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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-20, in the reply filed on October 21, 2025 is acknowledged. Claims 21-30 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
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 1-9, 19, and 20 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 relationship between “an outer tube” (at line 3) and “an outer tube” previously set forth in the claim (at line 2) is unclear.
Regarding claim 19, the language of the limitation “the shell further comprises an inlet for heating the plurality of tubes with at least one of steam or heating oil” is unclear because the “inlet” does not perform a heating function. It is suggested that the limitation be amended to read as, e.g., --the shell further comprises an inlet for introducing at least one of steam or heating oil into the shell for heating the plurality of tubes--.
Also, the limitation “wherein the shell further comprises an outlet for outputting condensate from inside the shell” is unclear. While the steam may condense upon cooling within the shell, the heating oil (which is already in a liquid state) does not further condense. It is also noted that Applicant’s specification (at paragraph [0082]) states, “The cylindrical shell 405 may include a first inlet 450 and a first outlet 452 for receiving steam or hot oil and for outlet of condensate or hot oil respectively.”
Regarding claim 20, the limitation “wherein a spacing between the shell and the plurality of tubes allows at least one of steam or heating oil to circulate inside the plurality of tubes” is unclear. Based on Applicant’s disclosure, the steam or heating oil circulates within the spacing 115, which is outside of the plurality of tubes 320 (see FIG. 4; paragraph [0085]).
The remaining claims are also rejected because they depend from a rejected base claim.
Claim Interpretation
The instant “reactor” claims are considered apparatus claims. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. A claim containing a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. See MPEP § 2114. Also, expressions relating the apparatus to material contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim. See MPEP § 2115.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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.
Claims 1, 2, and 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by McMillan (US 2,310,907).
Regarding claim 1, McMillan discloses a reactor (i.e., a converter 12; see FIG. I and III; page 3, second column, at lines 5-16; page 4, first column, at lines 11-37) comprising:
an outer tube (i.e., a jacket 14) configured to contain heat (i.e., the jacket 14 is provided with connections 15 and 16 for the circulation of a fluid heat carrier therethrough), the outer tube 14 having an outer tube diameter (see FIG. III);
an inner tube (i.e., a tube defining an elongated reaction chamber 13) nested inside the outer tube 14, the inner tube configured to conduct the heat contained by the outer tube, the inner tube having an inner tube diameter smaller than the outer tube diameter (see FIG. III), the inner tube 13 having a first end (i.e., a lower end) and a second end (i.e., an upper end), the inner tube 13 forming a reaction chamber between the first end and the second end of the inner tube;
a feed line (i.e., a line 10 for feeding reactants from a suitable source) coupled to a first end of the inner tube 13, the feed line configured to pass reactants to the inner tube; and
a reactor outlet (i.e., a line 27 for removing a reaction product) proximate to second end of the inner tube 13, the reactor outlet configured to collect a reaction product from the inner tube and output the reaction product.
The further limitations with respect to the reactants being “dimethyl ether and steam” and the reaction product being “hydrogen” do not impart further patentable weight (structural limitations) to the apparatus claim. The dimethyl ether, steam, and hydrogen are not considered elements of the apparatus, as they are merely materials to be worked upon or produced by the apparatus during an intended operation.
Regarding claim 2, McMillan discloses that the reaction chamber is configured to house catalyst (i.e., catalyst 21 in containers A-E), the catalyst being configured to receive the heat contained by the outer tube 14. The limitation “wherein the heat contained by the outer tube has a uniform temperature along an outer tube length” is directed to an intended use of the apparatus that does not impart further patentable weight (structural limitations) to the claim.
Regarding claim 6, McMillan discloses that the outer tube 14 is configured to contain steam heat (i.e., steam as the temperature control fluid; see page 4, first column, at lines 31-35), wherein the inner tube 13 is configured to conduct heat contained in the outer tube 14.
Regarding claim 7, McMillan (see FIG. I) discloses that the outer tube 14 and the inner tube 13 are oriented in a vertical direction.
