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 Objections
Claims 20-26 are objected to because of the following informalities: The examiner suggests amending “The catalytic synthesis” (see line 1) to “The catalytic synthesis reactor”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 35 is objected to because of the following informalities: The examiner suggests removing the word “safety” from “safety factor” (see line 3), since the specification does not disclose a “safety factor”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 19-23, 26-27, 29, and 35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tarozzo et al. (EP 2014356 A1) in view of Zardi (EP 0365929 A2) and Koves (US 4,977,119).
Regarding claim 19, Tarozzo et al. discloses a catalytic synthesis reactor (1), comprising: a catalytic bed (7) with an annular cylindrical shape; an inlet header (8) and an outlet header (9) that are essentially cylindrical shaped and concentrically arranged so as to form an outer wall and inner wall for delimiting and containing said catalytic bed (7); said inlet and outlet headers (8,9) being gas-permeable so as to allow the distribution of a gaseous flow containing reactants and the collection of a gaseous flow containing reaction products respectively into and from the catalytic bed (7); wherein at least one of said inlet header (8) or said outlet header comprises: a first perforated plate that forms an outer wall (15) of the header opposite to the catalytic bed (7) and configured to act as a load-bearing structure of said header; a second perforated plate, which defines a micro-perforated plate and forms an inner wall (14) of the header facing the catalytic bed (7); wherein the holes of the first perforated plate and the holes of the micro-perforated plate have a circular shape (21) (see figures 1-3) or a regular polygonal shape (see paragraph 0024) and also (see figures 1-3 and paragraphs 0007-0063).
Tarozzo et al. fails to disclose that an intermediate gas-permeable wall that is sandwiched between said first perforated plate and said micro-perforated plate, and said intermediate gas-permeable wall acts substantially as a spacing element between said first perforated plate and said micro-perforated plate, wherein the first perforated plate is perforated with holes all having a characteristic size that is equal to or greater than a minimum size and the micro-perforated plate is perforated with holes all having a characteristic size that is not greater than a maximum size, said maximum size being smaller than said minimum size so that the holes of the micro-perforated plate are smaller than the holes of the first perforated plate, wherein said characteristic size is the diameter of circular holes or double the apothem for polygonal holes, wherein the micro-perforated plate is thinner than the perforated plate, and wherein the holes of said plates are arranged so that each hole of the first plate faces a plurality of the smaller holes of the micro-perforated plate.
Zardi discloses an intermediate gas-permeable wall (element c)) that is sandwiched between a first perforated plate (element a)) and a second perforated plate (element b)), and said intermediate gas-permeable wall acts substantially as a spacing element between said first perforated plate and said micro-perforated plate (see figure 1B and column 3, line 11 through column 4, line 28), since element c) consist of a thick wall (S) combing the function of mechanical support for the catalytic bed and of forming the necessary airspace with thickness (S') between elements a) and b) to ensure the correct distribution of gas (elimination of direct impact with the catalyst and equalized flow throughout the bed) (see column 3, line 46 through column 4, line 9).
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 teachings of Tarozzo et al. with the teachings of Zardi resulting in an intermediate gas-permeable wall that is sandwiched between said first perforated plate and said micro-perforated plate, and said intermediate gas-permeable wall acts substantially as a spacing element between said first perforated plate and said micro-perforated plate for better support of the catalyst bed and for correct distribution of gas.
Koves discloses that the inner screen may then have apertures of uniform size; alternatively, aperture size of the inner screen may be varied while the apertures in the outer screen are of a constant size; or aperture size in both the inner screen and the outer screen may be varied; further, aperture size may be kept constant while the number of apertures in each channel are varied; those skilled in the art are capable of calculating gas flow rates for any combination of aperture size, aperture location, and slot area; and it can be seen that the use of channel-rod screen provides a great deal of flexibility in establishing a variable gas flow through the catalyst bed (see column 14, line 66 through column 15, line 18).
