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 1-12, in the reply filed on 26 June 2026 is acknowledged. Accordingly, claims 1-12 are under full consideration.
Summary
This is a non-final office action for application 18/226,457 filed on 26 July 2023, and is in response to Applicant’s reply filed 26 June 2026 to the restriction/election requirement filed on 22 June 2026.
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 5-6 and 9-10 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.
Claims 5 and 9-10 are indefinite because the limitation claiming, “said fluid flow path being bounded by a distance of between zero and one vortex tube radius” is unclear as it does not specify the reference points or boundaries between which the recited distance is measured. While a “vortex tube radius” is understood, the claim does not identify what structures or locations define the boundaries of the recited distance. Consequently, one of ordinary skill in the art cannot determine with reasonable certainty the scope of the claimed “bounded” fluid flow path or ascertain whether a particular device falls within the scope of the claim.
Claim 6 is indefinite by virtue of its dependence on claim 5.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Specifically, claim 1 recites that the center divider is optional, whereas claims 8-10 further define the center divider. Because claim 1 encompasses embodiments lacking a center divider, claims 8-10 do not further limit all embodiments of claim 1. The claims should either be rewritten in independent form or amended so that the base claim affirmatively recites the center divider. Applicant may cancel the claims, amend the claims to place the claims in proper dependent form, rewrite the claims in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claims comply with the statutory requirements.
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 and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hagemeister et al. (US-20060062702-A1), hereinafter “Hagemeister”, in view of Nicol et al. (US-6932858-B2), hereinafter “Nicol” and Inglis (US-4240261-A).
Regarding Claim 1, Hagemeister discloses a vortex reactor (taylor reactor; see [0096] and “taylor reactors, which serve to convert substances under the conditions of Taylor vortex flow; see [0002])) comprising: a) a vortex tube (Taylor reactor which as a whole is designated by 100; see [0096] and Fig. 1), said vortex tube having a radius (radius of the reactor housing; see clm. 8) and comprising an exterior surface, an interior surface a first side and a second side (these are undeniable characteristics of tubes), said first side comprising one or more tangential fluid inputs (two inlets 108.1, which are opposite one another laterally; see [0096] and Fig. 1), further comprising a fluid exit (outlet 110; see [0097]), a fluid flow path through said vortex tube (The section 103.2 of the reactor housing 103 that adjoins the inlet region 108 is configured so as to widen… so that the cross section of the reaction volume 102 rises in the section 103.2; see [0097] and Fig. 1); and b) one or more vortex tube inner components, said one or more vortex tube inner components comprising a catalytic material (catalysts or initiators can be metered in; see [0036]).
Hagemeister does not explicitly teach at least two fluid exits. However, Nicol discloses one or more cool temperature fluid exits (cold fluid outlet 13; see Col. 3 Lines 49-50) on the same side as the inlet (see Fig. 1, parts 11 and 13), and one or more warm fluid exits on the opposite side (hot fluid outlet 12; see Col. 3 Line 48 and Fig. 1).
Hagemeister and Nicol are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of vortex devices. Including the fluid exits of Hagemeister would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because Hagemeister offers the motivation of separating a hot and cold fluid stream, thereby separating heavier components from lighter components (see Col. 3 Lines 17-26).
Hagemeister does not explicitly teach an optional center divider. However, Inglis discloses a center divider (flow dividing member; see Col. 2 Lines 24-25) that protrudes at least partially into at least one warm fluid exit (flow dividing member is in continuous communication with the primary outlet; see Col 2 Lines 24-26).
Hagemeister and Inglis are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of vortex devices. Incorporating the center divider of Inglis would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because Inglis offers the motivation of regulating the proportions of cold and hot air passing into the respective outlets; see Col. 2 Lines 14-16).
Regarding Claim 7, Hagemeister, Nicol, and Inglis together disclose the vortex reactor of claim 1. Hagemeister further discloses wherein said vortex tube is tapered (there is an outlet region which tapers in the flow direction toward a product outlet; see [0038]).
Regarding Claim 8, Hagemeister, Nicol, and Inglis together disclose the vortex reactor of claim 1. Inglis further discloses wherein said center divider comprises a porous or nonporous (this encompasses every option) cylinder (see Fig. 3 Parts 30-31), said cylinder tube spanning all or part of the length of said vortex reactor (see Fig. 2 part 31) and being positioned in said vortex reactor without contacting an inner wall of said vortex reactor (see Fig. 2 Part 31), said cylinder being a solid or a tube (see Fig. 3 Parts 30-31). Incorporating the center divider of Inglis would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because Inglis offers the motivation of regulating the proportions of cold and hot air passing into the respective outlets; see Col. 2 Lines 14-16).
