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 .
Summary
This is a non-final office action for application 18/246,233 filed on 22 March 2023. Claims 1-21 are currently pending in this application.
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 1-21 is 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 1 is indefinite because the limitation claiming, “the inner wall comprises distributing openings” is unclear. The antecedent basis for “the inner wall” is presented as “an inner wall of a hollow tube”, however according to the instant specification and drawings, the wall that is being referred to as comprising distributing openings is actually the outer wall of the hollow insert. For the purpose of examination, this limitation will be interpreted as “the hollow insert wall comprises distributing openings”.
Claims 2-21 are indefinite by virtue of their dependence on claim 1.
Claim 13 is indefinite because the term “tight” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “tight” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claims 14-15 are indefinite also by virtue of their dependence on claim 13.
Claim 15 is indefinite because the term, “a different gas intake duct” is unclear as an original gas intake duct was not previously presented. For the purpose of examination, this limitation is interpreted as “a gas intake duct”.
Claim 16 is indefinite for the same reason as claim 1.
Claim 18 is indefinite because the phrase “the distance-k” does not have sufficient antecedent basis.
Claim 19 is indefinite because it is unclear what the phrase “the latter” is referring to. For the purpose of examination, the limitation is being interpreted to read, “holding the hollow tube in a position…”. Additionally, the phrase “the second wall” is unclear as the closest antecedent basis for “second wall” is “second partition walls” in claim 1. However, the specification and drawings show that the bosses are disposed on the inner wall of the hollow tube. For the purpose of examination, “second wall” is interpreted as the inner wall.
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 1-16, 18, and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wei (CN-103990420-A).
Regarding Claim 1, Wei discloses a fixed-bed tubular reactor (tubular fixed-bed reactor; see [0010]) which extends, 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 of a hollow tube and an outer 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 one another by at least one first partition wall (see annotated Fig. 8 below), the at least one distribution chamber comprising a plurality of distribution compartments separated from one another by one or more second partition wall(s) (see Fig. 12 Part 3), each distribution compartment and the at least one collection chamber 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 hollow insert wall comprises distributing openings (see Fig. 8 Part 3, where the dashed lines represent the openings that fluid travels through) and at least one collecting opening (see Fig. 8 Part 4, where the dashed lines represent the openings that fluid travels through), which extend over a length-b (this is necessarily true for 3 dimensional structures), each distributing opening enabling the distribution of a gas capable of being admitted through an intake opening into a distribution compartment 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).
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 discloses the reactor according to claim 1, 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 3, Wei discloses the reactor according to claim 2, wherein the distribution chambers are 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 4, Wei discloses the reactor according to claim 2, wherein each distribution compartment is separated from the distributing space by a wall, called intake wall, in which the intake opening is formed (see annotated Fig. 13 below).
PNG
media_image2.png
783
786
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 5, Wei discloses the reactor according to claim 4, wherein each intake opening is shaped so as to impose a pressure drop on the gas capable of being admitted into the distribution compartment that is associated thereto (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 lengths reads on this limitation).
Regarding Claim 6, Wei discloses the reactor according to claim 5. The remaining limitations of this claim does not introduce any additional structural limitations beyond those recited in the claims in which this claim depends. The recited “reactive distance” merely corresponds to the distance between the distributing opening and collecting opening, which is necessarily present in the structures of Wei as two distinct and separate openings in 3-dimensional space will always have some measurable distance between them. Further, any pressure drop imposed by an intake opening in an annular flow path is necessarily dependent on such distance. The limitations of this claim are functional limitations that do not further limit the structure of the reactor, but merely set forth a manner of operating the reactor and a criterium for choosing measurements, not the measurements themselves. 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.
Regarding Claim 7, Wei discloses the reactor according to claim 6. The limitation claiming that “the pressure drop imposed by an intake opening is even higher as the reactive distance is short” is a functional limitation that does not further limit the structure of the apparatus, but merely sets forth a manner of operating the reactor, or merely states a consequence that varies with design choice. 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.
Regarding Claim 8, Wei discloses the reactor according to claim 7. The limitation claiming, “wherein the pressure drop associated to a given intake opening is adjusted by the size of said intake opening” is a functional limitation that does not further limit the structure of the apparatus, but merely sets forth a manner of operating the reactor, or merely stating a consequence that varies with design choice. 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.
Regarding Claim 9, Wei discloses the reactor according to claim 7, wherein a porous element is accommodated within the intake 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 on fluid of a porous element).
Regarding Claim 10, Wei discloses the reactor according to claim 9, wherein the porous element may comprise at least one of the 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 11, Wei discloses the reactor according to claim 2, wherein the distributing space comprises a volumetric section into which the intake openings open (see annotated Fig. 13 below), said volumetric section being connected to a gas supply duct (“The raw material enters the reactor from the raw material inlet 9”; see [0057] and “gas and/or liquid reactant streams; see [0005]).
PNG
media_image3.png
727
730
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 12, Wei discloses the reactor according to claim 2, wherein the distributing space comprises volumetric subsections (multiple reaction tubes 1; see [0057]), at least one intake opening opens into each of which (The raw material enters the reactor from the raw material inlet 9, then enters the inlet distribution chamber 3 through the material inlet 2 of each reaction tube; see [0057]).
Regarding Claim 13, Wei discloses the reactor according to claim 12, wherein the volumetric subsections form annular intake spaces (for all intents and purposes, distribution chamber 3 is a volumetric subsection that behaves as an intake space. See Fig. 14 which shows an annular arrangement of reaction tubes 1 each of which includes a distribution chamber 3) disposed concentrically (each distribution chamber 3 surrounds the same center point) and separated by annular walls (see Fig. 14, it can be seen that the borders or walls of part 1, and therefore part 3, extend circumferentially around the center and radially separate the intake regions from one another).
Regarding Claim 14, Wei discloses the reactor according to claim 13, wherein several intake openings open into at least one of the volumetric subsections (the raw material enters the reactor from the raw material inlet 9, then enters the inlet distribution chamber 3 through the material inlet 2 of each reaction tube; see [0057]).
Regarding Claim 15, Wei discloses the reactor according to claim 14, wherein each of the volumetric subsections is connected to a gas intake duct (multiple reaction tubes… the raw material enters from the raw material inlet 9, then enters the inlet distribution chamber 3 through the material inlet 2 of each reaction tube; see [0057]; and “Gas and/or liquid reactant streams”; see [0005]).
Regarding Claim 16, Wei discloses the reactor according to claim 1, wherein said reactor is provided with a porous film covering the hollow insert 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 18, Wei discloses the reactor according to claim 1, 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), the height being comprised between 0.2 times and 10 times a distance separating a distributing opening from an immediately adjacent collecting opening, measured along the outer surface of the outer wall (see annotated Fig. 1 below which shows the measured distances of the figure, measured by hand. The height was measured to be 3 inches and the separating distance as 1 inch, which is a ratio of 3).
PNG
media_image4.png
616
475
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 20, Wei discloses the reactor according to claim 1, 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 21, Wei discloses 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 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wei (CN-103990420-A) in view of Ramler et al. (US-10335759-B2), hereinafter “Ramler”.
Regarding Claim 17, Wei discloses the reactor according to claim 1, 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 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wei (CN-103990420-A) in view of Lee (US-4585059-A).
Regarding Claim 19, Wei discloses 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 diametrally 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