Reissue
For reissue applications filed on or after September 16, 2012, all references to 35 U.S.C. 251 and 37 CFR 1.172, 1.175, and 3.73 are to the current provisions.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 22 April 2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 18 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2019/0256443 to Snell et al. (hereinafter Snell) in view of CN 203890265 to Sun (hereinafter Sun) and DE 3309371 to Klemens et al. (hereinafter Klemens).
Snell teaches a liquid phase hydrogenation reactor 420 containing a liquid
reaction medium comprising a feed hydrocarbon 405, hydrogen 415, and a
PNG
media_image1.png
462
632
media_image1.png
Greyscale
homogeneous catalyst system 460, wherein the liquid phase hydrogenation reactor 420 is configured to hydrogenate the feed hydrocarbon 405 with hydrogen 415 in a presence of the homogeneous catalyst system to form a gas phase product stream 455 comprising a hydrogenation product. The apparatus of Snell further includes a heat exchanger 440 having an inlet 435 fluidly coupled to a liquid outlet 425 of the liquid phase hydrogenation reactor 420 and an outlet 450 connected to an inlet 465 of the liquid phase hydrogenation reactor. See Figure 4.
Snell recognizes that catalyst metal and catalyst decomposition products in the liquid phase cause fouling/plating of the heat exchanger components during cooling of the liquid phase. See paras [0006, 0059, 0067]. Snell does not disclose that the heat exchanger is a tube and shell heat exchanger or an injection port configured to inject a flush liquid against a solids accumulation on an inlet tube sheet of the heat exchanger.
PNG
media_image2.png
666
328
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Sun teaches a benzene hydrogenation device wherein the heat exchangers are tube and shell reactors. Figure 3 is exemplary, illustrating a tube and shell heat exchanger 1 wherein the exchanger includes an inlet header 1-02 having an inlet tube sheet 13 for a plurality of tubes 14.
It would have been obvious to use the tube and shell heat exchanger of Sun as the heat exchanger 440 of Snell, such that the liquid outlet 425 of the hydrogenation reactor is coupled to the inlet header 1-02 of the tube and shell heat exchanger and the outlet header 1-01 is fluidly coupled to an inlet of the reactor, because Sun evidences that tube and shell heat exchangers are known for use in benzene hydrogenation and would have achieved the heat exchange desired by Snell. The simple substitution of one know element for another to obtain predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2143 I. B.
Klemens teaches an apparatus for removing fouling deposits on the tube plate 5 of a tube and shell heat exchanger 2. An injection conduit 18 with a control valve 25,26 is coupled to inlet header 9 at an injection port 17 configured to inject a flush liquid 11 against a solids accumulation on the inlet tube sheet 5 of the shell and tube heat exchanger. See Figure 1 (below) and English translation, page 1, lines 28-31 and page 4, lines 7-13.
PNG
media_image3.png
918
668
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art couple an injection port to the inlet header of the combination of Snell with Sun, in order to flush the inlet header and tube-side chamber of accumulated foulants therefrom in the manner
disclosed by Klemens. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known method of enhancement to the method of Snell and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2143 I C. See Intel Corp. v. PACT XPP Schweiz AG, 61 F.4th 1373, 1380-81, 2023 USPQ2d 297 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (finding that both prior art references "address the same problem and that [the secondary reference’s] cache was a known way to address that problem is precisely the reason that there's a motivation to combine under KSR and our precedent."). Snell in fact, discloses taking one of the heat exchangers off-line for cleaning (para [0057]) and the apparatus of Klemens would have been a suitable means for removing accumulated fouling.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Snell in view of Sun and JP H09229591 to Ogose et al. (hereinafter Ogose).
Snell and Sun are relied upon as set forth above.
