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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, Claims 1-16 in the reply filed on May 29, 2026 is acknowledged.
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.
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, 3-10, 12-13 and 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hershkowitz et al. (US 2013/0157205 A1) in view of Keusenkothen et al. (US 2017/0088491 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Hershkowitz et al. reference discloses reverse flow reactor, comprising:
a recuperation zone comprising at least one recuperation zone inlet and at least one recuperation zone outlet, the recuperation zone comprising a primary flow path in fluid communication with the at least one recuperation zone inlet and the at least one recuperation zone outlet (Figure 1, numeral 7 – recuperation zone, 305, 3051 – inlet, 14/15 – flow paths, 11- outlet);
a reaction zone comprising at least a reaction zone inlet and a reaction zone outlet (Figure 1, numeral 1 – reaction zone, 5 – inlet, 3 – outlet);
one or more secondary reactor inlets in fluid communication with the recuperation zone (Figure1 and 2, numerals 305, 3051, 14 and 15); and
a plurality of mixing plates arranged in series between the recuperation zone and the reaction zone (Figure 1, numeral 13 – mixing zone and Figure 3A, numerals 5, 1,2, 3, 4 – mixing plates),
the plurality of mixing plates comprising at least a first plate, a second plate, and a third plate, the first plate being closer to the recuperation zone than the second plate and the third plate, the third plate being closer to the reaction zone than the first plate and the second plate (Figure 3A, numerals 1-5); wherein the first plate comprising a first inner portion and a first outer portion, an open area, the second plate comprising a second inner portion and a second outer portion, and an open area, and
the third plate comprising a third inner portion and a third outer portion, and an open area (Figures 3B, 3C and Figure 4). However, Hershkowitz et al. reference does not disclose that the first inner portion having an area corresponding to 20% to 40% of the cross- sectional area of the first plate, an open area of the first inner portion corresponding to 5% or less of the area of the first inner portion, the first outer portion comprising Page 2 of 10a plurality of first openings, the plurality of first openings having an open area comprising 20% to 50% of an area of the first outer portion, the second inner portion having an area corresponding to 20% to 40% of the cross-sectional area of the second plate, an open area of the second outer portion corresponding to 5% or less of an area of the second outer portion, the second inner portion comprising at least one second opening, the at least one second opening having an open area comprising 20% to 100% of the second inner portion, and the third inner portion having an area corresponding to 20% to 40% of the cross- sectional area of the third plate, the third inner portion comprising at least one third inner opening, the third outer portion comprising a plurality of third outer openings, an average diameter of the third outer openings being greater than an average diameter of the at least one third inner opening, the plurality of third outer openings having a combined area that is 70% or more of a total combined area of the plurality of third outer openings and the at least one third inner opening. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the claimed percentages for the inner portion, outer portion and open areas of the first , second and third plates, since Keusenkothen et al. reference states at Paragraph [0028] that such a modification would provide at least some mixing and distribution without creating too great a pressure drop.
Regarding Claim 3, Hershkowitz et al. and Keusenkothen et al. references disclose the reverse flow reactor of claim 1, wherein the cross-sectional area of the first plate is substantially the same as an interior cross-sectional area of the reactor at the location of the first plate (Hershkowitz et al. – Figure 3A, numeral 1).
Regarding Claim 4, Hershkowitz et al. and Keusenkothen et al. references disclose the reverse flow reactor of claim 1, wherein the first plate is adjacent to the second plate, and wherein the second plate is adjacent to the third plate (Hershkowitz et al. – Figure 3A, numeral 1).
Regarding Claim 5, Hershkowitz et al. and Keusenkothen et al. references disclose the reverse flow reactor of claim 1 except for an open area of the plurality of third outer openings comprises 20% to 50% of an area of the third outer portion. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the claimed open area of the plurality of third outer openings, since Keusenkothen et al. reference states at Paragraph [0028] that such a modification would provide at least some mixing and distribution without creating too great a pressure drop.
Regarding Claim 6, Hershkowitz et al. and Keusenkothen et al. references disclose the reverse flow reactor of claim 1, wherein the first inner portion comprises substantially no open area (Hershkowitz et al. – Figure 5, P6 – no open area).
Regarding Claim 7, Hershkowitz et al. and Keusenkothen et al. references disclose the reverse flow reactor of claim 1, wherein the open area of the plurality of first openings has substantially no overlap with an open area of a plate adjacent to the first plate (Hershkowitz et al. – Figure 3a,1 and 2)
Regarding Claim 8, Hershkowitz et al. and Keusenkothen et al. references disclose the reverse flow reactor of claim 1 except for the open area of the plurality of third outer openings has an overlap with an open area of a plate adjacent to the third plate of 15% or more, relative to a total open area of the plurality of third outer openings. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the open area of the third plate to have an overlap with claimed open area, since Keusenkothen et al. reference states at Paragraph [0028] that such a modification would provide at least some mixing and distribution without creating too great a pressure drop.
Regarding Claim 9, Hershkowitz et al. and Keusenkothen et al. references disclose the reverse flow reactor of claim 1 except for the open area of the plurality of third outer openings has substantially no overlap with an open area of a plate adjacent to the third plate. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the open area of the third plate to have no overlap with an open area of the plate adjacent to the third plate, since Keusenkothen et al. reference states at Paragraph [0028] that such a modification would provide at least some mixing and distribution without creating too great a pressure drop.
