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 .
Response to Amendments
Applicant’s amendment, filed 21 August 2026, has been fully considered. It is acknowledged that Claims 1-4 and 12 have been amended, and claim 11 has been cancelled by Applicant. Per the amendment, the U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of claims 2, 4 and 12 are withdrawn. The previously presented U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of claim 3 is maintained but the explanation is updated in view of the amendment. Further, the amendment is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows: “a size of the reactive path” in claim 3, “size of the given distribution opening” in claim 4.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 21 August 2026, with respect to the rejection of claim 1 under 35 USC § 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of Koves et al. (US-6059961-A).
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation is: centering means in claim 12.
Because this claim limitation is not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it is not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this limitation interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation does not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 3-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Specifically, “a size of the reactive path” in claim 3, “size of the given distribution opening” in claim 4 are not supported by the original disclosure. Decreasing “a size” of the reactive path is not mentioned in the specification. Further, the specification supports “adjusting a length of the given distribution opening”, as newly recited in claim 4, but it does not support a limitation broadly claiming the adjustment of “the size” of the given distribution opening.
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 3-7 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 3 is indefinite because the phrase “when a size of the reactive path decreases” is unclear because the claim does not describe what physical dimension or parameter of the reactive path constitutes the recited “size”. The specification describes the reactive path as the path of the gas in the annular space between a distributing opening and a collecting opening and states that the reactive path may decrease but does not identify a dimensional parameter constituting a “size” of the reactive path. Accordingly, it remains unclear whether the recited “size” refers to a length, cross-sectional dimension or area, volume, or another characteristic of the reactive path, such that the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be determined with reasonable certainty.
Claims 5-7 are indefinite by virtue of their dependence on claim 3.
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 1-9, and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wei (CN-103990420-A) in view of Koves et al. (US-6059961-A), hereinafter “Koves”.
Regarding Claim 1, Wei discloses a fixed-bed tubular reactor which extends (tubular fixed-bed reactor; see [0010]), according to a longitudinal axis, between a first end and a second end (extending longitudinally parallel to the axial direction of the reactor; see [0011]), said reactor comprises a catalytic powder (10-40 mesh ZSM-5 type MTP catalyst; see [0063]) bed confined in an annular space delimited by an inner wall, called first wall, of a hollow tube and an outer wall, called second wall, of a hollow insert disposed coaxially in the hollow tube (see Fig. 8, Parts 1 (reaction tube), 6 (catalyst bed), and 3-4 (chambers)), the hollow insert comprises at least one distribution chamber (inlet distribution chamber 3; see [0043]) and at least one collection chamber (outlet collection chamber 4; see [0043]), separated from each other by at least one partition wall (see annotated Fig. 8 below), and comprising, respectively, a gas intake opening at the first end and a gas discharge opening at the second end (reaction stream enters the inlet distribution chamber 3 through the stream inlet 2, then enters the catalyst chamber 6… fluid after the reaction is collected through the outlet collection chamber 4, and then flows out of the reaction tube through the stream outlet 5; see [0043]), the at least one distribution chamber is provided with a plurality of distributing openings (see Fig. 12 Part 3) whereas the at least one collection chamber is provided with a collecting opening (see Fig. 8 Part 4, where the dashed lines represent the openings that fluid travels through), the plurality of distributing openings and the collecting opening of each collection chamber are formed at the second wall (see Fig. 8 Part 3 and Part 4, where the dashed lines represent the openings that fluid travels through) and extend parallel to the longitudinal axis (see Fig. 1, Parts 3 and 4), the distributing openings of a distribution chamber enabling the distribution of a gas capable of being admitted through the intake opening from said distribution chamber towards the annular space and the collecting opening enabling the collection of the gas distributed in the annular space by the collection chamber (the reaction stream enters the inlet distribution chamber 3 through the stream inlet 2 of the reaction tube 1, then enters the catalyst chamber 6, passes laterally through the catalyst fixed bed, contacts the catalyst and reacts therein, and the fluid after the reaction is collected through the outlet collection chamber 4, and then flows out of the reaction tube through the stream outlet 5), wherein the inner wall has no opening on a first section and a second section (see Fig. 1 Part 1, which is the inner wall of the reaction tube as defined in claim 1 and has no openings) which extend from, respectively, the first end and the second end (the inner wall extends from the top to the bottom of the reactor), the first section and the second section overlapping with the powder bed over a height (the inner wall 1 extends along the height of the catalyst bed 6).
