DETAILED ACTION
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.
Claims 12-16, 18 and 20-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Proell (US 9089826) in view of Haas (US 20140076816).
With respect to claim 12, Proell discloses an apparatus having a bottom side disposed in a gravitational direction and a top side disposed opposite to the gravitational direction. The apparatus includes a first subreactor (Figure 1:1) and a second subreactor (Figure 1:2), wherein fluid from the top of the first subreactor is transferred to the top of the second subreactor. A carrier liquid can be brought into contact with adsorbent particles in the first subreactor to establish a co-current flow of adsorbent particles and carrier liquid that moves from bottom to top (i.e., in a direction opposite the direction of gravity). Carrier liquid may be introduced into the first subreactor using any of ports 11, 13, 15, 17. A washing liquid may be introduced into the second subreactor at a bottom of the second subreactor using any of ports 12, 14, 16 to establish an upward flow of washing liquid that runs counter-current to the downward flow of adsorbent particles. This is described in column 3, lines 9-17 and column 7, line 5 to column 9, line 21. Proell, however, does not expressly state that a first valve is disposed between the first and second subreactors.
Haas discloses an apparatus for removing proteins taken up in a carrier liquid comprising a first subreactor (Figure 1:10) in communication with a second subreactor (Figure 1:12). Granular adsorbent particles (Figure 1:18) entrained in a carrier liquid pass through the first subreactor and are allowed to move to the top of the second subreactor through a transfer line (Figure 1:14), where they are then washed in a washing fluid according to a counter-current flow arrangement. The transfer line 14 includes a valve (Figure 1:70) to control the passage of adsorbent particles (Figure 1:18) and carrier liquid into the second subreactor. This is described in paragraph [0045].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to ensure that a valve or pump is disposed on a top side of the Proell apparatus and between the first and second subreactors. As evidenced by Haas, valves are notoriously well known in the art as a quintessential flow control means. For example, Haas indicates that valves 70, 71, 72 produce a dynamic seal that may be opened and closed in response to operational needs. Valves and pumps are typically automated using a computer controller, which improves precision and efficiency.
It is noted that the claims contain many intended use recitations that are afforded reduced patentable weight in the context of apparatus claims 12-19. Although features of an apparatus may be recited functionally, it is well established that apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does. A claim containing a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. See MPEP 2114.
The only structural features that are positively recited in independent claim 12 are:
Bottom side
Top side
Vertically disposed first subreactor
Second subreactor
First pumping device or a first valve
The remainder of the limitations relating to the character of the flow (e.g., flow direction, content of fluid) relate to how the device is intended to be operated. Similarly, recitations relating to removing proteins also describe how the device is intended to be operated and do not impart any additional structural requirement. The proteins, granular adsorbent, carrier liquid and washing liquid are all claimed using passive language and are not positively recited (“An apparatus for removing proteins taken up in a carrier liquid”, “the carrier liquid can be brought into contact with a granular adsorbent”, “can be transferred into a second subreactor”, “the carrier liquid can be introduced…so that the granular adsorbent and the carrier liquid can flow…”, emphasis added).
In the alternative, the first and second subreactors of Haas are specifically taught to be for processing a fluid containing proteins. Proteins in a feedstock are captured by the granular adsorbent particles and carried by a carrier liquid through the first subreactor. The protein saturated granular adsorbent is sent to the second subreactor where a countercurrent flow of a washing liquid recovers a protein product. This is described in paragraphs [0041]-[0047]. Paragraphs [0003]-[0005] and [0068] expressly state that the system is for removing proteins from an agricultural feedstock. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to use the Proell apparatus for the purpose of removing a protein product from a feed fluid. Haas states that fluidized bed reactors may be advantageously used to purify a variety of target ions of interest, including protein, and those of ordinary skill would not want to needlessly limit the Proell system to a narrow range of applications.
With respect to claim 13, Proell and Haas disclose the combination as described above. The first and second subreactors taught by both Proell and Haas are fluidized bed reactors.