Regarding claim 8, McMillan (see FIG. I) discloses that the outer tube 14 comprises an upper connection 16 and a lower connection 15 for the circulation of a fluid heat carrier through the outer tube; wherein the upper connection 16 is operable as a steam inlet, and the lower connection 15 is operable as a steam condensate outlet.
Regarding claim 9, McMillan (see FIG. I, III) discloses a spacing between the outer tube 14 and the inner tube 13, so that steam is able to circulate and condense inside the outer tube.
Claims 10, 11, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by van der Ploeg et al. (US 2024/0157318).
Regarding claim 10, van der Ploeg discloses a reactor (i.e., a reactor 1 for a gas conversion reaction; see FIG. 1-3; paragraphs [0042]-[0053]) comprising:
a casing (i.e., an electrically heated furnace 2 defining a space 3 therein) configured to contain heat (i.e., heat generated by a plurality of electrical radiative heating elements 20);
a plurality of tubes (i.e., a multitude of reactor tubes 10) nested inside the casing, the tubes 10 configured to conduct the heat contained by the casing 2, the tubes each having a first end (i.e., an upper end, defining an inlet 11) and a second end (i.e., a lower end, defining an outlet 12), the tubes 10 each forming a reaction chamber between the first end and the second end of each of the tubes;
a feed line (i.e., a Fluid IN line) coupled to each of the first end 11 of the tubes 10, the feed line configured to pass a feed gas and steam to the tubes (e.g., methane and steam, in the case where the reactor 1 is used to conduct a steam methane reforming reaction; see paragraph [0036]); and
a reactor outlet (i.e., a Fluid OUT line) proximate to each of the second end 12 of the tubes 10, the reactor outlet configured to collect hydrogen from the tubes and output the hydrogen (e.g., a reformed gas comprising hydrogen, in the case where the reactor 1 is used to conduct a steam methane reforming reaction; see paragraph [0036]).
The further limitation with respect to the feed gas being “dimethyl ether” does not impart further patentable weight (structural limitation) to the apparatus claim. The dimethyl ether is not considered an element of the apparatus, as it is merely a material to be worked upon by the apparatus during an intended operation.
Regarding claim 11, van der Ploeg et al. discloses that the heat is generated by a plurality of electric heating elements (i.e., a multitude of electrical radiative heating elements 20; see FIG. 1-3) inside the casing 2 and outside the plurality of tubes 10; wherein the plurality of tubes 10 is configured to conduct the heat contained by the casing 2.
Regarding claim 13, van der Ploeg et al. discloses a reactor (i.e., a reactor 1 for a gas conversion reaction; see FIG. 1-3; paragraphs [0042]-[0053]) comprising:
a shell (i.e., an electrically heated furnace 2 defining a space 3 therein) configured to contain heat (i.e., heat generated by a plurality of electrical radiative heating elements 20);
a plurality of tubes (i.e., a multitude of reactor tubes 10) nested inside the shell, the tubes 10 configured to conduct heat from the heat contained inside the shell 2, the tubes 10 each having a first end (i.e., an upper end, defining an inlet 11) and a second end (i.e., a lower end, defining an outlet 12), and the tubes 10 each forming a reaction chamber between the first end and the second end;
a feed line (i.e., a Fluid IN line) coupled to each of the first end 11 of the plurality of tubes 10, the feed line configured to receive a feed gas and steam (e.g., methane and steam, in the case where the reactor 1 is used to conduct a steam methane reforming reaction; see paragraph [0036]); and
a reactor outlet (i.e., a Fluid OUT line) proximate to each of the second end 12 of the plurality of tubes 10, the reactor outlet configured to output hydrogen (e.g., a reformed gas comprising hydrogen, in the case where the reactor 1 is used to conduct a steam methane reforming reaction; see paragraph [0036]).
The further limitation with respect to the feed gas being “dimethyl ether” does not impart further patentable weight (structural limitation) to the apparatus claim. The dimethyl ether is not considered an element of the apparatus, as it is merely a material to be worked upon by the apparatus during an intended operation.