Regarding Claim 10, Hershkowitz et al. and Keusenkothen et al. references disclose the reverse flow reactor of claim 1, wherein the second plate is adjacent to the first plate; or wherein the second plate is adjacent to the third plate; or a combination thereof (Hershkowitz et al. – Figure 3A, plates 1, 2, 3, 4).
Regarding Claim 12, Hershkowitz et al. and Keusenkothen et al. references disclose the reverse flow reactor of claim 1, wherein the plurality of mixing plates further comprises a fourth plate and a fifth plate between the first plate and the second plate, the fourth plate being adjacent to the first plate, the fifth plate being adjacent to the second plate (Hershkowitz et al. -Figure 3A, plate 4 and 5). However, Hershkowitz et al. does not disclose that the fourth inner portion having an area corresponding to 20% to 40% of the cross- sectional area of the fourth plate, an open area of the fourth outer portion corresponding to 5% or less of an area of the fourth outer portion, the fourth inner portion comprising at least one fourth opening, the at least one fourth opening having an open area comprising 20% to 100% of the fourth inner portion, and the fifth inner portion having an area corresponding to 20% to 40% of the cross- sectional area of the fifth plate, an open area of the fifth inner portion corresponding to 5% or less of the area of the fifth inner portion, the fifth outer portion comprising a fifth plurality of openings, the fifth plurality of openings having an open area comprising 20% to 50% of an area of the fifth outer portion. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the claimed percentages for the inner portion, outer portion and open areas of the fourth and fifth plates, since Keusenkothen et al. reference states at Paragraph [0028] that such a modification would provide at least some mixing and distribution without creating too great a pressure drop.
Regarding Claim 13, Hershkowitz et al. and Keusenkothen et al. references disclose the reverse flow reactor of claim 1 except for the plurality of mixing plates further comprises a sixth plate and a seventh plate between the second plate and the third plate, the sixth plate being adjacent to the second plate, the seventh plate being adjacent to the third plate, wherein the sixth inner portion having an area corresponding to 20% to 40% of the cross- sectional area of the sixth plate, an open area of the sixth inner portion corresponding to 5% or less of the area of the sixth inner portion, the sixth outer portion comprising a sixth plurality of openings, the sixth plurality of openings having an open area comprising 20% to 50% of an area of the sixth outer portion, and the seventh inner portion having an area corresponding to 20% to 40% of the cross-sectional area of the seventh plate, an open area of the seventh outer portion corresponding to 5% or less of an area of the seventh outer portion, the seventh inner portion comprising at least one seventh opening, the at least one seventh opening having an open area comprising 20% to 100% of the seventh inner portion. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the mixing region with the sixth plate and seven plate, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the claimed percentages for the inner portion, outer portion and open areas of the sixth and seven plates, since Keusenkothen et al. reference states at Paragraph [0028] that such a modification would provide at least some mixing and distribution without creating too great a pressure drop.
Regarding Claim 15, Hershkowitz et al. and Keusenkothen et al. references disclose the reverse flow reactor of claim 1, wherein the reaction zone comprises at least one monolith (Hershkowitz et al. – Paragraph [0069] – honeycomb monolith).
Regarding Claim 16, Hershkowitz et al. and Keusenkothen et al. references disclose the reverse flow reactor of claim 1 except for a ratio of the average diameter of the third outer openings to the average diameter of the at least one third inner opening is 1.5 or more. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use ratio for the average diameter of the third outer openings and the third inner openings, since Keusenkothen et al. reference states at Paragraph [0028] that such a modification would provide at least some mixing and distribution without creating too great a pressure drop.
Claim(s) 2, 11 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hershkowitz et al. (US 2013/0157205 A1) in view of Keusenkothen et al. (US 2017/0088491 A1) and Liu (CN-10195675 A).
Regarding Claim 2, Hershkowitz et al. and Keusenkothen et al. references disclose the reverse flow reactor of claim 1 except for a diffuser between the third plate and the reaction zone. Liu reference discloses a reverse reactor comprising a diffuser (Page 6, paragraph [0012] – annular diffuser). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the third plate of the mixing region with a diffuser as taught by Liu, since Liu states at Paragraph [0011] that such a modification would enhance the laminar flow of the reaction gas outlet from the reaction gas inlet.
Regarding Claim 11, Hershkowitz et al. and Keusenkothen et al. references disclose the reverse flow reactor of claim 1 except for the third plate further comprises one or more diffusion caps over at least a portion of the plurality of third outer openings. Liu reference discloses a reverse reactor comprising a diffuser (Page 6, paragraph [0012] – annular diffuser). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the third plate of the mixing region with a diffuser as taught by Liu, since Liu states at Paragraph [0011] that such a modification would enhance the laminar flow of the reaction gas outlet from the reaction gas inlet.
Regarding Claim 14, Hershkowitz et al. and Keusenkothen et al. references disclose the reverse flow reactor of claim 13 except for the sixth plate further comprises one or more diffusion caps over at least a portion of the plurality of sixth openings; or wherein the seventh plate comprises at least one diffusion cap over the at least one seventh opening; or a combination thereof. Liu reference discloses a reverse reactor comprising a diffuser (Page 6, paragraph [0012] – annular diffuser). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the sixth plate or seven plate of the mixing region with a diffuser as taught by Liu, since Liu states at Paragraph [0011] that such a modification would enhance the laminar flow of the reaction gas outlet from the reaction gas inlet.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUY-TRAM NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-3167. The examiner can normally be reached M-W, 7:00am - 3pm, EST.
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, Claire X Wang 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.
/HUY TRAM NGUYEN/ Examiner, Art Unit 1774
Prosecution Insights