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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12 August 2026 has been entered.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Higgins (US 1,806,801) in view of Walter (US 2020/0156038): 5. Regarding claim 1, Higgins discloses a jet impingement reactor comprising a reaction chamber (I) defined by an interior surface of a reaction chamber wall, the reaction chamber having a substantially spheroidal overall shape (see Fig. 2), said chamber comprising a first and a second fluid inlet (d, n), wherein the first and the second fluid inlet are arranged at opposite positions on a first central axis of the reaction chamber such as to point at one another (see Fig. 2, two opposed instances of "n"), and wherein each of the first and the second fluid inlet comprises a nozzle (n); and a fluid outlet (p) arranged at a third position, said third position being located on a second central axis of said chamber, the second central axis being perpendicular to the first central axis (see Fig. 2); wherein the distance between the nozzle of the first fluid inlet and the nozzle of the second fluid inlet is the same or smaller than the diameter of the reaction chamber along the first central axis (see Fig. 2 and page 2 lines 66-70). Higgins does not expressly disclose the distance between nozzles being in the 1 to 5 mm range. However, Higgins explains that the distance is adjustable and can be brought together to as close as, “for example, only 0.2 millimeters” (see page 2, lines 66-70). This teaching of being adjustable down to 0.2 mm would have rendered a value in the 1-5 mm range obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date. It is not explicitly stated that the orifice diameters of the nozzles are less than 1mm. Walter teaches orifices diameters of highly analogous impinging jets being less than 1mm (see [0021] and [0027]). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have made the orifice diameter less than 1mm as taught by Walter, to scale to an amount of material desired to be processed.
Regarding claim 2, the nozzles are arranged such as to direct a first and a second fluid stream along the first central axis towards the center of the chamber and to allow the first fluid stream and the second fluid stream to collide at an angle of about 180 degrees.
Regarding claim 3, essentially all of the interior surface of the reaction chamber wall is substantially spherical, optionally with the exception of portions of the interior surface that are part of the first and/or second fluid inlet or of the fluid outlet (see Fig. 2); and the reaction chamber is free of other inlet or outlet openings (see Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 4, while the distance between the nozzles is disclosed to be less than 5mm (see page 2, line 125), Higgins does not disclose the chamber volume being less than .25mL. In accordance with In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) and In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976) it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have scaled the apparatus based upon the amount of material desired to be processed.
Regarding claim 5, each of the first and the second fluid inlet is provided by a fluid inlet connector (d) having an upstream end, a downstream end holding the nozzle of the first or second fluid inlet, and a fluid conduit for conducting a fluid from the upstream end to the downstream end, and wherein the downstream end of each fluid inlet connector is reversibly insertable into the chamber wall such as to provide the first and the second fluid inlet (see Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 6, the fluid inlet connector has an upstream segment comprising the upstream end of the fluid inlet connector and an upstream portion of the fluid conduit; and a downstream segment comprising the downstream end of the fluid inlet connector with the nozzle and a downstream portion of the fluid conduit, wherein the diameter of the upstream portion of the fluid conduit is larger than the diameter of the downstream portion of the fluid conduit (see Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 7, the nozzles (n) of Higgins are plain-orifice nozzles (see Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 8, Walter further teaches the orifice diameters being in the 20 to 500 micron range (see [0021] and [0027]).
Regarding claim 9, the ratio of the chamber diameter to the orifice diameter is not numerically disclosed; however, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have found and optimal or workable range of this ratio based upon desired residence time for a particular process.
Regarding claim 10, the ratio of the chamber diameter to the outlet diameter is not numerically disclosed; however, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have found and optimal or workable range of this ratio based upon desired residence time for a particular process.
Regarding claim 11, the discussion of glass on page 3, lines 92-95 would have suggested a smooth surface to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date.
Regarding claim 12, the chamber wall is glass or ceramic (see page 3, lines 92-95).
Claim 13 does not further limit that glass or ceramic alternatives set forth in parent claim 12.
Regarding claim 14, the disclosure by Higgin that the nozzles are also electrodes would have disclosed or suggested the nozzles being metal (see page 2, lines 60-65).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Higgins (US 1,806,801) in view of Walter (US 2020/0156038) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bertram (US 5,186,905). In Higgins downstream ends of the nozzles are not aligned with the interior surface of the chamber wall. Bertram teaches aligning the downstream ends of nozzles of an impinging jet reactor with the inner surface of the chamber wall (see col. 6, lines 50-55). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have aligned the downstream ends of the nozzles with the chamber interior surface to minimize accumulation of deposits as taught by Bertram.
Response to Arguments
Higgins explains that the distance between the nozzles is adjustable in lines 66-70 of page 2. The 0.2 mm value is after the nozzles have been brought together by this adjustment, so they are necessarily further apart before adjustment. Overall, the recognition of this parameter for adjustment would have made it obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have discovered an optimal or workable range in accordance with In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID L SORKIN whose telephone number is (571)272-1148. The examiner can normally be reached 7am-3:30pm.
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.
DAVID L. SORKIN
Examiner
Art Unit 1774
/DAVID L SORKIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1774
Prosecution Insights