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 § 102
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 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, 5-6, 8, 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2005/0169815 to Van den Brink et al (Brink).
Regarding claim1, Brink discloses an apparatus for analyzing reaction systems with a liquid phase and a gas phase, the apparatus comprising at least two tank reactors (130-134, fig. 12), a common feed line (supply means 90, fig. 8), a common drain line (from 159 to 160, fig. 12) for the liquid phase and a common drain line (139, fig. 12) for the gas phase, each tank reactor being connected to the common feed line (90, fig. 8) by a supply line (55, fig. 8), to the common drain line for the liquid phase by a liquid withdrawal line (155a-158a, fig. 12) and to the common drain line for the gas phase by a gas withdrawal line (134-137, fig. 12), wherein the pressure in each tank reactor is controlled by one of:
(a) a pressure control in the common feed line;
(b) a pressure line which is connected to the gas space of each tank reactor;
(c) a pressure control in the common drain line for the gas phase and a flow restrictor in the common drain line for the liquid phase or a pressure control in the common drain line for the liquid phase and a flow restrictor in the common drain line for the gas phase; or
(d) a pressure line which enters into the common drain line for the liquid phase or into the common drain line for the gas phase (via 138 and 139, fig. 12; [178]-[181]).
Regarding claim 2, Brink discloses the apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the tank reactor is a stirred tank reactor ([79]), a continuous stirred tank reactor ([79]), a fed-batch reactor ([79]), a batch reactor ([79]) or a jet loop reactor.
Regarding claim 5, Brink discloses the apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the liquid withdrawal line (27) enters the tank reactor (3) by a dip pipe.
Regarding claim 6. The apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the apparatus comprises a dosing system for feeding secondary components, the dosing system comprising capillary tubes ([180]), vials (150-153, fig. 12; [178]) or microfluidic chips which contain at least one secondary component, the capillary tubes, vials or microfluidic chips being arranged in a holding device (holders for each of the reaction chambers 130-133, fig. 12) in parallel and each capillary tube, vial or microfluidic chip is connected to one tank reactor (fig. 12).
Regarding claim 8, Brink discloses the apparatus according to claim 6, wherein at least two capillary tubes, vials or microfluidic chips are connected to the same tank reactor ([104], each tube can be one or more tubes with vials).
Regarding claim 8, Brink discloses the apparatus according to claim 6, wherein the dosing system comprises vials (4, fig. 9) and a flow restrictor (100, fig. 9) is arranged between each vial and the tank reactor (fig. 8).
Regarding claim 13, Brink discloses a process for analyzing reaction systems in an apparatus according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above) by carrying out a reaction in each tank reactor, wherein the pressure in the tank reactors is controlled by one of:
(a) controlling the pressure in the common feed line;
(b) controlling the pressure in a pressure line which is connected to the gas space of each tank reactor;
(c) controlling the pressure in a common drain line for the gas phase or in a common drain line for the liquid phase; or
(d) controlling the pressure in a pressure line which enters into the common drain line for the liquid phase or into the common drain line (21) for the gas phase (via 138 and 139, fig. 12; [178]-[181]).
Regarding claim 14, Brink discloses the process according to claim 13, wherein for feeding secondary components the pressure in the dosing unit for secondary components is measured before and after adding the secondary component and the amount of the secondary component is calculated by equations of state (using pressure sensors; [129]).
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.
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) 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brink as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of US 2011/0014718 to Haas et al (Haas).
Regarding claim 3, Brink discloses the apparatus according to claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose which Haas discloses:
the pressure line is connected to a supply for an inert gas (gas from feed supply 52, fig. 4; [251]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have the pressure line connected to a supply for an inert gas as taught by Haas with the device of Brink so as to make it possible to control the fluid flows through the at least two spatially connected reaction spaces in the most straightforward way possible, while the reactions are actually taking place, and in particular so that the pressure common to the reaction spaces is unaffected by this control, or substantially unaffected ([18]; Haas)
Regarding claim 4, Brink combined with Haas discloses the apparatus according to claim 3, wherein the supply for an inert gas is a pressure tank (supply unit 50 of 52, fig. 4; [251]).
Claim(s) 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brink.
Regarding claim 9, Brink discloses the apparatus according to claim 6, wherein the dosing system comprises supply lines (outlets of reactors, fig. 12) for the secondary components, the supply lines for the secondary components being connected to the tank reactors and comprising two valves (138, 159, fig. 12) and between the valves a device for measuring pressure is arranged ([129]).
However, Brink does not explicitly disclose that between the valves a device for measuring temperature is arranged. However, Brink discloses in [6] that temperatures in the reactor vessels can be high and specific temperatures are applied in paragraphs [51] and [139]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have between the valves a device for measuring temperature arranged, since it has been held that omission of an element and its function in a combination where the remaining elements perform the same functions as before involves only routine skill in the art. In re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184
Regarding claim 10, Brink discloses the apparatus according to claim 9, wherein between the valves, a flow restrictor (100, fig. 9) is arranged in the supply line for the secondary components.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11-12 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 10,338,044 to Schwieters et al.
US 7,677,185 to Simon
US 6,511,644 to MacArthur et al.
US 2017/0260469 to Zhao et al.
All references above describe general state of art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAPINDER SINGH whose telephone number is (571)270-1774. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday from 8:00 AM to 5:30 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, Mark Laurenzi can be reached at (571) 270-7878. 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.
/DAPINDER SINGH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746
Prosecution Insights