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 .
Response to Amendment
This is the response to amendment filed 01/21/2026 for application 18/384133.
Claims 1-25 are currently pending and have been fully considered.
Claims 20-23 have been confirmed to be withdrawn from consideration for being directed toward a nonelected invention.
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 2 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 2 has been amended to state “smaller radius is at most percent smaller than the radius”
It is unclear what the claim is stating.
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) 1-19 and 24-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DUESEL (USPGPUB 2007/0114683) in view of AUGIER (WO 2021122139) and the machine translation of AUGIER and FREEDMAN (US 2248620).
AUGIER will hereafter be referring to the machine translation of AUGIER.
DUESEL teaches a submerged gas processor in the form of a submerged gas reactor. DUESEL teaches in Fig 1-4 that the submerged gas reactor may be in the form of a circular tube. (cylindrical wall)
DUESEL teaches a weir and a baffle that may be added in the submerged gas processor.
DUESEL teaches in paragraphs 34 that the baffle may be shaped and sized to conform to the cross-sectional area of the confined volume in the submerged gas reactor. The baffle may be mounted to the vessel. (first baffle, the first baffle having a substantially circular, non-planar) (first baffle mounted transversely to cylindrical wall)
The baffle is taught in paragraph 34 to be equated to a shield and is shaped and sized to abruptly and positively eliminates the vertical components of velocity and hence, momentum, of the gas/liquid mixture, thereby assisting the mixture to flow horizontally outward. (first baffle being impermeable and mounted transversely to cylindrical wall)
DUESEL teaches in paragraph 35 that the weir may be in the form of curved plates. The weirs are further taught to, in some cases be perforated to modify the flow pattern. (first knockout plate disposed below the first baffle, wherein the knockout plate comprises a plurality of holes that are spaced apart from one another)
A knockout plate is defined in the current specification as a plate with holes to separate liquid entrained in gas.
In Fig 1 and Fig 2, the weir is disposed below the baffle.
DUESEL further teaches in paragraph 35 that although the weirs preferably extend across the vessel between opposite walls, they may also be formed into any shape as long as a substantially vertical barrier is formed to isolate one volume 70 form the other volume 71.
It would be well within one of ordinary skill in the art to extend the weir transversely from in a L shape configuration given that DUESEL teaches any shape is possible as long as a substantially vertical barrier is formed to isolate one volume 70 form the other volume 71.
AUGIER teaches in the abstract a gas/liquid oligomerization reactor comprising transverse internals. The reactor that AUGIER teaches may be a bubbling column with a gas purged from the top of the reactor.
AUGIER teaches in page 3 transverse internals may also be of the perforated tray types to slow the rise of gas bubbles.
AUGIER teaches in page 3 transverse internals may serve as baffles and may be flat, curved, or pyramidal.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the baffle in DEUSEL to be in the form of a bowed form and positioned in a concave downward orientation given that AUGIER teaches different shaped baffles include those of curved form. (bowed form and positioned in a convex downward orientation)
The baffles are taught to slow the rise of gas bubbles.
FREEDMAN teaches an extraction apparatus with baffle blades that is used for the extraction of a substance from a liquid medium.
FREEDMAN teaches in Fig 2, and in lines 10-31 of column 2, that the baffle blades are in the form of discs of which one-half of the circumference is circular and the other half elliptical, the shortest radius of the ellipse being upwards to one-half the radius of the circular part of the disc and desirably in the ratio of about 1 to 1.4 to 1.8. The baffle blades of semi-circular, semi-elliptical form may, desirably, be placed on the shaft in staggered positions, with the long radius and the short radius in alternation. The longest radius of the baffle blades is only slightly less than the radius of the extractor tank.
It would be further obvious to adjust the baffle in DEUSEL that is modified by AUGIER to be in the form of convex downwards discs of which one-half of the circumference is circular and the other half elliptical, with the shortest radius of the ellipse being upwards to one-half the radius of the circular part of the disc and desirably in the ratio of about 1 to 1.4 to 1.8. (wherein a first circumferential portion of the first baffle has a radius equal to internal radius of the cylindrical wall and a second circumferential portion of the first baffle has a smaller radius of the first circumferential portion.)