Claims 10 and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pierce (US 2,667,410).
Regarding claim 10, Pierce discloses a reactor (i.e., an apparatus for reforming hydrocarbons; see Figure; column 5, lines 7-50) comprising:
a casing (i.e., a furnace 28) configured to contain heat (i.e., heat generated by a plurality of burners 40);
a plurality of tubes (i.e., catalyst tubes 26) nested inside the casing, the tubes 26 configured to conduct the heat contained by the casing 28, the tubes 26 each having a first end (i.e., an upper end) and a second end (i.e., a lower end), the tubes 26 each forming a reaction chamber between the first end and the second end of each of the tubes;
a feed line (i.e., a manifold 24) coupled to each of the first end (i.e., the upper end) of the plurality of tubes 26, the feed line 24 configured to pass a feed gas (i.e., natural gas from line 10) and steam (i.e., from line 20) to the tubes 26; and
a reactor outlet (i.e., a line 30 for withdrawing a reformed gas comprising hydrogen) proximate to each of the second end (i.e., lower end) of the plurality of tubes 26, the reactor outlet 30 configured to collect hydrogen from the tubes and output the hydrogen.
The further limitation with respect to the feed gas being “dimethyl ether” does not impart further patentable weight (structural limitation) to the apparatus claim. The dimethyl ether is not considered an element of the apparatus, as it is merely a material to be worked upon by the apparatus during an intended operation.
Regarding claim 13, Pierce discloses a reactor (i.e., an apparatus for reforming hydrocarbons; see Figure; column 5, lines 7-50) comprising:
a shell (i.e., a furnace 28) configured to contain heat (i.e., heat generated by a plurality of burners 40);
a plurality of tubes (i.e., catalyst tubes 26) nested inside the shell 28, the tubes 26 configured to conduct heat from the heat contained inside the shell 28, the tubes 26 each having a first end (i.e., an upper end) and a second end (i.e., a lower end), and the tubes 26 each forming a reaction chamber between the first end and the second end;
a feed line (i.e., a manifold 24) coupled to each of the first end (i.e., upper end) of the plurality of tubes 26, the feed line 24 configured to receive a feed gas (i.e., natural gas from line 10) and steam (i.e., from line 20); and
a reactor outlet (i.e., a line 30 for withdrawing a reformed gas comprising hydrogen) proximate to each of the second end (i.e., lower end) of the plurality of tubes 26, the reactor outlet 30 configured to output hydrogen.
The further limitation with respect to the feed gas being “dimethyl ether” does not impart further patentable weight (structural limitation) to the apparatus claim. The dimethyl ether is not considered an element of the apparatus, as it is merely a material to be worked upon by the apparatus during an intended operation.
Regarding claim 14, Pierce discloses that the reactor comprises a plurality of burners 40 inside the shell 28, the burners configured to generate the heat contained inside the shell; and a shell outlet configured to output flue gas (i.e., an outlet opening 44 for combustion gases).
Regarding claim 15, Pierce discloses that the plurality of burners are configured to turn on simultaneously for maintaining uniform temperature (i.e., each burner 40 is connected to a common fuel gas line 38, such that the burners 40 can be turned on simultaneously); and the shell is a fire box (i.e., the furnace 28 is a box which contains the flames of the burners 40).
Claims 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Miyake et al. (JP 2003-073104 A).