Wei does not explicitly teach the height being comprised between 0.2 times and 10 times the distance separating a distributing opening from an immediately adjacent collecting opening, and measured along an outer surface of the outer wall. However, Koves discloses wherein the second wall has no opening on a first section and a second section which extend from, respectively, the first end and the second end, the first section and the second section overlapping with the powder bed over a height (Inlet screen 22 has an imperforate portion 16 located above line A. A portion of the flow from distribution Space 26 flows as a Seal gas upwardly along flow line 17 and across conical catalyst surface 13 as shown by flow lines 19. Seal gas flow continues downward through an upper portion of bed 20 between imperforate partition Section 16 and an imperforate partition Section 21 of an inner partition 24. Seal gas flow passing downwardly through upper portion of catalyst bed; see Col. 11 Lines 5-13). Koves does not explicitly discloses the height being comprised between 0.2 times and 10 times the distance separating a distributing opening from an immediately adjacent collecting opening, and measured along an outer surface of the outer wall. However, Koves recognizes the extent of an imperforate or blanked-off region adjacent to a catalyst bed as a variable affecting gas-flow distribution through the catalyst bed, and expressly teaches selecting the extent of the imperforate region to control gas flow through different portions of the catalyst bed (“Blank-off 33 can also control gas flow over bed 27 itself by providing more gas flow through to the higher portions of Section of bed 27. Increased gas flow to the higher elevation portions of upper bed 27 increases the heating of the catalyst and reduces temperature Swings at junction 25. Typically blank-off section 33 will provide an imperforate band over a height of at least 2 inches with a maximum height at least 3 inches below the top of bed 27”; see Col. 12 Lines 43-51; and “The effectiveness of the gas seal provided by this invention is primarily a function of the blank-off region”; see Col. 13 Lines 64-65; and “a blank off region that began at the level of the outlet partition blank-off and extended upward along the inlet partition for about 6 inches… Although both models were run at the same gas flow temperature the increased Seal gas flow through the perforated blank-off region Substantially raised the average temperature at the Screen junction”; see Col. 14 Lines 62 – Col. 15 Line 4), clearly establishing that the height of an imperforated section is a known result effective variable. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the height of the opening-free section through routine experimentation to obtain a desired gas-flow distribution, including selecting a height falling within the claimed range of between 0.2 and 10 times the distance separating a distributing opening from an immediately adjacent collecting opening. Optimization of an art-recognized result-effective variable to determine a workable or optimum value would have been obvious absent a showing of criticality or unexpected results associated with the claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05.
The limitation claiming the catalyst bed to be powder is a functional limitation that does not further limit the structure of the reactor, but merely sets forth a manner of operating said reactor. The Courts have held that apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art in terms of structure, not function. See In re Danley, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959); and Hewlett-Packard Co. V. Bausch and Lomb, Inc., 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (see MPEP §§ 2114 and 2173.05(g)). The manner of operating an apparatus does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art, if the prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim. See Ex Parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (BPAI 1987). If the prior art structure is capable of performing the function, then it meets the claim. In this case, the prior art uses granular catalyst particles and is therefore capable of being loaded with powder catalyst. Functional limitations that do not limit the structure need not be given further due consideration in determining patentability of an apparatus.
Wei discloses the second partition walls in a different embodiment than the rest of the claimed limitations. 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 second partition walls into the other embodiment so that the reaction stream passes through the catalyst fixed bed in a transverse direction perpendicular to the reactor axis (see [0022]).