The longest radius of the baffle blades is only slightly less than the radius of the extractor tank. (a first passageway, wherein the first passageway is an opening formed between an inside surface of the cylindrical wall and a circumference of the second portion of the first baffle)
Modifying the shape of the baffle in DEUSEL would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. DEUSEL teaches in paragraph 34 that baffle may be shaped and sized to conform generally to the horizontal cross-sectional area of the confined volume of the reactor in DEUSEL. Modifying the baffle in DEUSEL with the teachings of AUGIER and FREEDMAN helps created a tortured path that slows the rise of gas.
Regarding claims 2 and 3, it has been held that wherein the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)
The difference between the two radius of the baffle may be in the range of about 2 to about 6 percent or 1 inch given that the FREEDMAN teaches in lines 10-31 of column 2 that 2 different radius for the baffle blades allows for the difference creating a path for the medium to travel through.
Regarding claims 4 and 5, DEUSEL teaches in paragraph 35 that the weirs may be perforated to modify the flow pattern or obtain a mixing the flow pattern.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use perforations of about 1 inch and spaced apart about 2 to about 3 inches since it has been held that wherein the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Furthermore, AUGIER teaches multiple transverse internals. One embodiment of the transverse internals comprises openings to allow the liquid phase and gas to pass.
The openings are taught to have a diameter between 21 to 500 mm.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use perforations with about the size of about 1 inch since it has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists wherein the claimed ranges overlap.
Regarding claim 6, DEUSEL teaches in reference claim 3 that the distance between one edge of the weir and the baffle is in the range of 1 to 20 inches.
A prima facie case of obviousness exists wherein the claimed ranges overlap.
Regarding claim 7, AUGIER teaches on page 3 multiple transverse internals. One embodiment of the transverse internals comprises openings to allow the liquid phase and gas to pass. The other transverse internals may be placed above the baffle and weir present in DEUSEL in order to further slow the passage of gas in the liquid.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add more transverse internals to the reactor that DEUSEL teaches to slow the rise of gas.
Adding another transverse internal with openings may be considered a second knock out plate.
Regarding claims 8 and 9, DEUSEL teaches in Fig 1 and paragraph 24 a gas inlet tube 22 with a gas exit port 24. The gas exit port 24 is shown to be near the bottom of the reactor in Fig 1 and is taught in paragraph 28 to allow the flow to be under the bottom edge of the weir.
Regarding claim 10, AUGIER teaches on page 3 that the number of transverse internals is between 2 and 30. Embodiments of the transverse internals include baffles.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add a second baffle blades as well as third baffle blades to the reactor that DEUSEL teaches.
Further baffles are taught to further slow the flow of gas.
The longest radius of the modified baffle blades of AUGIER is only slightly less than the radius of the extractor tank in DEUSEL. Employing multiple baffles would be expected to also have the longest radius of the baffle blades is only slightly less than the radius of the extractor tank, thus forming a second passageway for a second baffle blades and a third passageway for a third baffle blades. The shorter radius is taught to be upwards to one half of the circular part of the baffle blade.
Regarding claims 24 and 25, the fluid in the reactor is taught in paragraph 15 to be maintained at a predetermined level. The reactor is capable of being operated with the fluid being at 50% or more of the reactor.
Regarding claims 11-12, FREEDMAN teaches in lines 10-31 of column 2 that the baffle blades are place in staggered positions with the long radius and short radius in alternation.
Regarding claim 13, DEUSEL in view of AUGIER and FREEDMAN teaches baffles that be circular and planar and curved.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that further baffles may be concave up or concave down with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 14, AUGIER teaches in Figure 5 multiple transverse internals with them all submerged.
Regarding claim 15, AUGIER teaches in page 3 multiple transverse internals that include those with holes that are there to slow down the flow of gas. A transverse internal with holes may be added above the baffle in DEUSEL to further slow the flow of gas.