Regarding claim 16, Miyake et al. discloses a reactor (i.e., a conventional steam reforming 101 used for steam-reforming a gaseous reforming raw material, such as dimethyl ether; see FIG. 3 and translation at paragraphs [0002]-[0004], [0018]) comprising:
a shell (i.e., a heat medium container 103) configured to contain heat (i.e., a heat medium, introduced into the heat medium container via an inlet 104 and discharged from the heat medium container via an outlet 105);
a top tube plate coupled to a top portion of the shell (i.e., a horizontal plate coupled to an upper end of the heat medium container 103, as shown), the top tube plate including a plurality of top tube plate apertures (i.e., the apertures respectively receiving the upper ends of circular tubes 102);
a bottom tube plate coupled to a bottom portion of the shell (i.e., a horizontal plate coupled to a lower end of the heat medium container 103, as shown), the bottom tube plate including a plurality of bottom tube plate apertures (i.e., the apertures respectively receiving the lower ends of circular tubes 102);
a plurality of tubes (i.e., circular tubes 102) configured to extend between the top tube plate and the bottom tube plate, each of the tubes 102 configured to be inserted inside a top tube plate aperture of the plurality of top tube plate apertures and a bottom tube plate aperture of the plurality of bottom tube plate apertures (as shown); the plurality of tubes 102 configured to conduct heat from the heat contained inside the shell 103 (i.e., the inside of each circular tube 102 serves as a catalyst filling chamber, and the catalyst filling chamber is heated by the heat medium in the heat medium container 103), the tubes 102 each forming a reaction chamber (i.e., catalyst filling chamber) between the top tube plate and the bottom tube plate;
a feed line (i.e., an inlet 106 for introducing the gaseous reforming raw material together with steam) proximate to the top portion of the shell 103, the feed line 106 being configured to pass dimethyl ether (i.e., dimethyl ether as the gaseous reforming raw material) and steam to the plurality of tubes 102; and
a reactor outlet (i.e., an outlet 107) proximate to the bottom portion of the shell 103, the reactor outlet 107 configured to collect hydrogen from the plurality of tubes 102 (i.e., a reformed gas comprising hydrogen) and output the hydrogen.
Regarding claim 17, Miyaki et al. (see FIG. 3; paragraph [0002]) discloses that the reaction chamber is configured to house a catalyst (i.e., each circular tube 102 serves as a catalyst filling chamber), the catalyst being configured to receive the heat contained by the tubes 102 (i.e., the catalyst is heated by the heat medium in the heat medium container 103). The further limitation “wherein the heat contained by the shell has a uniform temperature between the top tube plate and the bottom tube plate” is directed to an intended use of the apparatus that does not impart further patentable weight (structural limitation) to the claim.
Regarding claim 18, Miyaki et al. discloses that the shell 103 and the plurality of tubes 102 are oriented in a vertical direction (see FIG. 3).
Regarding claim 19, Miyaki et al. (see FIG. 3; paragraph [0002]) discloses that the shell 103 further comprises an inlet for heating the plurality of tubes 102 with a heat medium (i.e., an inlet 104 for feeding the heat medium into the heat medium container 103), and the shell 103 further comprises an outlet for outputting the heat medium from inside the shell (i.e., an outlet 105 for discharging the heat medium from the heat medium container 103). The limitations with respect to the heat medium being “at least one of steam or heating oil” and the outputting of “condensate” are directed to an intended use of the apparatus that does not impart further patentable weight (structural limitation) to the claim. The heat medium is considered a material to be worked upon by the apparatus during an intended operation. In any event, Miyaki et al. discloses that a suitable heat medium is heating oil (i.e., synthetic oil having a boiling point higher than the temperature suitable for the steam reforming reaction; see translation at page 5, fifth paragraph).
Regarding claim 20, Miyaki et al. (see FIG. 3) discloses a spacing between the shell 103 and the plurality of tubes 102, wherein the spacing allows the heat medium to circulate outside of the tubes 102. As stated above, the further limitation with respect to the heat medium being “at least one of steam or heating oil” does not impart further patentable weight to the claim. Note also that the limitation “allows at least one of steam or heating oil to circulate inside the plurality of tubes” has been interpreted as an error because, based on Applicant’s disclosure (see FIG. 4; specification at paragraph [0083]), the steam or heating oil circulates through the spacing 115 on the outside of the plurality of tubes 320.
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 1-3 and 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada et al. (JP 2008-273795 A) in view of McMillan (US 2,310,907).