PNG
media_image4.png
300
360
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Ogose teaches an apparatus for preventing particle deposition in a heat exchanger 1. An injection port 21 is coupled to inlet header 6 and is configured to inject a flush liquid against a solids accumulation on the inlet tube sheet 3 of the shell and tube heat exchanger 1. See Figure 1; para [0008].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art couple an injection port to the inlet header of the combination of Snell with Sun, in order to flush the inlet header and tube-side chamber of accumulated foulants therefrom in the manner disclosed by Ogose. A POSITA would have been capable of applying this known method of enhancement to the method of Snell and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2143 I C. See Intel Corp. v. PACT XPP Schweiz AG, 61 F.4th 1373, 1380-81, 2023 USPQ2d 297 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (finding that both prior art references "address the same problem and that [the secondary reference’s] cache was a known way to address that problem is precisely the reason that there's a motivation to combine under KSR and our precedent."). Snell in fact, discloses taking one of the heat exchangers off-line for cleaning (para [0057]) and the apparatus of Ogose would have been a suitable means for removing accumulated fouling.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Snell, Sun, and Ogose as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Klemens.
Ogose teaches an injection conduit 23 connected to the injection port 21 and a pump 25 in the injection conduit which is disclosed to “continuously or intermittently” eject the fluid from port 21 but does not disclose a control valve. See para [0011]. Klemens teaches an apparatus for removing fouling deposits on the tube plate 5 of a tube and shell heat exchanger 2. An injection conduit 18 with a control valve 25,26 is coupled to inlet header 9 at an injection port 17 configured to inject a flush liquid 11 against a solids accumulation on the inlet tube sheet 5 of the shell and tube heat exchanger. A control actuator 21 operates the valve and starts the flushing cycle. See page 5, lines 11-14. It would have been obvious to use the control valve of Klemens in the combination of Snell with Ogose in order to accurately control the flushing of the inlet header in the manner disclosed by Klemens.
Response to Arguments
The declaration filed 22 April 2026 is sufficient to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. §251.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 20 is 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.
Claims 1-17 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: As to claim 20, the combination of Snell with Sun and Klemens or Ogose does not teach a second gas phase reactor configured to receive the gas product stream and unreacted feed hydrocarbon and hydrogen. While Thonon teaches a second reaction zone 3, condenser 4, and separator 5, there is no teaching or suggestion to recycle the liquid 18 leaving the separator of Thonon back to the heat exchanger for use as a flush liquid. Thus, there is no teaching or suggestion to fluidly couple the injection conduit with the liquid stream exiting the separator.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: With respect to claims 1-17, there is no teaching or suggestion to combine the flushing step of Klemens or Ogose with the process of Snell such that “during hydrogenating” a flush liquid is injected into the heat exchanger and against a solids accumulation on an inlet tube sheet of the heat exchanger.” The flush liquid (water) of Klemens and Ogose is not disclosed to be suitable for interacting with the hydrogenation reaction feed and products. The use of water would increase the amount of oxygen-containing species that Snell teaches “encourages the plating out of catalyst component(s) (e.g., nickel) on the heat exchanger surfaces.” See paras [0012, 0038].
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Related Proceedings
Applicant is reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR 1.178(b), to
timely apprise the Office of any prior or concurrent proceeding in which Patent No.
11,643,376 is or was involved. These proceedings would include any trial before the
Patent Trial and Appeal Board, interferences, reissues, reexaminations, supplemental
examinations, and litigation.
Applicant is further reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR 1.56, to
timely apprise the Office of any information which is material to patentability of the
claims under consideration in this reissue application. These obligations rest with each
individual associated with the filing and prosecution of this application for reissue. See
also MPEP §§ 1404, 1442.01 and 1442.04.
Communication
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
examiner should be directed to ELIZABETH L MCKANE whose telephone number is 5.
The examiner can normally be reached on 6:30am-4:30pm (ET) Mon-Thurs.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s
supervisor Timothy Speer can be reached on 313-446-4825. The fax phone number for
the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained at
https://patentcenter.uspto.gov/. Should you have questions on access to the Patent
Center system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-
free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or
access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA)
or 571-272-1000.
/ELIZABETH L MCKANE/Specialist, Art Unit 3991
Conferees:
/LEONARDO ANDUJAR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3991
/Patricia L Engle/SPRS, Art Unit 3991
Prosecution Insights