PNG
media_image1.png
276
335
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 2, Wei and Koves together disclose the reactor according to claim 1. Wei further discloses wherein each distributing opening of the plurality of distributing openings of the at least one distribution chamber is shaped so as to impose a pressure drop on the gas likely to be admitted into the distribution chamber (Any opening that allows gas flow and has finite dimensions necessarily imposes a pressure drop due to viscous and inertial losses. Therefore, an opening of any non-infinite area and non-zero length meets this limitation).
Regarding the limitation claiming, “so that the flow rate of said gas depends on a path, called reactive path, of said gas in the annular space between the considered distributing opening and the collecting opening”, this is a functional limitation that does not further define the structure of the apparatus, but merely sets forth a manner in which the apparatus functions. The Courts have held that apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art in terms of structure, not function. See In re Danley, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959); and Hewlett-Packard Co. V. Bausch and Lomb, Inc., 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (see MPEP §§ 2114 and 2173.05(g)). The manner of operating an apparatus does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art, if the prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim. See Ex Parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (BPAI 1987). Functional limitations that do not limit the structure need not be given further due consideration in determining patentability of an apparatus. Further, gas flowing between the defined openings necessarily travels along a flow path defined by the structure of the apparatus. The flow rate of a gas through such a system is determined by the pressure differential and resistance along that flow path. Flow rate in any fluid system is determined by the overall flow resistance, which depends on path length, geometry, friction, pressure differential, etc., and this relationship exists regardless of whether the opening is specially shaped. Not only is this limitation a functional limitation that does not require further structure, it is also merely describing a relationship already known as a fundamental statement of basic fluid mechanics.
Regarding Claim 3, Wei and Koves together disclose the reactor according to claim 2. Regarding the limitation claiming, “wherein the pressure drop increases when a size of the reactive path decreases” pressure drop is always governed by resistance, which depends on geometry. For example, pressure drop increases when cross-sectional area decreases, hydraulic diameter decreases, constrictions increase, etc. This is a general relationship arising from flow resistance, not a uniquely defined reactor structure. The claim does not recite any particular structural arrangement, any specific geometry, or any defined dimensional relationship. It merely describes a functional relationship.
Regarding Claim 4, Wei and Koves together disclose the reactor according to claim 2. Regarding the limitation claiming “wherein the pressure drop associated with a given distributing opening is adjusted by adjusting a section size of the given distribution opening and/or adjusting a length of the given distribution opening”, this is merely a functional relationship and does not specify any particular configuration or dimensional relationship. The claim does not provide objective boundaries for determining when or why the pressure drop is “adjusted”. Further, Wei discloses distribution openings having defined geometry, which naturally includes flow area and length. Pressure drop through an opening is determined by these geometric properties. The claimed limitation describes the relationship between pressure drop and the geometry of the openings, rather than requiring any additional structural feature. The claim therefore does not recite any specific dimensional relationship or structural configuration that would distinguish over the prior art apparatus.
Regarding Claim 5, Wei and Koves together disclose the reactor according to claim 3. Wei further discloses wherein a porous element is accommodated within the distributing opening (the inlet distribution chamber and the outlet collection chamber can be suitable forms commonly used in the art, such as porous tubes, porous plates; see [0024]), the porous element having a porosity allowing imposing the pressure drop (this is a natural consequence/effect of a porous element on a fluid).
Regarding Claim 6, Wei and Koves together disclose the reactor according to claim 5. Wei further discloses wherein the porous element may comprise at least materials selected from among: a fibrous material, in particular wool, a braid or a metal or ceramic fabric (the inlet distribution chamber and the outlet collection chamber can be suitable forms commonly used in the art, such as porous tubes, porous plates… and the materials can be suitable materials commonly used in the art, such as metals, alloys, ceramics or glass; see [0024]).
Regarding Claim 7, Wei and Koves together disclose the reactor according to claim 3. Wei further discloses wherein said reactor is provided with a porous film covering the second wall (the inlet distribution chamber and the outlet collection chamber can be suitable forms commonly used in the art, such as porous tubes; see [0024]; it is understood that the distribution chamber and collection chamber together comprise the hollow insert, and a porous tube necessarily has a porous surface layer or film), and arranged so as to prevent the passage of powder from the catalytic powder bed through the distributing openings and/or the collecting opening (this is a natural consequence of the hollow insert being made of porous material and/or a film covering the hollow insert).
