to accomplish this objective, the disclosed tubular insert (200) may suitably be inserted into the reactor tube (2) and position to be completely or partially embedded in the catalyst filing (4,6) or border on the catalyst filing (see para. [0025]; Fig. 2a).
Thus, as the specification is silent to any unexpected results, the examiner asserts that, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the at least one reactor internal component (200) within the internal reaction cavity (3) of Dachs et al. such that the neck portion (201) is positioned at the start of the catalyst bed (6) and have the catalyst particles of the catalyst bed (6) disposed in the passage of the functional tube portion (i.e., the portion corresponding to a diverging section of the tubular insert 200) up to the neck portion (201) but not in the funnel portion, since the reference Dachs et al. teaches that the reactor internal component (200) can suitably be partially embedded in the catalyst bed (see para. [0025]; Fig. 2a).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Lessanework T Seifu whose telephone number is (571)270-3153. The examiner can normally be reached M-T 9:00 am - 6:30 pm; F 9:00 am - 1:00 pm.
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.
/LESSANEWORK SEIFU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1774
Prosecution Insights