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have a reactor wherein the first perforated plate is perforated with holes all having a characteristic size that is equal to or greater than a minimum size and the micro-perforated plate is perforated with holes all having a characteristic size that is not greater than a maximum size, said maximum size being smaller than said minimum size so that the holes of the micro-perforated plate are smaller than the holes of the first perforated plate, wherein said characteristic size is the diameter of circular holes or double the apothem for polygonal holes, wherein the micro-perforated plate is thinner than the perforated plate, and wherein the holes of said plates are arranged so that each hole of the first plate faces a plurality of the smaller holes of the micro-perforated plate, since applicant has not disclosed that having a reactor wherein the first perforated plate is perforated with holes all having a characteristic size that is equal to or greater than a minimum size and the micro-perforated plate is perforated with holes all having a characteristic size that is not greater than a maximum size, said maximum size being smaller than said minimum size so that the holes of the micro-perforated plate are smaller than the holes of the first perforated plate, wherein said characteristic size is the diameter of circular holes or double the apothem for polygonal holes, wherein the micro-perforated plate is thinner than the perforated plate, and wherein the holes of said plates are arranged so that each hole of the first plate faces a plurality of the smaller holes of the micro-perforated plate solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform well with a reactor wherein the first perforated plate is perforated with holes all having a characteristic size that is equal to or greater than a minimum size and the micro-perforated plate is perforated with holes all having a characteristic size that is not greater than a maximum size, said maximum size being smaller than said minimum size so that the holes of the micro-perforated plate are smaller than the holes of the first perforated plate, wherein said characteristic size is the diameter of circular holes or double the apothem for polygonal holes, wherein the micro-perforated plate is thinner than the perforated plate, and wherein the holes of said plates are arranged so that each hole of the first plate faces a plurality of the smaller holes of the micro-perforated plate.
Regarding claim 20, the combined teachings of the prior art references fail to disclose a reactor wherein the first perforated plate has a pattern of holes with a different characteristic size depending on the position on the holes in the first perforated plate.
However, Koves discloses that the inner screen may then have apertures of uniform size; alternatively, aperture size of the inner screen may be varied while the apertures in the outer screen are of a constant size; or aperture size in both the inner screen and the outer screen may be varied; further, aperture size may be kept constant while the number of apertures in each channel are varied; those skilled in the art are capable of calculating gas flow rates for any combination of aperture size, aperture location, and slot area; and it can be seen that the use of channel-rod screen provides a great deal of flexibility in establishing a variable gas flow through the catalyst bed (see column 14, line 66 through column 15, line 18).
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have the first perforated plate has a pattern of holes with a different characteristic size depending on the position on the holes in the first perforated plate, since applicant has not disclosed that having the first perforated plate has a pattern of holes with a different characteristic size depending on the position on the holes in the first perforated plate solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform well with the first perforated plate has a pattern of holes with a different characteristic size depending on the position on the holes in the first perforated plate.
Regarding claim 21, the combined teachings of the prior art references fail to disclose a reactor wherein the micro-perforated plate has a thickness is equal to said characteristic size of the holes of said micro-perforated plate.
However, Tarozzo et al. discloses that mechanical strength can also be suitable for the specific requirements of use in the reactor for which it is intended by suitably adjusting the thickness of the containment wall of the catalyst so as to satisfy such requirements (see paragraph 0029).
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have the micro-perforated plate has a thickness is equal to said characteristic size of the holes of said micro-perforated plate, since applicant has not disclosed that having the micro-perforated plate has a thickness is equal to said characteristic size of the holes of said micro-perforated plate solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform well with the micro-perforated plate has a thickness is equal to said characteristic size of the holes of said micro-perforated plate.
Regarding claim 22, the combined teachings of the prior art references fail to disclose a reactor wherein the first perforated plate has a thickness is equal to said characteristic size of the holes of said first perforated plate.