Regarding Claim 8, Wei and Koves together disclose the reactor according to claim 2. Wei further discloses wherein the at least one distribution chamber is sealed at the second end, and the at least one collection chamber is sealed at the first end (see Fig. 13, which shows the inlet (part 2) to the distribution chambers (Part 3) at the top of the reactor while the outlet (part 5) of the collection chamber (part 4) is at the bottom. Fig. 13 does not show or indicate any other openings, meaning that at the opposing end, the distribution and collection chambers are closed).
Regarding Claim 9, Wei and Koves together disclose the reactor according to claim 1. Wei further discloses wherein said reactor comprises, at the first end and at the second end, respectively, a distributing space and a collecting space between which the hollow insert is disposed (see Fig. 13, which shows inlet 9 (a distribution space), which flows into the inlet distribution chamber 3, at the top of the reactor, outlets 5 and 12 (collection spaces) at the bottom of the reactor, which are outlets for distribution chamber 4, with the fixed catalyst bed 6 disposed therebetween).
Regarding Claim 13, Wei and Koves together disclose the reactor according to claim 1. Wei further discloses wherein the collecting opening and the distributing openings have a width comprised between 1/100 and ½ of the diameter of the hollow tube (see Fig. 1, wherein the measured distance of the gap in the dashed line (which represents collection and/or distributing openings) is 2mm and the measured distance of the diameter of the hollow tube (part 1) is 100mm, which equals a ratio of 1/50. It is noted that the exact measurements will change depending on how big/small the figure is printed or how big/small it appears on the screen, but the relative dimensions will maintain a ratio of 1/50).
Regarding Claim 14, Wei and Koves together disclose the reactor according to claim 1. The limitation claiming that the hollow insert forms a single-piece part is merely a matter of engineering choice. The courts have held, “that the use of a one-piece construction instead of the structure disclosed in [the prior art] would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice.” See In reLarson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wei (CN-103990420-A) in view of Koves et al. (US-6059961-A), hereinafter “Koves”, and Ramler et al. (US-10335759-B2), hereinafter “Ramler”.
Regarding Claim 10, Wei and Koves together disclose the reactor according to claim 1. Wei further discloses wherein the catalytic powder is retained in the annular space (see Fig. 8, Parts 1 (reaction tube), 6 (catalyst bed), and 3-4 (chambers)).
Wei does not explicitly disclose a spring forming a seal. However, Ramler discloses catalytic powder being retained by a seal made of fibrous material (mesh to retain the catalyst in the reactor; see Col. 8 Line 49), the seal being held in compression against the catalytic powder by a spring (metal foam and mesh were fitted… then affixed to the reactor using bolts and a spring loaded “C” gasket to provide sealing; see Col. 8 Lines 46-48), the spring abutting against a mechanically linked holding plate of the tube (metal foam is analogous to the holding plate).
Wei and Ramler are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of catalytic reactors. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Wei by incorporating the teachings of Ramler and including a spring compression fit. Doing so would enable catalyst retention (see Ramler Col. 8 Line 49).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wei (CN-103990420-A) in view of Koves et al. (US-6059961-A), hereinafter “Koves”, and Lee (US-4585059-A).
Regarding Claim 12, Wei and Koves together disclose the reactor according to claim 1.
Wei does not explicitly teach centering means. However, Lee discloses wherein the hollow insert is provided with centering means holding the hollow insert in a position coaxial with the hollow tube (inner tube being held substantially concentric with the outer tube; see Abstract), the centering means comprise bosses formed on the hollow tube (held substantially concentric within the outer tube by a plurality of pairs of diametrically opposed depressions or dimples formed in the peripheral surface of the outer tube at regular intervals. Each depression or dimple projects inwardly such as to engage and indent the peripheral surface of the inner tube; see Abstract).
Wei and Lee are both considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of concentric tubes for chemical processes. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Wei by incorporating the teachings of Lee and providing bosses to center the hollow insert. Doing so would have offered coaxial support (see Lee, Abstract).
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