Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Claim Objections
Claim 21 and 23 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 21, line 5, “gas stream and a oxidant” should recite “gas stream and an oxidant”.
In claim 23, line 1, “wherein the for making” should recite, “wherein the device for making”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 21-28 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.
Claim 21 recites the limitation "a device" in line 3, and also “a device” in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 22-29 are dependent upon claim 21.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 29-40 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group II and III, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 7/27/26. Claim 29 differs from claim 21 in that claim 29 the device (device for making the oxidant) is different than the device in claim 21 (device for providing turbulence).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of pre-AIA 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 –
(b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of application for patent in the United States.
Claims 21-24 and 26-28 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102b as being anticipated by Johnson (US 2005/0214187).
Regarding claim 21, an apparatus for treating a gas stream comprising:
a vessel (fig. 2, vessel 12) comprising a gas stream inlet (gas inlet as seen in fig. 2, with arrow at bottom left) and an oxidant inlet (oxidant spray level is where oxidant is injected into the vessel via inlet nozzle sprayers, para 22-27; claim 9 and 10. Further both inlets are structures that are capable of accepting a gas or an oxidant and those two can be added to the respective inlet at a later time. Therefore the gas and the oxidant are not positively recited in the instant claim); and
a device (any structure located within the flow path of the vessel is structurally capable of promoting turbulent flow conditions due to the structural displacement of air flowing past a structure. For instance, see fig. 1, which shows a grid tray below one set of inlet sprayers. Further a spray structure can be broadly interpreted as a turbulent device. There are multiple spray levels shown in fig. 2. A mass transfer surface can also be interpreted as the turbulent flow device; para 43) disposed in a flow path within the vessel of one or both of the gas stream and the oxidant, wherein the device is configured to promote a turbulent flow condition inside the vessel to promote mixing of the gas stream and “a” (sic) oxidant and/or reaction to cause one or more components of the gas stream to be converted to at least one other component, compound, molecule, or atom (this limitation does not further structurally limit the instant claims. The device, any structure that is within the vessel is capable of creating a turbulent flow of air around the structure. The gas stream and the oxidant are not positively recited in the instant claims and can be added to the respective inlet at a later time. Therefore, a reaction or oxidation to cause one or more components of the gas stream to be converted to at least one other component, compound, molecule or atom is drawn to a process limitation/intended use and is not given patentable weight in claims directed to a device);
wherein the oxidant is made by a device in flow communication with the vessel (this limitation is drawn to a process of making a product and is not given patentable weight in claims directed to a device. See the above statement regarding the gas, oxidant, reaction for intended use interpretation).
Regarding claim 22, the apparatus of claim 21, wherein the oxidant is chlorine dioxide in the form of a liquid, mist, or gas (the oxidant is not positively recited in claim 21 as it can be added to the oxidant inlet at a later time. Johnson teaches chlorine dioxide as the oxidant, see claim 9-10).
Regarding claim 23, the apparatus of claim 21, wherein the “device” for making the oxidant that is positioned near the vessel and that includes an outlet that is coupled to the vessel oxidant inlet (a device for holding an oxidant is inherently provided near the vessel and the oxidant is supplied to the vessel via the oxidant spray level nozzles).
Regarding claim 24, the apparatus of claim 23, wherein the device for making the oxidant comprises an electrochemical device (para 48 discloses electrochemical methods for producing onsite oxidants that are fed to the vessel).
Regarding claim 26, the apparatus of claim 21, comprising a nozzle disposed inside the vessel and connected with the oxidant inlet (sprayers inject the oxidant into the vessel at the oxidant spray level, see fig. 2), wherein the nozzle is positioned or configured to dispense the oxidant inside of the vessel in the flow path of the gas stream (the oxidant is not positively recited as discussed above and can be added to the vessel at a later time).
Regarding claim 27, the apparatus of claim 21, wherein the oxidant inlet is positioned downstream from the gas stream inlet (See fig. 2, gas stream inlet is located at inlet arrow and the oxidant inlet is inside the vessel downstream from the gas stream as shown in fig. 2).
Regarding claim 28, the apparatus of claim 21, wherein the gas stream comprises at least one of NOx (abstract, para 17) and/or SOx (para 18).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 25 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Johnson (US 2005/0214187) in view of Boyden et al. (US 2006/0047366).
Regarding claim 25, Johnson teaches an apparatus for treating a gas stream with an oxidant but does not specifically provide a sensor adjacent an exit of the vessel.
Boyden teaches a device that comprises a processor for controlling emission of a pollutant into the air from a flue that comprises sensors and the inlet and outlet of a vessel that measure sulfur dioxide that provide feedback to a controller for adjustment of parameters (para 251). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having an ordinary skill in the art to modify Johnson to employ sensors for measuring a molecule/compound/ or atom at the exit of vessel that processing a flue gas in order to provide feedback to the reaction occurring in the vessel as taught by Boyden.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAMUEL P SIEFKE whose telephone number is (571)272-1262. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-5.
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, Maris Kessel can be reached at 571-270-7698. 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.
/SAMUEL P SIEFKE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1758
Prosecution Insights