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 § 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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5, 10-13 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu et al. (CN 201822251877 U) in view of Gan et al. (CN 102059078 A).
Regarding claim 1, Xu et al. discloses a catalytic heat exchange reactor for carrying out endothermic or exothermic catalytic reactions comprising; a shell (2) with a cylindrical section; a plurality of vertical heat transfer tubes (5), at least partly filled with catalyst and arranged within said shell and through which a process gas may be passed from the upper end of the heat transfer tubes (5) to the lower end of the heat transfer tubes (5) (the shell is provided with several baffle plates and
multiple filling catalyst of heat exchange tube); at least one upper process gas inlet (21) providing flow passage of the process gas to the upper end of the heat transfer tubes (5); at least one lower heat exchange gas inlet (41); at least one lower mixed gas outlet (42); an upper tube sheet (upper tube plate, 7) supporting the plurality of heat transfer tubes (5); and a plurality of baffles (6) arranged within the shell (2), below the upper tube sheet (7), with apertures adapted to support the plurality of heat transfer tubes (5), since the upper tube plate center of the upper tube plate (7) is non-opening region (71), and adapted to provide flow passage of a mixed gas comprising heat exchange gas from the lower heat exchange gas inlet (41) and reformed gas exiting the lower end of the heat transfer tubes (5) in at least one helical upward flow within the shell (2) and around the outer side of each of the heat transfer tubes (5) (see Abstract; figures 1-4 and description).
Xu e al. fails to disclose a catalytic heat exchange reactor wherein the catalytic heat exchange reactor further comprises a central mixed gas tube arranged vertically in the center of the shell with a top inlet end and a bottom outlet end, adapted to provide a flow passage of the mixed gas from the top of the at least one helical upward flow adjacent the lower side of the upper tube sheet to the lower mixed gas outlet.
However, Xu et al. discloses an non-opened region between the upper tube plate (7) and lower tube plate (8) where no fluid flows, a taper fluid director (9), an outlet rectifier (12), and swirler (11) (see description and figure 2)
Gan et al. discloses an isothermal radial converting reactor comprising a casing (4), a raw material gas inlet (9) and an exchanged gas outlet (11) installed on the casing (4), a catalytic reaction device installed in the casing (4) and a heat exchange device, wherein the heat exchange device comprises a heat exchange tube (7) and a upper tube plate (8) and a lower tube plate (3) at two ends of the heat exchange tube (7); the catalytic reaction device is installed between the upper tube plate (8) and the lower tube plate (3); the heat exchange tubes (7) are distributed in the catalytic reaction device; the invention improves the heat exchange efficiency and reduces pressure reduction by converting the gas-gas heat exchange way to the gas-solid heat exchange way; the heat exchanger tube bundles are distributed in the catalytic reaction device and contacted directly with the schedule and then schedule temperature is distributed uniformly; it is good for monitoring and adjusting the reaction process (see Abstract and figure 2) resulting in a catalytic heat exchange reactor wherein the catalytic heat exchange reactor further comprises a central mixed gas tube (11) arranged vertically in the center of the shell (4) with a top inlet end and a bottom outlet end, adapted to provide a flow passage of the mixed gas from the top of the at least one helical upward flow adjacent the lower side of the upper tube sheet (8) to the lower mixed gas outlet, since the use of the apparatus isn't limiting or the material the apparatus acts upon isn't limiting.
Because these two means for uniform temperature distribution were art-recognized equivalents before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to substitute a central mixed gas tube arranged vertically in the center of the shell with a top inlet end and a bottom outlet end for an non-opened region between the upper tube plate and lower tube plate where no fluid flows, a taper fluid director, an outlet rectifier, and swirler resulting in a catalytic heat exchange reactor wherein the catalytic heat exchange reactor further comprises a central mixed gas tube arranged vertically in the center of the shell with a top inlet end and a bottom outlet end, adapted to provide a flow passage of the mixed gas from the top of the at least one helical upward flow adjacent the lower side of the upper tube sheet to the lower mixed gas outlet and since the use of the apparatus isn't limiting or the material the apparatus acts upon isn't limiting.
Regarding claim 2, Xu e al. discloses a reactor wherein the catalytic heat exchange reactor is a hydrocarbon steam reforming catalytic heat exchange reactor (see Abstract; figures 1-4 and description), since the use of the apparatus isn't limiting or the material the apparatus acts upon isn't limiting.
