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 .
The amendment filed on 2/20/2026 has been entered.
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 1-6 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson (US 5,173,093).
Regarding claim 1, Johnson discloses a chemical feed distributor (fig.1-8) comprising: a chemical feed inlet that passes a chemical feed stream into the chemical feed distributor (via 14, see fig.4A), and a body comprising one or more walls and a plurality of chemical feed outlets (see outlets 20 on body 16), wherein the one or more walls define an elongated chemical feed stream flow path (see fig.4A), wherein the plurality of chemical feed outlets are spaced on the one or more walls along at least a portion of the length of the elongated chemical feed stream flow path (see fig.4A), and wherein the plurality of chemical feed outlets are operable to pass the chemical feed stream out of the chemical feed distributor and into a vessel (10); and wherein the elongated chemical feed stream flow path defined by the one or more walls comprises an upstream fluid flow path portion along a first segment of the distance of the elongated chemical feed stream flow path starting from the chemical feed inlet and a downstream fluid flow path portion along a second segment of the distance of the elongated chemical feed stream flow path, and wherein the one or more walls are positioned such that the average cross-sectional area of the upstream fluid flow path portion is greater than the average cross-sectional area of the downstream fluid flow path portion (see various cross section of 16).
Johnson is silent in disclosing the chemical feed stream is gaseous. Instead Johnson teaches the chemical feed stream is a liquid/gas desulfurization process (col 2, ll.56-63). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the application to modify the content of the feed distributer from liquid to a gaseous, since inclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims.” In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935) (as restated in In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963)). In this instant application operating the feeding distributer with gas will not produce an unexpected result than using “liquid/gas” as a medium cited by Johnson.
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Johnson discloses the minimum cross-sectional area of the elongated chemical feed stream flow path is less than 50% of the maximum cross-sectional area of the elongated chemical feed stream flow path (see segments of 16 in fig.4A).
Regarding claim 3, Johnson is silent in disclosing the chemical feed outlet that is most downstream relative to the elongated chemical feed stream flow path is positioned within two inches of an end wall defining a termination point of the elongated chemical feed stream flow path. Instead, teaches the chemical feed outlet (20) that is most downstream relative to the elongated chemical feed stream flow path is positioned near an end wall defining a termination point of the elongated chemical feed stream flow path (see fig.4A). At the time the invention was made, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the end chemical feed outlet of Johnson to be positioned within two inches of the end wall defining the termination point of the elongated chemical feed stream flow path, since Applicant has neither placed criticality on the location of the end outlet nor has disclosed that such a location provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem other than being able to dispense any remaining amount of the chemical feed stream into the vessel in which Johnson provides the same end result by placing at least one outlet near the end wall (see fig.4A). Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the device of Johson to obtain the invention as specified in claim 3 because such a modification would have been considered an obvious and clear alteration to the prior art of Johnson.
Regarding claim 4, Johnson is silent in disclosing the chemical feed outlet that is most downstream relative to the elongated chemical feed stream flow path is positioned within a distance equal to the inner diameter of the elongated chemical feed stream flow path at the termination point of the elongated chemical feed stream flow path. Instead, Johnson teaches the chemical feed outlet that is most downstream relative to the elongated chemical feed stream flow path is positioned within a distance approximately equal to the inner diameter of the elongated chemical feed stream flow path at the termination point of the elongated chemical feed stream flow path (see location of the last outlet 20 from the end wall relative to the diameter of the elongated chemical feed stream flow path 16 shown in fig.4). At the time the invention was made, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to make the distance between the last outlet to the end wall equal to the inner diameter of the elongated chemical feed stream flow path, since Applicant has neither placed criticality on such an equal distance nor has disclosed that such an equal distance with diameter provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem other than being able to dispense any remaining amount of the chemical feed stream into the vessel in which the device of Johnson provides the same end result by providing such an inner diameter and distance (see fig.4A). Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Johnson to obtain the invention as specified in claim 4 because such a modification would have been considered an obvious and clear alteration to the prior art of Johnson.
Regarding claim 5, Johnson discloses the one or more walls comprise a first pipe, a frustum shaped transition section, and a second pipe, wherein the first pipe is in contact with the frustum shaped transition section and the frustum shaped transition section is in contact with the second pipe (see shape of 16 in fig.4A).
Regarding claim 6, Johnson discloses the center axis of the first pipe and the center axis of the second pipe are parallel (see fig.4A).
