DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims:
Claims 1-15 are pending.
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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Paragraph 0030 refers to “top plate 10”. This appears to be an error as the top plate is previously identified as “top plate 20” and the base plate is identified by reference number “10”.
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 1-15 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.
Regarding Claim 1:
The claim states “the separator is generally thin”. The term “thin” renders the claim indefitne because it is not clear what range of thicknesses the applicant would consider to be “thin”.
The claim refers to “the filtration device inlet”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation within the claims.
Regarding Claim 2:
The claim states “sized to fit…within the top space of a down-flow…reactor”. This limitation renders the claim indefinite because it is not clear what size or range of sizes would meet this limitation. The size of the reactor is not defined, therefore a size that fits within the reactor is indefinite.
Regarding Claims 5 and 6:
The claims refer to “the…section of the top plate”, “the…sections of the separator”, and “the…sections of the base plate”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for “sections” of the top plate, separator, and base plate in the claims. Support for “sections” is provided in claim 4. Claims 5 and 6 do not depend from claim 4.
Regarding Claims 7 and 8:
The claims refer to “the cross members”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation within the claims. The claims depend from claim 4, antecedent basis is provided in claim 5.
The remaining claims are indefinite because they depend from an indefinite claim.
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) 1-7, 9-11 and 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al (CN 2855521, English machine translation provided) in view of Li et al (CN 101279225, English machine translation provided).
Regarding Claim 1:
Liu teaches the filtration device for removing contaminants from a liquid feed stream in a down-flow catalytic hydroprocessing reactor (see pg. 3, 4th paragraph), the filtration device comprising: a top plate (guide plate 1) having inner (bottom) and outer (top) surfaces and a top plate periphery (edge of plate) (see pg. 3, 1st paragraph, fig. 1); a base plate generally parallel to the top plate having inner and outer surfaces, a base plate periphery (see fig. 1, annotated below), and a base plate aperture (see fig. 1 below), wherein the top and base plates are separated by a distance to define an interior volume (annular space) of the filtration device, and wherein the interior volume comprises a filtration media (protective agent 4) volume located on top of and adjacent to the base plate inner surface (see pg. 3, 2nd paragraph, fig, 1) and a flow bypass volume located on top of the filtration media volume and adjacent to the top plate inner surface (see fig, 1, Annotated below); a base plate aperture containment barrier (screen assembly 3) to retain filtration media on the base plate, located around the perimeter of the base plate aperture and extending from the base plate to the top of the filtration media volume or the bottom surface of the top plate (see pg. 3, 2nd paragraph, fig. 1); a support structure (top of distribution pipe 6) for the top plate positioned within the interior volume of the filtration device comprising one or more supports to provide and maintain the separation distance between the top plate and the base plate (see pg. 3, 2nd paragraph, fig, 1); a separator (cover p[late 2) positioned between the filtration media volume and the flow bypass volume (see pg. 2, 2nd paragraph, fig. 1), wherein the separator is generally thin (separator is not describe as thick, therefore it is considered to be thin) and parallel to both the top plate and the bottom plate, contains the filter media within the filtration media volume, and allows liquid to flow into the filtration media volume (see fig, 1, pg. 3 2nd paragraph); and, filtration media (protective agent 4) contained within the filtration media volume (see fig, 1, pg. 3 2nd paragraph); wherein, the base plate, the top plate, and the separator are centrally positioned about the same central perpendicular axis (see fig. 1), and the top plate having a smaller areal dimension than the bottom plate so that feed stream liquid and gas can flow into the filtration device inlet (see fig. 1 annotated below) between the periphery of the top plate and the periphery of the base plate.
Liu does not teach the separator generally having the same areal dimension as the bottom plate.
Li teaches a filtration device (dirt collection basket) comprising a base plate (bottom surface) (see abstract) and a filtration media volume (filtering slots 3) (see para. 0021, figs. 1 and 4). Li further teaches that the filtration media volume extends the diameter of the base plate (see fig. 4).
Liu and Li are analogous inventions in the art of filtration devices for catalytic reactors. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to extend the filtration media volume of Liu to the end of the base plate of Lui, as disclose the Li because it allows for uniform filtering of the dirt in the liquid phase (see Li para. 0006). As the separator (cover plate) of Liu covers the filter media it would have been obvious to modify the separator to generally have the same areal dimension as the bottom plate in order for the separator (cover plate) to cover the filter media )see Liu pg. 3, 2nd paragraph).
PNG
media_image1.png
401
524
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 2:
Liu, as modified, teaches the filtration device of claim 1, wherein the device and each of the top plate, base plate, and separator are generally circular in dimension and are sized to fit horizontally within the top space of a down-flow catalytic hydroprocessing reactor (see Liu pg. 3, 4th paragraph, Li para. 0006).
Regarding Claim 3:
Liu, as modified, teaches the filtration device of claim 2, wherein the top plate has a smaller generally circular diameter than the base plate to define an annular filtration device inlet area around the top perimeter of the filtration device through which feedstream liquid and gas enters the device and flows inward toward the base plate aperture (see Liu, fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 4:
Liu, as modified, teaches the filtration device of claim 1.
Liu does not teach a plurality of section.
Li further teaches wherein one or more of the top plate, the base plate, and the separator comprises a plurality of sections that together form the respective top plate, the base plate (see Li para. 0006), or the separator, such that the sections may be placed within or removed from the reactor through a reactor internal access location.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the base plate of Liu into a plurality of section, as disclosed by Li, because it allows each piece to enter the inner enclosure of the reactor (see Li para. 0006).
Regarding Claim 5:
Liu, as modified, teaches the device of claim 1.
