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 .
This communication is in response to the application filed 9/1/2023.
Claims 1,5-6, 8, 10, 12, 14-18, 20-25 and 29-31 are pending.
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.
Claims 6, 15 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.
Regarding claims 6 and 15, the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.
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.
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, 8, 10, 12, 14, 15, 18, 21-25, and 29-31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Elliott (US 4,039,272).
With respect to claims 1, 15, 18, 21, Elliott discloses an apparatus comprising a rotatable drum for forming a fluidized bed of solid particles (abstract; reference figure 1).
Elliott teaches a fluidization compartment or housing having a cylindrical side wall secured to an upper end and lower end wall around a vertical axis (col. 3, lines 27+). The housing is on a hollow shaft which is a central axis (col. 3, lines 30+). The housing rotates about the axis (col. 3, line 28). The apparatus includes feed means (distributor) and the bottom wall comprises means for distributing gas into the housing for fluidizing the bed (col. 4, lines 4+). The upper side has an opening (Figures).
Elliot teaches a disengagement compartment with an opening for receiving fluid and particles from the opening in the upper portion of the housing (col. 4, lines 39+; col. 6), i.e. disengagement compartment. The fluid supply compartment and the disengagement compartment are stationary. The apparatus further includes a particle supply configured for supplying the solid particles to the fluidization compartment (abstract).
With respect to claims 8 and 10, Elliott teaches “fragmentary cross-section through the inner layer 21 of the peripheral wall of the drum” (figure 6), shown as blades.
With respect to claim 12, the apparatus of Elliot when in operation may have a non-zero fluid velocity in the direction parallel and tangential to the vertical axis.
With respect to claim 14, Elliott has a fluid outlet in the disengagement compartment. Col. 12, lines 32+.
With respect to claims 22-25, Elliott teaches wherein fluid may be delivered by additional spray nozzles in the passage. Col. 11, lines 21+.
With respect to claims 29-31, Elliott teaches wherein solid particles may be removed, separated, and introduced by gravity through a tube passing through the fluidizing compartment outlet. Figure 2.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Elliot as applied to claim 1, further in view of Neipert (US 3,326,974).
With respect to claim 5, Elliott is silent regarding wherein the housing is a truncated cone. Truncated cone shape reactor is known in the art as taught in Neipert. Neipert teaches that the angled side walls produces circulation of the materials in the bed.
Claim(s) 6, 16-17, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Elliot as applied to claim 1, further in view of Elder (US 2,761,769).
With respect to claim 6, Elliott is silent regarding a central element limiting volume. Elder teaches a conical member at the base of the fluidized catalyst bed. The conical members vertical axis is coaxial with the vertical axis of the reactor. Col. 3, lines 21+. The slope of the conical member prevents stagnation of catalyst as the catalyst falls toward the lower portion of the reactor. Col. 4 lines 19+.
With respect to claims 16 and 20, Elder teaches wherein the distributor rotates about the central axis. It would have been within the skill of one in the art to attach the distributor to the central drum and rotate the drum at distributor as one without obtaining unexpected results.
With respect to claim 17, it where the fluids were introduced through a perforated distributor as disclosed in Elder, it would have been obvious to utilize a closed wall.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Brandi Doyle whose telephone number is (571)270-1141. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:00 AM - 3:00 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, Prem Singh can be reached at (571)272-6381. 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.
/BRANDI M DOYLE/Examiner, Art Unit 1771