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 .
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
With respect to claim 2, the claim recites “substantially all” which renders the claim indefinite inasmuch as it is not at all clear what the intended scope of such limitation is. Do 70% of the nozzles qualify as “substantially all”? Or 85%? Or 90%? What is the minimum percentage of total nozzles fitted with a metal filter that would still qualify as “substantially all”?
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.
Claims 1-3 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Engstrom (US 4,841,884).
With respect to claims 1-3 and 7, Engstrom discloses a system comprising a plurality of flow passages (14) in fluid communication with a gas source (see Engstrom, Fig. 1), each flow passage (14) disposed therein with a nozzle (11), wherein at least a portion of the nozzle (11) being fitted with a sintered metal filter (16), and wherein multiple nozzles may be used in such arrangement (see Engstrom, column 2, lines 3-4). All of such nozzles may be fitted with such metal filter (see Engstrom, entire disclosure). The sintered metal filter may be fitted across an entire cross section of the nozzle to which it is fitted (see Engstrom, Fig. 5). Such system may be disposed in a vessel containing a fluidized bed of solid particles (see Engstrom, column 2, lines 3-4).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Engstrom (US 4,841,884).
With respect to claims 4 and 5, see discussion supra at paragraph 7. Engstrom is not specifically limited with respect to the exact type of nozzle (single stage, two stage) to be used (see Engstrom, entire disclosure). Thus, the person having ordinary skill in the art would readily recognize that any suitable nozzle could be used within the disclosed system of Engstrom. “[I]n considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom.” In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826, 159 USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968).
Claims 6 and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Engstrom (US 4,841,884) in view of Rubrow (K. L. Rubrow et al., Hot Gas Filtration Using Sintered Metal Filters, Mott Corporation (2006)).
With respect to claims 6 and 8-10, see discussion supra at paragraph 7. Engstrom discloses wherein the sintered metal filter may encompass virtually the entire nozzle, including the sides and top (see Engstrom, Figs. 1-7). Moreover, it is already known to use systems such as that disclosed by Engstrom in various units of a catalytic cracking process (see Rubow, Fig. 10 and accompanying text). Finally, Engstrom discloses wherein the gas source may be air (see Engstrom, column 1, line 8-13).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure: Owen (US 5,464,528) and Motoki (US 5,925,156). Owen and Motoki both disclose the use of sintered metal filters in conjunction with various chemical process units (see Owen, Abstract; and column 11, lines 34-42) (see Motoki, Abstract).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Randy Boyer whose telephone number is (571) 272-7113. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday from 10:00 A.M. to 7:00 P.M. (EST).
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 number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Randy Boyer/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771
Prosecution Insights