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 Amendment
Claims 1-8 are pending. Claims 1-7 are amended. New claim 8 is entered.
The previous rejection of claims 1-2 under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(2) is withdrawn, necessitated by the Applicant amendment.
The previous rejection of claims 3-7 under 35 U.S.C. 103 are withdrawn, necessitated by the Applicant amendment.
However, after reconsideration of the record new rejection are entered, necessitated by the Applicant amendments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 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 –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Park et al (KR 2018/0065775A, English Translation used for the rejection).
With respect to claim 1, Park discloses a reactor comprising:
a mixing chamber formed as a circular tube (see page 3, lines 1-35 of the English translation and figure 1000);
a plurality of first injection nozzles (H1) connected to the mixing chamber while maintaining a predetermined spacing along a circumferential direction and configured to inject a first mixture (see figure 200 and 400, (6) H1 holes, see page 3, lines 1-35) ,
wherein the plurality of first injection nozzles are connected in an axial direction of the mixing chamber to inject the first mixture in the axial direction (see figure 200 and 400, H1 holes inject fluid along the axial direction),
an annular chamber disposed spaced apart from an outer side of the mixing chamber (see figure 1000, section 20, see page 4 lines 1-35, of the English translation);
a plurality of second injection nozzles (H2 and H3) configured to connect the annular chamber to the mixing chamber to inject a second mixture supplied to the annular chamber in a direction intersecting the injection of the first mixture (see page 3, last paragraph and page 4, lines 1-35), wherein the plurality of second injection nozzles (H2 and H3) are connected to the mixing chamber in a diameter direction to inject the second mixture in the diameter direction (see figure 200, H2 and H3, direct fluid in diameter direction); and
an outlet pipe (300) connected to the mixing chamber to discharge a reactant produced by mixing the first and second mixtures in the mixing chamber (see figure 1000)(see page 2 lines 1-10, of the English translation),
the plurality of second injection nozzles are provided between neighboring first injection nozzles to be spaced apart from the first injection nozzles by a predetermined angle ɵ in the circumferential direction (see figure 200).
With respect to claim 2, Park discloses the limitation of claim 1. Park further discloses wherein:
the predetermined angle 0 is configured to prevent interference between the first mixture injected in the axial direction and the second mixture injected in the diameter direction (see abstract, the reactor is design in a way to minimize side reactions by minimizing the stagnation zone).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 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(s) 3 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park as applied to claim 1 above.
With respect to claim 3, Park discloses the limitation of claim 1.
Park does not disclose wherein the second injection nozzles are provided in the same number as the first injection nozzle.
However, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Park in a way that the second injection nozzles are provided in the same number as the first injection nozzle, said modification would be an obvious manner of design choice, that does not differentiate the claimed reactor from the prior art.
With respect to claim 7, Park discloses the limitation of claim 1. Park does not disclose the first mixture is a mixture of toluene diamine (TDA) and a solvent, and wherein the second mixture is a mixture of carbon dichloride oxide (CDC) and a solvent, and wherein the reactant is mono carbamoyl chloride salt (MCCS).
Examiner notes, apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. V. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987)
Therefore, since Park discloses all the claimed limitation of the claimed reactor, Park reads on the claimed limitation of claim 7.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/19/2026, with respect to claims 1-3 and 7 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to claims 1-3 and 7, the Examiner understands Applicant remarks to be:
Applicant respectfully submits that Claim 1 is patentable because cited reference does not disclose at least the above-emphasized features, in combination with other elements of the claim.
In particular, it is noted that the reactor of the subject invention is characterized by comprising a plurality of first injection nozzles injecting a first mixture in the axial direction and a plurality of second injection nozzles injecting a second mixture in the diameter direction.
With respect to the Argument above, the Examiner has updated the rejection to clarify how the closest prior art Park (KR 2018/0065775A) teaches the limitation above.
“Notably, the second injection nozzles are provided between neighboring first injection nozzles, spaced apart by a predetermined angle 0 in the circumferential direction.”
With respect to the Argument above, it is noted that the Applicant has not claimed a specific angle, as such any angle and/or position of the first and second injection nozzles, meet the Applicant claimed limitations. Thus, the claimed invention is anticipated by Park.
Therefore, the specific arrangement of the subject invention prevents interference and mutual overlap between the first and second mixtures when they are injected into the mixing chamber, thereby significantly reducing the differential pressures at the inlets, i.e., 11 and 41 of Fig. 2 (as demonstrated in Table 1 of the specification).
In response to applicant's argument that the specific arrangement of the subject invention prevents interference and mutual overlap, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Currently the Applicant has not differentiated the reactor from the closest prior art Park.
The angles ɵ1 and ɵ2 mentioned in Park refer to the vertical angle and the sidewall inclination angle of the internal structure (45) installed on the partition plate (400) (see paragraph [0032] of Park). They do not represent a circumferential spacing angle between the injection nozzles as claimed in the present invention.
With respect to Argument above, after reconsideration of the record, the Examiner finds Applicant remark to be persuasive. Thus, the rejections of claims 4-6 are withdrawn.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-6 and 8 are 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: with respect to claims 4-6 and 8, the claims relate to specific angles between the first and second injection nozzles to prevent mutual overlap between the first mixture and the second mixture in the mixing chamber and reduce differential pressures at inlets of the first and second mixtures.
The closest prior art, Park does not teach or suggest to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date to modify the specific angles between the first and second injection nozzles to prevent mutual overlap between the first mixture and the second mixture in the mixing chamber and reduce differential pressures at inlets of the first and second mixtures.
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 JUAN C VALENCIA whose telephone number is (571)270-7709. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10am - 6pm.
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, Prem C Singh can be reached at 571 272-6381. 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.
/JUAN C VALENCIA/ Examiner, Art Unit 1771
/PREM C SINGH/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1771
Prosecution Insights