Regarding claim 14, Johnson discloses a method for distributing a chemical feed (fig.1-8), the method comprising: passing a chemical feed stream through a chemical feed inlet into a chemical feed distributor (from 14 to 16), the chemical feed distributor comprises a body (16, see fig.4A) comprising one or more walls and a plurality of chemical feed outlets (20), wherein the one or more walls define an elongated chemical feed stream flow path, wherein the plurality of chemical feed outlets are spaced on the one or more walls along at least a portion of the length of the elongated chemical feed stream flow path, wherein the elongated chemical feed stream flow path defined by the one or more walls comprises an upstream fluid flow path portion along a first segment of the distance of the elongated chemical feed stream flow path starting from the chemical feed inlet and a downstream fluid flow path portion along a second segment of the distance of the chemical feed stream flow path (see shape of 16 from 14 to last outlet 20 in fig.4A), and wherein the one or more walls are positioned such that the average cross-sectional area of the upstream fluid flow path portion is greater than the average cross-sectional area of the downstream fluid flow path portion (see fig.4A); and passing the chemical feed stream along the elongated chemical feed stream flow path and out of the chemical feed distributor and into a vessel through the plurality of chemical feed outlets (into 10, see fig.7).
Johnson is silent in disclosing the chemical feed stream is gaseous. Instead Johnson teaches the chemical feed stream is a liquid/gas desulfurization process (col 2, ll.56-63). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the application to modify the content of the feed distributer from liquid to a gaseous, since inclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims.” In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935) (as restated in In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963)). In this instant application operating the feeding distributer with gas will not produce an unexpected result than using “liquid/gas” as a medium cited by Johnson.
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claims 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson (US 5,173,093) in view of Guo (CN 202265546 U).
Johnson is silent in disclosing the chemical feed distributor having one or more walls comprise a first wall and a second wall with an inner diameter larger than or equal to the first wall, wherein the second wall surrounds the first wall, wherein an interior surface of first wall defines the upstream fluid flow path portion, and wherein an exterior surface of the first wall and an interior surface of the second wall define the downstream fluid flow path portion; the downstream portion of the elongated chemical feed stream flow path surrounds the upstream portion of the elongated chemical feed stream flow path; and the first wall comprises a first shaped pipe and the second wall comprises a second shaped pipe. However, Guo teaches the commonality of having a chemical feed distributor with one or more walls comprise a first wall and a second wall with an inner diameter larger than or equal to the first wall, wherein the second wall surrounds the first wall, wherein an interior surface of first wall defines the upstream fluid flow path portion, and wherein an exterior surface of the first wall and an interior surface of the second wall define the downstream fluid flow path portion; the downstream portion of the elongated chemical feed stream flow path surrounds the upstream portion of the elongated chemical feed stream flow path; and the first wall comprises a first shaped pipe and the second wall comprises a second shaped pipe (see tubes 4 and 6 and shape of the tubes in fig.1). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the application to modify the tubes of chemical feed distributor of Johnson to the shapes as taught by Guo, in order to improve the feed and catalyst contact area and reducing catalytic device reaction raw coke quantity ([0005], see Guo).
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson (US 5,173,093) in view of Kopp (US 2006/0102213).
Johnson is silent in disclosing the chemical feed distributor having a chemical feed stream guide inside the body of the chemical feed distributor, wherein the chemical feed stream guide decreases the cross-sectional area along a portion of the elongated chemical feed stream flow path along the length of the chemical feed distributor; and the average cross-sectional area of the chemical feed stream guide is greater in the downstream fluid flow path portion than in the upstream fluid flow path portion. However, Kopp teaches the commonality of having a chemical feed distributor
having a chemical feed stream guide inside the body of the chemical feed distributor, wherein the chemical feed stream guide decreases the cross-sectional area along a portion of the elongated chemical feed stream flow path along the length of the chemical feed distributor; and the average cross-sectional area of the chemical feed stream guide is greater in the downstream fluid flow path portion than in the upstream fluid flow path portion (see insert 3 in the stream guide). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the application to modify the tubes of chemical feed distributor of Johnson as such to include a stream guide as taught by Kopp, in order to reduce the longitudinal direction from the fluid feed opening ([0012], see Kopp).
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson (US 5,173,093) in view of Sattar (US 2004/0031728).
Johnson is silent in disclosing the chemical feed distributor comprises a refractory material lining the one or more walls of the body; and a thickness of a refractory material lining the one or more walls defining the downstream fluid flow path portion of the elongated chemical feed stream flow path is greater than a thickness of are refractory material lining the one or more walls defining the upstream fluid flow path portion of the elongated chemical feed stream flow path. However, Sattar teaches the commonality of the chemical feed distributor having a refractory material lining the one or more walls of the body; and the thickness of refractory material lining the one or more walls defining the downstream fluid flow path portion of the elongated chemical feed stream flow path is greater than the thickness of refractory material lining the one or walls defining the upstream fluid flow path portion of the elongated chemical feed stream flow path (paragraph [0037] addresses the application of the refractory lining material 44 and its various thickness along tube 12, see fig.2). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the application to add refractory lining as taught by Sattar to the feed distributor of Johnson, in order to increase equipment reliability by enabling safer, longer-lasting operation and reducing operational costs by decreasing downtime and maintenance needs.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 15 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the above claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Bob Zadeh whose telephone number is (571)270-5201. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-4pm E.
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, Paul Durand can be reached at (571) 272-4459. 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.
/BOB ZADEH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3754