Method for Carrying Out a Chemical Reaction and Reactor Arrangement

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 . Claim Objections Applicant is advised that should claim 3 be found allowable, claim 18 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m). Applicant is advised that should claim 4 be found allowable, claim 19 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m). Applicant is advised that should claim 5 be found allowable, claim 17 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m). Applicant is advised that should claim 11 be found allowable, claim 20 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m). Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: The examiner suggests inserting a comma after “10%” (see line 13). Appropriate correction is required. Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: The examiner suggests inserting a comma after “10%” (see line 14). Appropriate correction is required. 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 1-20 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. Claim 1 is unclear because there appears to be a range and a composition “a volume fraction of oxygen between 500 ppm and 10%” (see line 13), since it is not clear what the volume fraction of oxygen is and what “10%” is referring to. The specification (see paragraph 0026) does not clearly define the range and the composition as disclosed. Claims 2-14 and 17-20 depend on claim 15 and are rejected under the same reasoning. Claim 2 is unclear because there appears to be a range and a composition “a volume fraction of oxygen between 1,000 ppm and 5% or between 5,000 ppm and 3%” (see lines 1-2), since it is not clear what the volume fraction of oxygen is and what “5%” and “3%” are referring to. The specification (see paragraph 0026) does not clearly define the range and the composition as disclosed. Claims 3-4, 10-11, and 13-14 depend on claim 2 and are rejected under the same reasoning Claim 15 is unclear because there appears to be a range and a composition “a volume fraction of oxygen between 500 ppm and 10%” (see lines 13-14), since it is not clear what the volume fraction of oxygen is and what “10%” is referring to. The specification (see paragraph 0026) does not clearly define the range and the composition as disclosed. Claim 16 depends on claim 15 and is rejected under the same reasoning. Claim 16 is unclear because there appears to be a range and a composition “a volume fraction of oxygen between 1,000 ppm and 5% or between 5,000 ppm and 3%” (see lines 2-3), since it is not clear what the volume fraction of oxygen is and what “5%” and “3%” are referring to. The specification (see paragraph 0026) does not clearly define the range and the composition as disclosed. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 1 and 15 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action. The closest prior art references are Butler et al. (US 6,380,449 B1) and Yoshida et al. (JP 2004323399 A, machine translation provided). Butler et al. discloses a method for carrying out a chemical reaction using a reactor (an ascending-heat ethylbenzene reactor) arrangement, comprising: heating reaction tubes arranged in a reactor vessel from the outside during a reaction period to a reaction tube (16) temperature level between 400° C and 1,500° C using radiation heat which is provided by means of one or more electric heating elements which are provided in the reactor vessel, since the typical temperature range is from about 540-660 °C (see column 1, lines 4-20) and the tube in the tubular reactor which employs an electrically heated or gas-fired furnace (see column 2, line 66 through column 3, line 21); and passing one or more flammable components (an ethylbenzene-steam feed stock) through the reaction tubes (16) during the reaction period; wherein, in at least a part of the reactor vessel in which the heating elements are provided (see Abstract; figure 1; column 1, lines 4-31; and column 2, line66 through column 4, line 59). Yoshida et al. discloses that in order to suppress a side reaction, the above reaction is preferably performed in an atmosphere substantially free of oxygen and / or in an inert gas atmosphere. Specifically, it is exemplified that the reaction is carried out only with the above polychlorinated aromatic compound, benzene and an acid-treated alumina catalyst during the reaction (see paragraph 0013). The prior art references fail to disclose or suggest a method comprising : a gaseous atmosphere is provided during the reaction period or during a part of the reaction period, wherein the gaseous atmosphere comprises a volume fraction of oxygen between 500 ppm and 10% in addition to one or more known inert gases or one or more noble gases, wherein the volume fraction of oxygen prevails where the heating elements are arranged in the reactor vessel. Regarding claim 25, Butler et al. disclose a reactor arrangement for carrying out a chemical reaction, comprising: a reactor vessel (an ascending-heat ethylbenzene reactor), reaction tubes (16) arranged in the reactor vessel; means arranged to heat the reaction tubes from the outside during a reaction period to a reaction tube temperature level between 400° C and 1,500° C using radiant heat provided by means of one or more electric heating elements arranged in the reactor vessel, since the tube in the tubular reactor which employs an electrically heated or gas-fired furnace (see column 2, line 66 through column 3, line 21); and means adapted to provide, in at least a part of the reactor vessel in which the heating elements are provided, during the reaction period or a part of the reaction period, a gaseous atmosphere (see Abstract; figure 1; column 1, lines 4-31; and column 2, line66 through column 4, line 59) and since the use of the apparatus isn't limiting or the material the apparatus acts upon isn't limiting. Yoshida et al. discloses that in order to suppress a side reaction, the above reaction is preferably performed in an atmosphere substantially free of oxygen and / or in an inert gas atmosphere. Specifically, it is exemplified that the reaction is carried out only with the above polychlorinated aromatic compound, benzene and an acid-treated alumina catalyst during the reaction (see paragraph 0013). The prior art references fail to disclose or suggest the gaseous atmosphere comprises a volume fraction of oxygen between 500 ppm and 10% in addition to one or more known inert gases or one or more noble gases; and the volume of oxygen prevails in the areas where the heating elements are arranged. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATASHA E YOUNG whose telephone number is (571)270-3163. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00 am - 6:00 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, Wang Claire 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. NATASHA E. YOUNG Examiner Art Unit 1774 /NATASHA E YOUNG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1774