However, Koves discloses that the inner screen may then have apertures of uniform size; alternatively, aperture size of the inner screen may be varied while the apertures in the outer screen are of a constant size; or aperture size in both the inner screen and the outer screen may be varied; further, aperture size may be kept constant while the number of apertures in each channel are varied; those skilled in the art are capable of calculating gas flow rates for any combination of aperture size, aperture location, and slot area; and it can be seen that the use of channel-rod screen provides a great deal of flexibility in establishing a variable gas flow through the catalyst bed (see column 14, line 66 through column 15, line 18).
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have the first perforated plate has a thickness is equal to said characteristic size of the holes of said first perforated plate, since applicant has not disclosed that having the first perforated plate has a thickness is equal to said characteristic size of the holes of said first perforated plate solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform well with the first perforated plate has a thickness is equal to said characteristic size of the holes of said first perforated plate.
Regarding claim 23, the combined teachings of the prior art references disclose a reactor wherein the holes in the first perforated plate and/or the holes in the micro-perforated plate are manufactured by punching, since the micro-perforated plate is capable of being manufactured by punching and the use of the apparatus isn't limiting or the material the apparatus acts upon isn't limiting.
Regarding 26, Tarozzo et al. discloses a reactor wherein said first perforated plate (14) has a thickness between 3 mm and 8 mm (see paragraph 0058).
Regarding claim 27, the combined teachings of the prior art references disclose a reactor wherein the intermediate wall is an expanded metal plate or a coarse mesh, since Zardi discloses that part c) consists of a wall with “bridge” perforations (see column 3, lines 11-29 and figure 1).
Regarding claim 29, the combined teachings of the prior art references fail to disclose a reactor wherein said expanded metal plate has a void percentage between 30% and 90%.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have said expanded metal plate has a void percentage between 30% and 90%., since applicant has not disclosed that having said expanded metal plate has a void percentage between 30% and 90%. solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform well with said expanded metal plate has a void percentage between 30% and 90%.
Regarding claim 35, Tarozzo et al. discloses a reactor wherein the catalytic bed is made of catalytic particles, and said characteristic size of the holes of the micro-perforated plate (14) is equal to the minimum dimension of the catalyst particles multiplied by a safety factor comprised between 1.5 and 1.8 (see paragraph 0024) and also (see figures 1-3 and paragraphs 0007-0063), since the use of the apparatus isn't limiting or the material the apparatus acts upon isn't limiting.
Claim(s) 24-25 and 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tarozzo et al. (EP 2014356 A1), Zardi (EP 0365929 A2), and Koves (US 4,977,119) as applied to claims 19 and 27 above, and further in view of Snell et al. (US 10,308,568 B2).
Regarding claim 24, the combined teachings of the prior art references fail to disclose a reactor wherein the micro-perforated plate is made of an austenitic nickel-chromium alloy.
However, Tarozzo et al. discloses a certain structural and assembly difficulty and sensitivity to the phenomenon of nitriding in reactors for the synthesis of ammonia; to remedy the latter problem, it is necessary to use very expensive materials like lnconel® special steels (iron-nickel alloys) for low-thickness elements, in order to keep a satisfactory mechanical strength during the operation of the reactor; it is however necessary to make heterogeneous welds (i.e. between different materials) which are subject to cracks or breaks due to thermal stress caused by the different thermal expansion coefficients of the materials used (see paragraph 0006).
Snell et al. discloses that the reactor wall (120), the center pipe (135), the top cover plate (138), the outer particle barrier (137), and other surfaces within the aromatization reactor vessel (110) can be constructed of any suitable metal material; and typical metal materials include austenitic stainless steels, including 304, 316, 321, 347, 410S, 600, or 800 stainless steel, and the like (see figure 1 and column 9, lines 31-60).
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 micro-perforated plate is made of an austenitic nickel-chromium alloy, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice.