Regarding claim 1, Yamada et al. discloses a reactor (i.e., a reforming reactor 1 for reforming dimethyl ether (DME); see FIG. 2 and translation, in particular, at the underlined portions) comprising:
an outer tube (i.e., a housing of the reforming reactor 1) configured to contain heat (i.e., heat of a heat medium 21), the outer tube 1 having an outer tube dimension;
an inner tube (i.e., a reaction tube 102) nested inside an outer tube 1, the inner tube 102 configured to conduct the heat contained by the outer tube 1, the inner tube 102 having an inner tube dimension smaller than the outer tube dimension, the inner tube 102 having a first end (i.e., an upper end) and a second end (i.e., a lower end), the inner tube 102 forming a reaction chamber between the first end and the second end of the inner tube;
a feed line (i.e., a line for introducing a DME/steam mixed gas 13) coupled to the first end (i.e., the upper end) of the inner tube 102, the feed line configured to pass dimethyl ether and steam 13 to the inner tube 101; and
a reactor outlet (i.e., an outlet for hydrogen-rich reformed gas 15) proximate to the second end (i.e., the lower end) of the inner tube 102, the reactor outlet configured to collect hydrogen from the inner tube 102 and output the hydrogen 15.
The reactor of Yamada et al. is the same as the claimed reactor, except that Yamada et al. does not specifically state that the outer tube dimension is “an outer tube diameter” and the inner tube dimension is “an inner tube diameter” (i.e., interpreted as the outer tube and the inner tube being circular in cross-sections).
McMillan discloses a reactor (i.e., a converter 12; see FIG. I and III; page 3, second column, at lines 5-16; page 4, first column, at lines 11-37) comprising: an outer tube (i.e., a jacket 14) configured to contain heat (i.e., the jacket 14 is provided with connections 15 and 16 for the circulation of a fluid heat carrier therethrough); an inner tube forming a reaction chamber (i.e., a tube defining an elongated reaction chamber 13) nested inside the outer tube 14, the inner tube 13 configured to conduct the heat contained by the outer tube 14; a feed line (i.e., a line 10 for feeding reactants) coupled to a first end of the inner tube 13; and a reactor outlet (i.e., a line 27 for removing a reaction product) proximate to second end of the inner tube 13. Specifically, McMillan discloses that the outer tube 14 and the inner tube 13 are circular in cross-section (see FIG. III), wherein an inner tube diameter of the inner tube 13 is smaller than an outer tube diameter of the outer tube 14.
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 outer tube and the inner tube in the reactor of Yamada et al. to be circular in cross-section, such that the outer tube has “an outer tube diameter” and the inner tube has “an inner tube diameter”, because the heat contained in the outer tube would be evenly distributed around the circumference of the inner tube for maintenance of the reaction chamber at the desired temperature, as taught by McMillan.
Regarding claim 2, Yamada et al. (see FIG. 2) discloses that the reaction chamber is configured to house catalyst (i.e., a catalyst layer 101), the catalyst being configured to receive the heat contained by the outer tube (i.e., the catalyst layer 101 is heated by the heating medium 21). The further limitation “wherein the heat contained by the outer tube has a uniform temperature along an outer tube length” is drawn to an intended use of the apparatus which does not impart further patentable weight to the claim.
Regarding claim 3, the limitation “wherein the reaction chamber produces the hydrogen based on a coordinated reaction of the dimethyl ether and steam with the catalyst heated by the heat contained by the outer tube” is directed to an intended use of the apparatus which does not impart further patentable weight to the claim. In any event, Yamada et al. discloses that the reactor is operated in the recited manner (i.e., the reaction chamber produces hydrogen gas 15 based on a reforming reaction of dimethyl ether and steam 13 with the catalyst 101 heated by the heat medium 21 contained by reactor 1; see FIG. 2).
Regarding claim 6, Yamada et al. (see FIG. 2) discloses that the heat contained by the outer tube 1 can comprise steam heat (i.e., water vapor for heat medium 21; see translation at page 5, fifth paragraph), wherein the inner tube conducts the heat contained in the outer tube.
Regarding claim 7, Yamada et al. (see FIG. 2) discloses that the outer tube 1 and the inner tube 102 are oriented in a vertical direction.