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hagemeister et al. (US-20060062702-A1), hereinafter “Hagemeister”, in view of Nicol et al. (US-6932858-B2), hereinafter “Nicol”, Inglis (US-4240261-A), and Bao et al. (US-20210276002-A1), hereinafter “Bao”.
Regarding Claim 2, Hagemeister, Nicol, and Inglis together disclose the vortex reactor of claim 1. Hagemeister does not explicitly teach the composition of the catalyst. However, Bao discloses wherein a catalytic material in a vortex reactor (catalyst particles within any suitable conversion zone… the conversion zone can be disposed within a vortex reactor; see [0034]) is selected from the group consisting of nickel, ruthenium, molybdenum, alumina, carbon, iron, and mixtures thereof (the support can also include… an aluminate…Al2O3; see [0066]).
Hagemeister and Bao are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of vortex reactors. Using catalytic material that contains alumina would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because Bao discloses the motivation of an alumina supported catalyst providing high yields (see [0003]).
Regarding Claim 3, Hagemeister, Nicol, and Inglis together disclose the vortex reactor of claim 1. Bao then discloses wherein said catalytic material is selected from the group consisting of nickel and alumina and mixtures thereof (the support can also include… an aluminate…Al2O3; see [0066]). This would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the same reasons stated in the claim 2 rejection.
Claims 4 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hagemeister et al. (US-20060062702-A1), hereinafter “Hagemeister”, in view of Nicol et al. (US-6932858-B2), hereinafter “Nicol”, Inglis (US-4240261-A), and Sams et al. (US-7931719-B2), hereinafter “Sams”.
Regarding Claim 4, Hagemeister, Nicol, and Inglis together disclose the vortex reactor of claim 1. Hagemeister further discloses a) from about one to about ten tangential fluid inputs (two inlets 108.1, which are opposite one another laterally; see [0096] and Fig. 1); d) said optional center divider dividing a flow through said fluid flow path into one to ten axially oriented streams, one to ten radially oriented streams, or a combination thereof.
Nicol further discloses about one to about ten cool temperature fluid exits (cold fluid outlet 13; see Col. 3 Lines 49-50) and from about one to about ten warm temperature fluid exits (hot fluid outlet 12; see Col. 3 Line 48 and Fig. 1). This modification would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because Hagemeister offers the motivation of separating a hot and cold fluid stream, thereby separating heavier components from lighter components (see Col. 3 Lines 17-26).
Modified Hagemeister does not explicitly teach the claimed optional helical fins. However, Sams discloses one or more inward facing helical fins (helical baffles is secured to the vortex tube internal wall surface; see Abstract), each inward facing helical fin independently having a fixed or variable pitch (designed with a pitch angle from 1 degree to 45 degrees; see Col. 5 Line 34), a fixed or variable thickness a fixed or variable height (these are natural characteristics of any 3-D object, and especially of a helical structure), and/or cross section that is rectangular, triangular, polygonal, or rounded (see Fig. 1 Parts 28 and 30).
Hagemeister and Sams are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of vortex devices. Incorporating the baffle, which is analogous to the claimed fins, of Sams would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because Sams offers the motivation of maintaining the spiraled centrifugal rotation of the wet gas stream within the interior of the vortex tube; see Col. 2 Lines 65-67).
Regarding Claim 9, Hagemeister, Nicol, and Inglis together disclose the vortex reactor of claim 8. Sams further discloses the claimed fins, as discussed in the claim 4-5 rejections. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the fins of Sams into the cylinder of modified Hagemeister because Sams offers the motivation of maintaining the spiraled centrifugal rotation of the wet gas stream within the interior of the vortex tube; see Col. 2 Lines 65-67).
Regarding Claim 10, Hagemeister, Nicol, Inglis, and Sams together disclose the vortex reactor of claim 9. Sams further discloses wherein the cross section of the helical fins is rectangular (see Fig. 1 Parts 28 and 30). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the fins of Sams into the cylinder of modified Hagemeister because Sams offers the motivation of maintaining the spiraled centrifugal rotation of the wet gas stream within the interior of the vortex tube; see Col. 2 Lines 65-67). The remaining limitations of claim 10 do not exceed those of claim 9. Please refer to the claim 9 rejection as the rejection of these limitations in claim 10 follow the same rationale.
