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 .
Status of the Claims
The amendment filed on 03/04/2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 5-6 and 12 have been amended; claims 2, 15-17 and 19-20 have been canceled and claims 21-25 have been newly added. Thus claims 1, 3-14, 18 and 21-25 are currently pending and under examination.
Withdrawn Objections and Rejections
The objections to the specification and drawing have been withdrawn in view of the amendments.
Claims 1 and 12 have been amended so that the limitation of the claims will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph; 112(a) rejection. Furthermore, the indefinite language of claim 5 has been obviated by amendment and Applicant’s arguments with respect to the term “substantially” of claim 10 have been found persuasive. Accordingly, the 112(b) and 112(a) rejections of the record have been withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Claims 7-8 and 18 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.
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 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 21 recites the limitation "said distribution unit" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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, 3-6 and 9-14 stand rejected and claims 22-25 are newly rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patent number US6,013,845 (US’845) in view of Patent application publication number US2009/0137848A1 (US’848).
Regarding claims 1 and 12-14, US’845 teaches (throughout the document and Fig. 1), a method for carrying out a catalyzed chemical reaction between phenol and acetone reactants in an upflow reactor 4 comprising: feeding the reactants to a bottom section of the reactor via 21 positioned below a flow distributor plate 23, passing the reactants through the flow distributor plate 23, passing the reactants through a layer of aggregate 22 because the aggregate is any material which will not easily fluidize and is essentially inert to the reactants and products produced in the reactor (col. 2, ln. 62-64), passing said portion through a catalyst layer comprising a particulate catalyst 24, said catalyst layer being positioned above and in contact with said layer of the inert aggregate, wherein the reactants react to form a product stream comprising bisphenol that is collected via 26.
US’485 is silent that the inert aggregates have a density of at least 2000 kg/m3 and an average particle size of from 500 to 5000 μm, the particulate catalyst consists of catalyst particles with a density of at most 65% of the density of the inert particles and an average particle size, in use, of from 500 to 1500 μm, and the height of the layer of inert particles is at least 40 times the average particle size of the inert particles.
However, the reference teaches the same inert aggregates and catalyst particles as described in the specification, i.e. inert aggregates/particles as comprising sand or ceramic balls, and particulate catalyst comprising crosslinked sulfonic acid ion exchange resins. As such, there is a prima facie case of anticipation in the reference for the inert aggregates to have a density of at least 2000 kg/m3 and an average particle size of from 500 to 5000 μm, and the particulate catalyst to consist of catalyst particles having a density of at most 65% of the density of the inert particles and an average particle size, in use, of from 500 to 1500 μm. See MPEP § 2112.01. Furthermore, based on Fig. 1, the height/thickness of the layer of inert aggregates 22 appears to be at least 40 times the average particle size of the inert particles shown in dots.
Regarding claims 4 and 11, US’845 is silent about the product composition as claimed, however, since the reference teaches the same reactants phenol and acetone as instantly claimed, there is a prima facie case of obviousness for the product stream of US’845 to comprise the composition as in the claims.
Regarding claims 5-6, US’845 teaches the aggregate is comprised of silica sand, ceramic balls, or a combination of both (col. 2, lines 63-66) and the catalyst crosslinked sulfonic acid ion exchange resin catalyst (col. 3, ln. 21-30).
Regarding claim 10, reactor 4 of the reference is cylindrical in shape as shown in Fig. 1.
Regarding claims 1, 12 and 24, while US’845 teaches that the layer of inert aggregates 22 is in contact with flow distributor plate 23, the reference fails to teach that the layer of inert aggregates is positioned above the flow distributor plate. Instead, the reference teaches, in view of Fig. 1, a portion of the layer of inert aggregates 22 aligns the entire height of the distributor plate layer 23 and the upper portion of the aggregate layer 22 sits on top of distributor plate 23. However, in view of MPEP § 2144.04, rearrangement of parts is one of the examples directed to various common practices which the court has held normally require only ordinary skill in the art and hence are considered routine expedients. In this instance, rearrangement of the layer of the inner aggregates and the distributor plate would not have modified the operation of the upflow reactor. In fact, US’845 teaches that the reactor system improves the per[-]pass yield of product by increasing the plug flow character of the reactor and/or reducing back mixing in the reactor (col. 2, ln. 22-25). The same advantages have been described in the instant specification, by stating that “The function of the layer of inert particles is to homogeni[z]e the flow of the reactants as much as possible so that the reactants will move through the catalyst bed in a plug flow mode or at least substantially in plug flow mode” and “As a result the catalyst bed or catalyst layer stability will be improved and back mixing and channeling through the catalyst layer is reduced to a minimum” (pg. 4, ln. 30-35). As such, the instantly claimed layer of inert particles positioned above the flow distributor plate is deemed obvious over the positioning of US’845.