With respect to claim 14, Proell and Haas disclose the combination as described above. As noted above, Proell teaches that a counter-current flow is established in the second subreactor, such that a saturated granular adsorbent flows in a downward direction and a washing fluid flows in an upward direction. Haas similarly teaches that a counter-current flow is established in the second subreactor, such that a saturated granular adsorbent flows in a downward direction and a washing fluid flows in an upward direction. Haas indicates that proteins are wholly removed from the granular adsorbent so that the regenerated adsorbent can be sent back to the first subreactor by means of a second valve (Figure 1:72).
With respect to claims 15, 16 and 24, Proell and Haas disclose the combination as described above. Proell further shows how flow controllers (Figure 1:18) are used to divide the second subreactor into a plurality of distinct reaction spaces (Figure 1:10). The flow controllers 18 are defined by narrowed cross sections that function as baffles that increase the residence time of the granular adsorbent in each reaction space. The narrowed cross sections produced by flow controllers 18 result in a narrowing of the second subreactor at locations between reaction spaces 10.
With respect to claim 18, Proell and Haas disclose the combination as described above. Each Proell baffle 18 has a central passage defined therethrough that allows adsorbent to be conveyed from a top side to a bottom side by means of gravity.
With respect to claims 20-22, Proell and Haas disclose the combination as described above. Proell teaches a corresponding method in which a carrier liquid and adsorbent particles pass upward through a first subreactor. The carrier liquid and adsorbent particles are added to the bottom of the first subreactor. The particles become entrained in the carrier fluid as they flow from a bottom side to a top side. The adsorbent is transferred to the top of a second subreactor, where the adsorbent passes in a counter-current operation with a washing liquid added to the bottom of the reactor. In other words, the particles flow in the downward direction of gravity while the washing fluid flows upward in an opposite direction to gravity.
Haas discloses a method in which granular adsorbent particles (Figure 1:18) entrained in a carrier liquid pass through the first subreactor and are allowed to move to the top of the second subreactor through a transfer line, where they are then washed in a washing fluid according to a counter-current flow arrangement. The transfer line includes a valve to control the passage of adsorbent particles and carrier liquid into the second subreactor. The first and second subreactors of Haas are specifically said to be for processing a fluid containing proteins. Proteins in a feedstock are captured by the granular adsorbent particles and carried by a carrier liquid through the first subreactor. The protein saturated granular adsorbent is sent to the second subreactor where a countercurrent flow of a washing liquid recovers a protein product. This is described in paragraphs [0041]-[0047]. Paragraphs [0003]-[0005] and [0068] expressly state that the system is for removing proteins from an agricultural feedstock. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to use the Proell method for the purpose of removing a protein product from a feedstock fluid. Haas states that fluidized bed reactors may be advantageously used to purify a variety of target ions of interest, including protein, and those of ordinary skill would not want to needlessly limit the Proell system to a narrow range of applications.
With respect to claim 23, Proell and Haas disclose the combination as described above. Proell indicates that material from the bottom side of the second subreactor 2 is transferred back into the first subreactor 1 using a return line 17. Haas indicates that a second valve 72 is provided at the bottom of the second subreactor 12 to control particle flow from the outlet of the second subreactor.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Proell (US 9089826) in view of Haas (US 20140076816) as applied to claim 16, and further in view of Schmid (US 20160288076).
Proell and Hass disclose the combination as described above. Although Proell teaches baffles characterized by a reduced cross section, Proell does not expressly state that the baffles are disposed at an angle between 60° to 80° to a flow direction of the washing liquid.