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hagemeister et al. (US-20060062702-A1), hereinafter “Hagemeister”, in view of Nicol et al. (US-6932858-B2), hereinafter “Nicol”, Inglis (US-4240261-A), Sams et al. (US-7931719-B2), hereinafter “Sams”, and Hendal (US-2907174-A).
Regarding Claim 5, Hagemeister, Nicol, Inglis, and Sams together disclose the vortex reactor of claim 4. Sams further discloses said one or more optional inward facing helical fins being aligned with a fluid flow path in said vortex reactor (the spiral rings must rotate clockwise or counter-clockwise in the same way as the fluid is rotating into the tube; see Col. 5 Lines 43-45). This modification would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because Sams offers the motivation of sustaining the spin of the heavy phase on the tube walls to enhance degassing of the liquid phase (see Col. 6 Lines 29-31).
Hagemeister further discloses from about three to about seven tangential fluid inputs (two or more inlets; see [0057]). Hendal also discloses from about three to about seven tangential fluid inputs (The edge portion 35 of each plate and the adjacent edge 36 of the adjoining plate are spaced and together define an inwardly converging inlet duct; see Col. 5 Lines 25-28 and Fig. 7). Hendal and Hagemeister are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of vortex devices. This modification would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because Hagemeister offers the motivation of including additional inlets to meter in further reactants, catalyst, or initiators (see [0036]). Hendal also gives the motivation of attaining a higher angular momentum, resulting in an increased heat separation effect for a given entrance velocity through the inlet ports (see Col. 5 Lines 34-37).
The remaining limitations of claim 5 do not exceed those of claim 4. Please refer to the claim 4 rejection as the rejection of these limitations in claim 5 follow the same rationale.
Regarding Claim 6, Hagemeister, Nicol, Inglis, Sams, and Hendal together disclose the vortex reactor of claim 5. Hendal further disclose from about four to about six tangential fluid inputs (The edge portion 35 of each plate and the adjacent edge 36 of the adjoining plate are spaced and together define an inwardly converging inlet duct; see Col. 5 Lines 25-28 and Fig. 7). This would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the same reasons stated in the claim 5 rejection. Nicol further discloses from about one to about two cool temperature fluid exits (cold fluid outlet 13; see Col. 3 Lines 49-50). This modification would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the same reasons stated in the claim 4 rejection.
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hagemeister et al. (US-20060062702-A1), hereinafter “Hagemeister”, in view of Nicol et al. (US-6932858-B2), hereinafter “Nicol”, Inglis (US-4240261-A), and Hotto (WO-2016186762-A1).
Regarding Claim 11, Hagemeister, Nicol, and Inglis together disclose the vortex reactor of claim 1. Hagemeister does not explicitly teach an interior surface comprising a catalytic material. However, Hotto discloses a vortex tube comprising an interior surface, at least a portion of said interior surface comprising a catalytic material (a catalytic constituent may be disposed on the inside surface of the wall of the main tube segment). Hagemeister and Hotto are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of vortex devices. This modification would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because Hotto offers the motivation of attracting carbon-based constituents to the outer circumference of the passageway formed by the main inner tube (see Pg. 12, Para. 2).
Regarding Claim 12, Hagemeister, Nicol, and Inglis together disclose the vortex reactor of claim 1. Hotto discloses an article comprising a vortex reactor (Figure 4 is a schematic diagram of a vortex tube in an engine system; see Pg. 4 Para. 4), said article being a turbine engine, a reciprocating engine, or a heat exchanger (The engine may be a turbine; see Pg. 2 Para. 3). Using a vortex reactor in an engine would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because Hotto offers the motivation of the vortex enhancing the reforming and vortex gas separation simultaneously while also enhancing the harvesting and cooling of hydrogen (see Pg. 14 Para. 1), said hydrogen stream being capable as a fuel for a turbine or an engine (see Pg. 2 Para. 5).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALYSSA LEE KUYKENDALL whose telephone number is (571)270-3806. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday 9:00am-5:00pm.
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.
/A.L.K./Examiner, Art Unit 1774
/CLAIRE X WANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1774
Prosecution Insights