Regarding claim 5, the combined teachings of Xu et al. and Gan et al. disclose a reactor wherein the plurality of baffles are arranged and adapted to provide two helical upward flows (see Xu et al. Abstract; figures 1-4 and description), since the use of the apparatus isn't limiting or the material the apparatus acts upon isn't limiting.
Regarding claim 10, the combined teachings of Xu et al. and Gan et al. disclose a reactor wherein the at least one helical upward flow performs between 1-8 full 360 degree turns from the lower part to the upper part of the at least one helical upward flow (see Xu et al. Abstract; figures 1-4 and description), since the use of the apparatus isn't limiting or the material the apparatus acts upon isn't limiting.
Regarding claim 11, the combined teachings of Xu et al. and Gan et al. fail to disclose a reactor wherein the distance between the vertical heat transfer tubes is shorter nearest the central mixed gas tube than nearest the periphery of the shell.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the distance between the vertical heat transfer tubes is shorter nearest the central mixed gas tube than nearest the periphery of the shell, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.04 (VI-C)).
Regarding claim 12, the combined teachings of Xu et al. and Gan et al. fail to disclose a reactor wherein the distance between the vertical heat transfer tubes is gradually reduced from nearest the periphery of the shell towards the central mixed gas tube.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the distance between the vertical heat transfer tubes is gradually reduced from nearest the periphery of the shell towards the central mixed gas tube, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.04 (VI-C)).
Regarding claim 13, the combined teachings of Xu et al. and Gan et al. fail to disclose a reactor
wherein the distance between the vertical heat transfer tubes is less than 50 mm nearest the central mixed gas tube and more than 100 mm nearest the periphery of the shell.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have distance between the vertical heat transfer tubes is less than 50 mm nearest the central mixed gas tube and more than 100 mm nearest the periphery of the shell, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.04 (VI-C)).
Regarding claim 19, the combined teachings of Xu et al. and Gan et al. fail to disclose a reactor wherein the catalyst comprises particles and the vertical heat transfer tubes have an inside diameter which is between 1 to 1.9 times the largest outer dimension of a catalyst particle.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have the catalyst comprises particles and the vertical heat transfer tubes have an inside diameter which is between 1 to 1.9 times the largest outer dimension of a catalyst particle, since applicant has not disclosed that having the catalyst comprises particles and the vertical heat transfer tubes have an inside diameter which is between 1 to 1.9 times the largest outer dimension of a catalyst particle solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform well with the catalyst comprises particles and the vertical heat transfer tubes have an inside diameter which is between 1 to 1.9 times the largest outer dimension of a catalyst particle.
Claim(s) 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu et al. (CN 201822251877 U) and Gan et al. (CN 102059078 A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lee (US 3,400,758).
Regarding claims 3, the combined teachings of Xu et al. and Gan et al. fail to disclose a reactor wherein the plurality of baffles are arranged in at least one helix.
Lee et al. discloses tube and shell type heat exchanger wherein the shell side fluid is caused to flow over the tubes in a helical path, baffle means being provided in the form of longitudinally spaced segmental plate elements having flow control surfaces which are perpendicular to the axes of the tubes simplifying installation and removal of the tubes (see Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the plurality of baffles are arranged in at least one helix, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.04 (VI-C)).
Regarding claim 4, the combined teachings of Xu et al. and Gan et al. fail to disclose a reactor
wherein the at least one helical upward flow goes around the central mixed gas tube and the baffles comprise sets of horizontal and vertical segments arranged as a spiral staircase.
Lee et al. discloses tube and shell type heat exchanger wherein the shell side fluid is caused to flow over the tubes in a helical path, baffle means being provided in the form of longitudinally spaced segmental plate elements having flow control surfaces which are perpendicular to the axes of the tubes simplifying installation and removal of the tubes (see Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the at least one helical upward flow goes around the central mixed gas tube and the baffles comprise sets of horizontal and vertical segments arranged as a spiral staircase, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.04 (VI-C)).
Regarding claim 6, the combined teachings of Xu et al. and Gan et al. fail to disclose a reactor
wherein a complete 360 degree turn of the at least one helical upward flow comprises 2 to 16 sets of baffles.