Regarding claims 15-16, DEUSEL teaches in Fig 2 and paragraph 34 that the baffle may be mounted onto the gas inlet tube. The baffle would be expected to have a slot to allow the gas inlet tube to have the baffle mounted.
Regarding claim 17, the longest radius of the baffle blades is only slightly less than the radius of the extractor tank in DEUSEL. Employing multiple baffles would be expected to also have the longest radius of the baffle blades is only slightly less than the radius of the extractor tank, thus forming a second passageway for a second baffle blades and a third passageway for a third baffle blades.
Regarding claim 18, DEUSEL teaches in Fig 2 and paragraph 34 that the baffle may be mounted onto the gas inlet tube. The baffle would be expected to have a slot to allow the gas inlet tube to have the baffle mounted.
When there are more baffles, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect that further baffles may also be mounted to the gas inlet tube.
Regarding claim 19, DEUSEL in view of AUGIER and FREEDMAN teaches baffles that be circular and planar and curved.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that further baffles may be concave up or concave down with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 24, the claims are directed toward apparatus claims and "[i]nclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims." In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); see also In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935).
Therefore, the invention as a whole would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's amendments have necessitated new grounds of rejections. Applicant’s other arguments filed 01/21/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant recognizes that DUESEL teaches a weir but argues that DUESEL does not teach that the weir is transverse to the cylindrical wall.
DUESEL further teaches in paragraph 35 that although the weirs preferably extend across the vessel between opposite walls, they may also be formed into any shape as long as a substantially vertical barrier is formed to isolate one volume 70 form the other volume 71.
It would be well within one of ordinary skill in the art to extend the weir transversely from in a L shape configuration given that DUESEL teaches any shape is possible as long as a substantially vertical barrier is formed to isolate one volume 70 form the other volume 71.
Applicant argues that AUGIER does not disclose the orientation regarding convex up or convex down. Applicant argues that unexpected results are taught in paragraph 63 of the specification.
This is not persuasive as DUESEL teaches a baffle. The baffle is shaped and sized to abruptly and positively eliminates the vertical components of velocity and hence, momentum, of the gas/liquid mixture, thereby assisting the mixture to flow horizontally outward.
AUGIER teaches curved side plates. The configuration could only be convex down or convex up. It would be well within one of ordinary skill in the art to try either of the 2 configurations and select the one that best abruptly and positively eliminates the vertical components of velocity and hence, momentum, of the gas/liquid mixture.
Furthermore, AUGIER also teaches that the transverse internals of the baffle type are arranged so as to slow the rise of the gas molecules.
Applicant argues that the claims have been amended to state that the first baffle is impermeable. Applicant argues that all the non-planar baffles taught in AUGIER have openings or perforations.
This is not persuasive as DUESEL is the primary reference and teaches a baffle and weir separately. The baffle is equated to a shield and is shaped and sized to abruptly and positively eliminates the vertical components of velocity and hence, momentum, of the gas/liquid mixture, thereby assisting the mixture to flow horizontally outward.
The weir in DUESEL is taught to optionally include perforations.
It is noted that the second baffle and third baffle in the present claims are not taught to be impermeable. It is further noted that the first baffle is not taught in claim 24 to be impermeable.
Applicant argues that FREEDMAN does not teach baffles with substantially circular cross section.
This is not persuasive as FREEDMAN teaches explicitly that one-half of the circumference is circular and the other half elliptical. This has been construed to be substantially circular cross section.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
GALSTAUN (US 3489506) teaches method of removing carbon dioxide from gases.
ROE (US 10913911) teaches chemical composition and treatment system and treatment methods for remediating H2S and other contaminants in gases.
ROE teaches perforated plates and baffles that may be used in removing droplets of treatment composition form the natural gas.
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 MING CHEUNG PO whose telephone number is (571)270-5552. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-6.
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, PREM SINGH can be reached at 5712726381. 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.
/MING CHEUNG PO/ Examiner, Art Unit 1771
/ELLEN M MCAVOY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771
Prosecution Insights