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 .
DETAILED ACTION
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 2-3 are 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.
Claims 2-3 recite “preferably”. It is not clear if what comes after the word preferably is required or not. For examination purposes Examiner will consider that it is not required.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 3-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. PGPUB 20160325990 to Galloway (Galloway) in view of WO2020002326 to Govert (Govert) and U.S. PGPUB 20040134129 to Pham et al. (Pham).
Regarding claim 1, Galloway teaches an electrically heated furnace having a roof (16, Figure 1) and wall defining a space (34, Figure 1); - at least flowpath running through the space (22, Figure 1), wherein at least one tube has an inlet and an outlet outside of the space (tubes 50 have inlets and outlets outside of the space as shown in Figure 1e); - electrical radiative heating elements located in the space (60 and 64, Figure 1), which heating elements can heat the at least one tube (heating elements are capable of this); wherein the heating elements suspend from the roof of the space(shown in Figure 1); and wherein the roof of the space has a shape configured to have heating elements suspending at different heights (electrical heating elements are suspended at different heights as shown in Figure 1, additionally the device can be placed at an angle. Both situations indicate the shape of the roof is capable suspending heating elements at different heights).
Galloway is silent on multiple walls and at least one tube running through the space because it is unclear if the flowpath can be considered a tube.
Govert teaches at least one tube running through the space (Figure 3 shows a tube which runs through the furnace). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Galloway with the teachings of Govert to provide at least one tube running through the space. Doing so would provide an alternate means of transmitting a fluid.
Pham teaches circular, square, and hexagonal shapes of reactors (Figures 3, 4, and 5). One of skill in the art would recognize that changes in configuration are a matter of design choice such that using the square or hexagonal shape as taught by Pham rather than circular reactor of Galloway is obvious when the particular configuration result in no change in operation. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966)).
Regarding claim 3, Galloway teaches wherein the heating elements are removably connected to the roof of the space in such a manner that the heating elements can be replaced via the roof, preferably by means of a closable opening in the roof (16 is a flange which in normal use can be removed. Alternatively, the heaters can be removed dependent via the roof especially if the roof is removed).
Regarding claim 4, Galloway is silent on at least ten tubes running through the space. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide at least 10 reactor tubes, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960)).
Regarding claim 5, the modified device of Galloway wherein the tube(s) extend in a substantially vertical manner (the flowpath of Galloway appears substantially vertical, the tubes of Pham appear substantially vertical, and the tube of Govert appears substantially vertical).
Regarding claim 6, Galloway teaches wherein the heating elements are not in direct contact with the tube(s) (Galloways heaters are not in contact with the tubes).
Regarding claim 7, the modified device of Galloway teaches the elements of claim 1 and wherein the method comprises at least the steps of: a) feeding a feed stream via the inlets of the tubes; b) subjecting the feed stream flowing through the tubes to a fluid conversion reaction or heating in the space of the apparatus using heating as generated by the electrical radiative heating elements, thereby obtaining one or more reaction products or a heated feed stream; c) removing the one or more reaction products or a heated feed stream from the apparatus via the outlets of the tubes (all references show fluid flow through a tube being heated and/or reacting and being removed from the device).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 2 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 and correcting the 112b issue.
The prior art does not provide a reasonable combination to teach “wherein the roof has a shape selected from the group consisting of a gable shape, a stepped shape, a crow-stepped shape”. The prior art teaches flat roof shapes in the reactor tube art. The art outside of reactor tubes have these shapes but there is not a reason to combine these shapes because they heat different substances by alternative means do not have electrical heating elements extending from these differently shaped rooves.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN S ANDERSON II whose telephone number is (571)272-2055. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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, Michael Hoang can be reached at 574-272-6460. 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.
/STEVEN S ANDERSON II/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762