Schmid discloses a similar fluidized bed system comprising a first subreactor (Figure 1:1) in communication with a second subreactor (Figure 1:2). The second subreactor includes a plurality of baffles (Figure 1:18) that produce a series of distinct reaction spaces. Schmid shows that the baffles may be oriented in a variety of different ways, including configurations in which the baffles are disposed at an angle between 60° to 80° to a flow direction of an upwardly flowing fluid. This is shown in at least Figs. 3 and 7c.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to modify the Proell baffles so that they are disposed at an angle between 60° to 80° to a flow direction of the washing liquid. Schmid teaches that the baffle angle may be optimized according to the needs of a particular operation (“The type of flow controller is not particularly limited and any constriction or expansion of the reactor cross-section, deflection of the particle stream or combination thereof can be provided, e.g. a “zigzag” course of the reactor pipe or the provision of various installations, such as e.g. central or lateral baffles, annular constrictions etc., which in addition can be at any angle to the flow direction”). Those of ordinary skill would have recognized that conditions within each reaction space may be adjusted by modifying the baffle angle (“the flow path and/or the flow rate of the fluidized bed at that location within the respective reactor can be controlled. For the first time, this allows accurately influencing, i.e. controlling, the flow properties of the fluidized bed in a fluidized-bed reactor thus equipped”).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Proell (US 9089826) in view of Haas (US 20140076816) as applied to claim 14, and further in view of Lali (US 20120094364).
Proell and Haas disclose the combination as described above, however do not state that peristaltic pumps are used to deliver fluid between the first and second subreactors.
Lali discloses a countercurrent fluidized bed reactor for recovering proteins. Granular adsorbent particles are added to the top of the reactor and move in a downward direction. Washing fluid is added to the bottom of the reactor and moves upward in a direction opposite gravity. This is described in paragraphs [0059]-[0067]. Lali states in paragraphs [0085] and [0086] that peristaltic pumps move all liquids through the reactor.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to provide the Proell apparatus with at least one peristaltic pump disposed between the first and second subreactors. Those of ordinary skill would recognize that at least one pump would be necessary to transfer fluid to and from the reactor, especially when the direction of flow is against gravity. Lali is evidence that peristaltic pumps are suitable for operation in a fluidized bed system. It would have been well within the ability of one of ordinary skill to select a known pump type (i.e., peristaltic) from a collection of available options.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 15 July 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant primarily argues that Proell is not directed to removing proteins in a carrier liquid using a granular absorbent. However, Proell discloses all of the structural features set forth in the invention of at least independent claim 12, with the exception of the valves (which are taught by Haas). In response to applicant's argument that Proell does not teach removing proteins in a carrier liquid using a granular absorbent, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Although features of an apparatus may be recited functionally, it is well established that apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does. A claim containing a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. See MPEP 2114.
As for the process claims, Haas expressly teaches the claimed method of operation. Haas discloses that proteins in a feedstock are captured by the granular adsorbent particles and carried by a carrier liquid through the first subreactor. The protein saturated granular adsorbent is sent to the second subreactor where a countercurrent flow of a washing liquid recovers a protein product. This is described in paragraphs [0041]-[0047]. Paragraphs [0003]-[0005] and [0068] expressly state that the system is for removing proteins from an agricultural feedstock. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to use the Proell method for the purpose of removing a protein product from a feedstock fluid. Haas states that fluidized bed reactors may be advantageously used to purify a variety of target ions of interest, including protein, and those of ordinary skill would not want to needlessly limit the Proell system to a narrow range of applications.
Applicant additionally argues that Proell describes gas flow, as opposed to liquid flow, from the top of the first subreactor into the second subreactor, and therefore would not be interested in using a valve. In response, it is believed that valves are just as useful for controlling gas flow between reactors as they are for controlling liquid flow between reactors. Furthermore, Proell is not limited to gas flow, but rather describes a general purpose fluidized bed reactor system that may be utilized in many different ways. Proell additionally appears to use the term “gas” and “fluid” interchangeably throughout the reference to describe any gas or liquid flow. See column 3, lines 9-17.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 NATHAN ANDREW BOWERS whose telephone number is (571)272-8613. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7am-5pm.
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 Marcheschi can be reached at (571) 272-1374. 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.
/NATHAN A BOWERS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1799
Prosecution Insights