Liu does not teach the support structure comprises a plurality of cross members to support the top plate or sections of the top plate.
Li teaches a support structure comprising a plurality pf cross members (connectors 4) (see para. 0017).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add the cross members (connectors) of Li to the top plate of Liu because it proves convenient assembling and disassembling (see Li para. 0017) and it is desirable in Liu to have convenient installation (see Liu abstract).
Regarding Claim 6:
Liu, as modified, teaches the device of claim 5, wherein the cross members support the separator or sections of the separator. As the cross members support the device they support the separator because all portions of the filter are in contact with each other.
Regarding Claim 7:
Liu, as modified, teaches the device of claim 4 (interpreted as claim 5), wherein the cross members support the base plate or sections of the base plate. As the cross members support the device they support the separator because all portions of the filter are in contact with each other.
Regarding Claim 9:
Liu, as modified, teaches the filtration device of claim 1.
Liu does not explicitly teach wherein the separator comprises a wire, grid, mesh, screen, or perforated metal material that is sufficient to retain the filtration media within the filtration media volume.
Liu further teaches the use of screens (see pg. 3, 2nd paragraph).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to replace the unspecified material of the separator (cover) of Liu with the screen material of Liu because it allows the liquid flow to enter the filtering material (se Liu pg. 3, 4th paragraph).
Regarding Claim 10:
Liu, as modified, teaches the filtration device of claim 1, wherein the base plate aperture containment barrier comprises a wire, grid, mesh, screen (inner screen assembly) , or perforated metal material that is sufficient to retain the filtration media within the filtration media volume and to allow feedstream liquid to flow from the filtration media volume into and through the base plate aperture (see Liu pg. 3, 2nd paragraph).
Regarding Claim 11:
Liu, as modified, teaches the filtration device of claim 1, wherein the base plate aperture is centrally located in the base plate (see Liu fig. 1).
Liu does not explicitly teach the base plate aperture is a sufficient dimension to allow manway access to portions of a reactor situated below the filtration device when installed in a down-flow catalytic hydroprocessing reactor. However it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to change the size of the aperture such that it is sufficient dimension to allow manway access, because it is a mere change in size. The size of an article is not a matter of invention. See In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
Regarding Claim 13:
Liu, as modified, teaches the filtration device of claim 1, wherein the device does not include a containment barrier located around the perimeter of the base plate extending from the base plate to the top of the filtration media volume or the bottom surface of the top plate, or wherein the filtration media is not contained around the perimeter of the base plate, or a combination thereof (see Liu fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 14:
Liu, as modified, teaches the down-flow catalytic hydroprocessing reactor (hydrogenation reactor) comprising the filtration device of claim 1 (see Liu pg. 3, 4th paragraph).
Regarding Claim 15:
Liu, as modified, teaches the process for removing contaminants from a liquid feedstream in a down- flow catalytic hydroprocessing reactor, the process comprising passing a feedstream to a down-flow catalytic hydroprocessing reactor through a filtration device installed at the top of the reactor according to claim 1, wherein the liquid and gas components of the feedstream pass through the inlet to the filtration device between the periphery of the top plate and the periphery of the base plate such that the feedstream liquid passes through the filtration media contained within the filtration media volume (see Liu pg. 3, 4th paragraph) and the feedstream gas passes through the flow bypass volume of the filtration device interior volume (vapor flow channel) (see Liu pg. , 2nd paragraph from bottom).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al (CN 2855521, English machine translation provided) in view of Li et al (CN 101279225, English machine translation provided) as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Koseoglu et al (USPN 9,463,427).
Regarding Claim 8:
Liu, as modified, teaches the filtration device of claim 4.
Liu does not teach the cross members comprise a top support and an intermediate support between the top and the bottom of the cross member, wherein the top support supports the top plate or sections of the top plate and the intermediate support supports the separator or sections of the separator.
Koseoglu teaches a basket for a catalytic reactor comprising a top support (top vertical support 32) and an intermediate support (lower vertical support 32) between the top and the bottom of the cross member (radial support 34), wherein the top support supports a top plate or sections of the top plate and the intermediate support supports a separator or sections of the separator (see Fig. 1B annotated below and col. 2 lines 56-60).
Liu, as modified, and Koseoglu are analogous inventions in the art of baskets for holding media placed in reactors. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to add the top and intermediate supports of Koseoglu between the plates of Liu because it is the simple addition of a known support feature to a known device, obviously resulting in supported plates and separators, with an expectation of success. The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, A.).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al (CN 2855521, English machine translation provided) in view of Li et al (CN 101279225, English machine translation provided) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Koudil et al (US 2011/0092754).
Regarding Claim 12:
Liu, as modified, teaches the filtration device of claim 1 comprising a particulate filtration absorbent material.
Liu is silent as to the size of the filtration media.
Koudil teaches filtration media that comprises a particulate filtration absorbent material having a nominal size in the range of less than 30 mm (see para. 0036). Given that the prior art range of less than 30 mm fully encompasses the claimed range of about 5 to about 20 mm a prima facie case of obviousness exists and one skilled in the art would have found it obvious to use a particle size within the claimed range.
Liu and Koudil are analogous inventions in the art of filtration devices. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use filter media within the size range disclosed by Koudil for the filtration device of Liu because it is a particle size known to be useful for a filter device upstream of a catalytic reactor and because through routine experimentation one skilled in the art would have found appropriate milter media.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CLAIRE A NORRIS whose telephone number is (571)272-5133. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:30-5 F: 8-12.
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, Ramdhanie Bobby can be reached at 571-270-3240. 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.
/CLAIRE A NORRIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1779 1/8/2026