Regarding claim 9, US’845 fails to teach the height of the layer of inert articles as instantly claimed. Instead, the reference teaches that the amount of such aggregate is not critical, but sufficient aggregate should be present to provide support to the reactor internals and disperse the flow of reactants throughout the interior of the reactor (col. 2, ln. 58-62). Thus, a skilled artisan would have been able to determine the optimum workable height of the aggregate layer to support the reactor internals through routine optimization in view of result-effective parameter recognized by US’845, i.e. the amount and hence the height of the aggregate layer. See MPEP § 2144.05.
Regarding claims 22-23, US’845 teaches the distribution lateral 23 can be a perforated pipe, sparging arm, or other similar or conventional means for transferring fluids (col. 2, ln. 54-56). Thus, slotted plate with a plurality of openings or a wire mesh plate with openings would yield nothing more than any means for transferring fluids due to the presence of openings.
Regarding claim 25, the claimed positioning of the inert particles and its obviousness have been discussed above. Furthermore, US’845 teaches that sufficient aggregate (inert particles) should be present to provide support to the reactor internals and disperse the flow of reactants throughout the interior of the reactor (col. 2, lns. 59-62). As such, it is obvious to the skilled artisan that the inert particles 22 help with the uniform distribution of the reactants from the distribution lateral 23 to catalyst layer 25 of the reactor 4.
Regarding claims 1, 3 and 12, US’845 fails to teach that the upflow reactor is operated at a weight hourly space velocity of at least 1.0. The deficiency is however cured by US’848.
US’848 teaches a process for the manufacture of a polyphenol compound such as bisphenol-A by introducing into a reaction zone a phenolic compound reactant, a carbonyl compound reactant, and a catalyst promoter by feeding the reactants via line 126 to an upflow reactor CR (Fig. 1). The reference further teaches that the contact time of the polyphenol and carbonyl compound reactants over the acidic catalyst is equivalent to a weight hourly space velocity of from about 0.1 to about 10 hr−1 ([0042]). As such, a skilled artisan would have been motivated to use the weight hourly space velocity of US’848 in the process of US’845 with a reasonable expectation of success in obtaining nothing more than the bisphenol product.
It would thus have been prima facie obvious to a skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the instant invention to conduct the method and obtain a reactor for carrying out a catalyzed chemical reaction between phenol and ketone as instantly claimed in view of the teachings of US’845 and US’848.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that the distribution lateral 23 of US’845 cannot be properly correlated to the claimed flow distributor plate. Furthermore, Applicant argues that the reference fails to teach that the aggregate 22 is positioned above and in contact with distribution lateral 23.
The examiner disagrees. The reference teaches that the distribution lateral 23 can be a perforated pipe, sparging arm, or other similar or conventional means for transferring fluids. Thus, any means, as long as they have any openings, including the claimed distribution plate, would yield nothing more than means that transfer fluids to the reactant.
Furthermore, the positioning of the aggregates as claimed and how it is rendered obvious over the teachings of US’845 have been discussed in the rejection. Reiterating herein, rearrangement of the layer of the inner aggregates and the distributor plate would not have modified the operation of the upflow reactor. US’845 teaches that the reactor system improves the per[-]pass yield of product by increasing the plug flow character of the reactor and/or reducing back mixing in the reactor (col. 2, ln. 22-25). The same advantages have been described in the instant specification, by stating that “The function of the layer of inert particles is to homogeni[z]e the flow of the reactants as much as possible so that the reactants will move through the catalyst bed in a plug flow mode or at least substantially in plug flow mode” and “As a result the catalyst bed or catalyst layer stability will be improved and back mixing and channeling through the catalyst layer is reduced to a minimum” (pg. 4, ln. 30-35). Thus, in the absence of criticality and unexpected results, the instantly claimed layer of inert particles positioned above the flow distributor plate is deemed obvious over the positioning of US’845.
In view of the foregoing, the instantly claimed method and apparatus remain obvious over US’845 in view of US’848.
Allowable Subject Matter
The subject matter of claims 7-8, 18 and 21 are free of prior art references. The closest prior art references and their teachings have been set forth above, but fail to teach or suggest that the distributor plate is a slotted plate with a plurality of openings having a size smaller than the average particle size of the inert particles and preferably having a size from 50 to 500 μm or from 150 to 300 μm and with a porosity of 10-50%, porosity being defined as the percentage of open area relative to the surface area in flow direction of the distributor plate (claims 7-8 and 18). While the reactants are directly transferred from the feeding unit 21 to the distribution lateral 23, the references also fail to teach or suggest feeding a portion from the distribution unit to the bottom section of the reactor in a direction away from the flow distributor.
Conclusion
Claims 1, 3-6, 9-14 and 21-25 are rejected and no claims are allowed.
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 MEDHANIT W BAHTA whose telephone number is (571)270-7658. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm.
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, Scarlett Goon can be reached at 571-270-5241. 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.
/MEDHANIT W BAHTA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1692
Prosecution Insights