Lee et al. discloses tube and shell type heat exchanger wherein the shell side fluid is caused to flow over the tubes in a helical path, baffle means being provided in the form of longitudinally spaced segmental plate elements having flow control surfaces which are perpendicular to the axes of the tubes simplifying installation and removal of the tubes (see Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a complete 360 degree turn of the at least one helical upward flow comprises 2 to 16 sets of baffles, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.04 (VI-C)).
Claim(s) 7-9 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu et al. (CN 201822251877 U) and Gan et al. (CN 102059078 A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Grigarczik (DE 102006040148 A1).
Regarding claim 7, the combined teachings of Xu et al. and Gan et al. fail to discloses a reactor wherein the vertical distance between the baffles is smaller in the top of the at least one helical upward flow than in the bottom of the at least one helical upward flow.
Grigarczik disclose a reactor having baffles arranged in steps (see Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the vertical distance between the baffles is smaller in the top of the at least one helical upward flow than in the bottom of the at least one helical upward flow, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.04 (VI-C)).
Regarding claim 8, the combined teachings of Xu et al. and Gan et al. fail to discloses a reactor wherein the vertical distance between the baffles is gradually reduced from the lower part of the at least one helical upward flow to the upper part of the at least one helical upward flow.
Grigarczik disclose a reactor having baffles arranged in steps (see Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the vertical distance between the baffles is gradually reduced from the lower part of the at least one helical upward flow to the upper part of the at least one helical upward flow, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.04 (VI-C)).
Regarding claim 9, the combined teachings of Xu et al. and Gan et al. fail to discloses a reactor wherein the vertical distance between the uppermost vertically adjacent baffles is less than 500 mm and the vertical distance between the lowermost vertically adjacent baffles is greater than 600 mm.
Grigarczik disclose a reactor having baffles arranged in steps (see Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the vertical distance between the uppermost vertically adjacent baffles is less than 500 mm and the vertical distance between the lowermost vertically adjacent baffles is greater than 600 mm, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.04 (VI-C)).
Regarding claim 14, the combined teachings of Xu et al. and Gan et al. fail to discloses a reactor wherein the vertical heat transfer tubes are arranged in a zig-zag pattern when seen in a tangential direction of the shell.
Grigarczik disclose a reactor having baffles arranged in steps (see Abstract).
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have the vertical heat transfer tubes are arranged in a zig-zag pattern when seen in a tangential direction of the shell, since applicant has not disclosed that having the vertical heat transfer tubes are arranged in a zig-zag pattern when seen in a tangential direction of the shell solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform well with the vertical heat transfer tubes are arranged in a zig-zag pattern when seen in a tangential direction of the shell.
Claim(s) 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu et al. (CN 201822251877 U) and Gan et al. (CN 102059078 A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bowe et al. (US 4,585,622).
Regarding claim 15, the combined teachings of Xu et al. and Gan et al. fail to discloses a reactor further comprising an inner shroud surrounding and adjacent to the central mixed gas tube, fixed to the upper tube sheet and adapted to support at least some of the plurality of baffles.
Bowe discloses that it was known in the art to microreactors include a central reactor tube disposed within a relatively massive metallic heat-conductive core for assisting in the production of even heating; and the reactor tube and core were inserted in a protective outer heating jacket having a heating element fixed within it (see column 1, lines 28-45).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combined teachings of Xu et al. and Gan et al. with the teachings of Bowe et al. resulting in a reactor further comprising an inner shroud surrounding and adjacent to the central mixed gas tube, fixed to the upper tube sheet and adapted to support at least some of the plurality of baffles for addition protection of the central mixed gas tube.
Regarding claim 16, the combined teachings of Xu et a., Gan et al., and Bowe et al. fail to disclose a reactor wherein the inner shroud is perforated.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have the inner shroud perforated, since applicant has not disclosed that having the inner shroud perforated solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform well with the inner shroud perforated.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claims 17-18 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.
Regarding claim 17-18, the prior art references fail to disclose or suggest a reactor further comprising an outer shroud arranged within and adjacent to the shell and adapted to provide support for at least some of the baffles; and wherein the inner shroud, the outer shroud or both the inner and outer shroud comprise flow-restriction plates.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATASHA E YOUNG whose telephone number is (571)270-3163. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00 am - 6:00 pm.
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, Wang Claire 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.
NATASHA E. YOUNG
Examiner
Art Unit 1774
/NATASHA E YOUNG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1774
Prosecution Insights