Regarding claim 25, the combined teachings of the prior art references fail to disclose a reactor wherein the first perforated plate is made of stainless steel.
However, Tarozzo et al. discloses a certain structural and assembly difficulty and sensitivity to the phenomenon of nitriding in reactors for the synthesis of ammonia; to remedy the latter problem, it is necessary to use very expensive materials like lnconel® special steels (iron-nickel alloys) for low-thickness elements, in order to keep a satisfactory mechanical strength during the operation of the reactor; it is however necessary to make heterogeneous welds (i.e. between different materials) which are subject to cracks or breaks due to thermal stress caused by the different thermal expansion coefficients of the materials used (see paragraph 0006).
Snell et al. discloses that the reactor wall (120), the center pipe (135), the top cover plate (138), the outer particle barrier (137), and other surfaces within the aromatization reactor vessel (110) can be constructed of any suitable metal material; and typical metal materials include austenitic stainless steels, including 304, 316, 321, 347, 410S, 600, or 800 stainless steel, and the like (see figure 1 and column 9, lines 31-60).
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 first perforated plate is made of stainless steel, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice.
Regarding claim 28, the combined teachings of the prior art references fail to disclose a reactor
wherein said expanded metal plate is made of stainless steel.
Snell et al. discloses that the reactor wall (120), the center pipe (135), the top cover plate (138), the outer particle barrier (137), and other surfaces within the aromatization reactor vessel (110) can be constructed of any suitable metal material; and typical metal materials include austenitic stainless steels, including 304, 316, 321, 347, 410S, 600, or 800 stainless steel, and the like (see figure 1 and column 9, lines 31-60).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have said expanded metal plate is made of stainless steel, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice.
Claim(s) 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tarozzo et al. (EP 2014356 A1), Zardi (EP 0365929 A2), and Koves (US 4,977,119) as applied to claim 19 above, and further in view of Rizzi (WO 2018/219731 A1).
Regarding claim 30, Tarozzo et al. fails to disclose a reactor wherein the micro-perforated plate is anchored to the load-bearing perforated plate by removable bolted joints.
Rizzi discloses a first separation wall (8) made of small thickness corrugated metal sheets. Perforated corrugated metal sheets are bolted with suitable spacing to metal sheets forming the collector 2; an example of assembly procedure essentially involves: mounting the collector (2) inside the
reactor; positioning and bolting the corrugated metal sheets to the collector (2); and this results in the creation of essentially trapezoidal interspaces between the corrugated metal sheets and the collector (2) (see figures 1-4 and page 24, line 17-25) resulting in a perforated plate is anchored to the load-bearing perforated plate by bolted joints.
Rizzi fails to disclose that the bolt jointed are removable.
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 teachings of Tarozzo et al. with the teachings of Rizzi resulting in a perforated plate is anchored to the load-bearing perforated plate by bolted joints for improved structural support.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have removable bolted joints, since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.04 (V-C)).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 31-34 and 36 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 31-34, the prior art references fail to disclose or suggest a reactor wherein the micro-perforated plate has a circumferential anchoring to the perforated load-bearing plate, in which the edge of the micro-perforated plate is folded around a rod so as to form an edge ring with a double thickness where the micro-perforated plate is folded back on itself, and said edge ring is tightened against the load-bearing perforated plate by a bolted connection located underneath the rod, so that the rod and the plate folded around the rod form an axially retaining element of the micro-perforated plate; wherein the micro-perforated plate has a peripheral edge folded in a Z shape, which is in abutting contact between an inner ring and an outer ring which are fixed to the load-bearing plate so as to form a circumferential joint; wherein the micro- perforated plate is anchored to the load-bearing perforated plate by a sliding connection configured to allow sliding of the micro-perforated plate in the axial direction with respect to the perforated plate in order to compensate for the different thermal expansion; and further comprising a longitudinal joint overlapping the micro-perforated plate.
Claim 36 depend on claim 34.
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