Regarding claim 8, Yamada et al. (see FIG. 2) discloses that the outer tube 1 further comprises a steam inlet for the outer tube (i.e., an inlet for receiving water vapor as the heat medium 21) and a steam condensate outlet for the outer tube (i.e., an outlet for removing condensed water vapor as the spent heat medium 23).
Regarding claim 9, Yamada et al. (see FIG. 2) discloses a spacing between the outer tube 1 and the inner tube 102 that allows for steam (i.e., water vapor as the heat medium 21) to circulate and condense inside the outer tube 1.
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada et al. (JP 2008-273795 A) in view of Nielsen et al. (US 5,837,217).
Regarding claim 4, Yamada et al. fails to disclose that the catalyst 101 (see FIG. 2) includes an acid catalyst and a reforming catalyst.
Nielson et al. discloses a catalyst for the preparation of hydrogen from dimethyl ether (DME) and steam (see column 1, lines 4-31), wherein the catalyst comprises an acid catalyst (i.e., a DME hydration catalyst comprising a solid acid catalyst, e.g., acidic zeolites, preferably ZSM-5 in its H-form; see column 1, lines 56-59) and a reforming catalyst (i.e., a methanol decomposition catalyst physically admixed with the DME hydration catalyst, e.g., Cu-Zn-alumina as the methanol decomposition catalyst; see column 1, lines 60-64).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the catalyst of Nielsen et al. for the catalyst in the reactor of Yamada et al. because the catalyst comprising the physical admixture of an acid catalyst and a reforming catalyst would improve the reaction rate during the hydration of DME to methanol, and the overall reaction would proceed at reasonable reaction rates and at high product yield and selectively for the formation of hydrogen, as taught by Nielsen et al. (see column 1, lines 32-49).
Regarding claim 5, Nielsen et al. discloses that methanol is produced by a hydrolysis of DME over the acid catalyst (i.e., the hydration catalyst (solid acid catalyst) promotes hydration of DME to methanol according to reaction (1); see column 1, lines 9-15), and a steam reforming of the methanol is produced over the reforming catalyst (i.e., the methanol decomposition catalyst (reforming catalyst) promotes decomposition of the methanol to carbon oxide and hydrogen according to reactions (2),(3); see column 1, lines 16-22).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over van der Ploeg et al. (US 2024/0157318) in view of Meumann (US 4,840,131).
van der Ploeg et al. (at paragraph [0019]) further discloses, “The walls, roof and bottom of this furnace typically comprise some refractory and insulation to avoid undue heat leakage to outside of the furnace.” van der Ploeg et al. (at paragraph [0047]) further discloses, “The roof 2A, bottom 2B and walls 2C of the furnace space 2 are typically made from a heat-resistant and structural material and may be insulated to avoid undue leakage of heat from the inside of the furnace 2 to the outside thereof.” van der Ploeg et al., however, does not specifically state that the casing 2 comprises a refractory surface along an inside portion of the casing, wherein the casing further comprises a layer of insulation between the refractory surface and an outside portion of each of the plurality of tubes 10.
Meumann discloses an apparatus (see FIG. 6-11; column 3, line 24 to column 4, line 5) comprising: a casing configured to contain heat (i.e., a casing of an electrical heating furnace, containing heat generated by electric heating elements 16 or 30). Specifically, Meumann discloses that the casing comprises a refractory surface along an inside portion of the casing (i.e., a surface of a board 20 of refractory heat-insulating material); and the casing further comprises a layer of insulation (i.e., a further board 18 of a refractory heat-insulating material having greater refractoriness than the material of the board 20) between the refractory surface 20 and a space which contains the heat and a material or article to be heated.
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 casing to comprise a refractory surface along an inside portion of the casing and to further comprise a layer of insulation between the refractory surface and an outside portion of each of the plurality of tubes in the reactor of van der Ploeg et al. because the provision of the multiple layers of refractory material and insulation for the casing would ensure that the casing was adequately insulated, as taught by Meumann.
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