OFFICE ACTION
This application has been assigned or remains assigned to Technology Center 1700, Art Unit 1774 and the following will apply for this application:
Please direct all written correspondence with the correct application serial number for this application to Art Unit 1774.
Telephone inquiries regarding this application should be directed to the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at http://www.uspto.gov/ebc/index.html or 1-866-217-9197 or to the Examiner at (571) 272-1139. All official facsimiles should be transmitted to the centralized fax receiving number (571)-273-8300.
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 .
Election/Restriction Requirement
Claims 18-19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 3 AUG 2026. Claims 10-17 are treated on the merits below.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of a claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119(a)-(d). All of the CERTIFIED copies of the priority documents have been received in this national stage application from the International Bureau (PCT Rule 17.2(a)).
Information Disclosure Statement
Note the attached PTO-1449 forms submitted with the Information Disclosure Statements.
Specification
The specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Page 8, line 10: replace “annual” with –annular--.
Appropriate correction is required.
The Abstract of the Disclosure is objected to because:
a. it lacks substance as it is not an adequate and clear statement of the contents of the disclosure. A reading of the abstract does not provide the character of the subject matter covered by the disclosure. The abstract should be more comprehensive of the disclosed subject matter by describing pairs of injection tubes being of different length.
Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed (MPEP 606.01) by mentioning pairs of injection tubes being of different length.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 112(b)
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.
The inquiry during examination is patentability of the invention as the inventor or a joint inventor regards such invention. If the claims do not particularly point out and distinctly claim that which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as his or her invention, the appropriate action by the examiner is to reject the claims under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 13 USPQ2d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
Claims 10-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or joint inventor regards as the invention.
The claims throughout refer to the tubes as “injecting tubes” and as “injection tubes” leading to confusion and indefiniteness – are the same tubes being referred to?
Claim 11, line 2: “the distribution conduct” lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 12, line 2: “the said” is redundant.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The terms used in this respect are given their broadest reasonable interpretation in their ordinary usage in context as they would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, in light of the written description in the specification, including the drawings, without reading into the claim any disclosed limitation or particular embodiment. See, e.g., In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004); In re Hyatt, 211 F.3d 1367, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2000); In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054-55 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321-22 (Fed. Cir. 1989). The Examiner interprets claims as broadly as reasonable in view of the specification, but does not read limitations from the specification into a claim. Elekta Instr. S.A.v.O.U.R. Sci. Int'l, Inc., 214 F.3d 1302, 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2000).
To determine whether subject matter would have been obvious, "the scope and content of the prior art are to be determined; differences between the prior art and the claims at issue are to be ascertained; and the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art resolved .... Such secondary considerations as commercial success, long felt but unsolved needs, failure of others, etc., might be utilized to give light to the circumstances surrounding the origin of the subject matter sought to be patented." Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kansas City, 383 U.S. 1, 17-18 (1966).
The Supreme Court has noted:
Often, it will be necessary for a court to look to interrelated teachings of multiple patents; the effects of demands known to the design community or present in the marketplace; and the background knowledge possessed by a person having ordinary skill in the art, all in order to determine whether there was an apparent reason to combine the known elements in the fashion claimed by the patent at issue.
KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740-41 (2007). "Under the correct analysis, any need or problem known in the field of endeavor at the time of invention and addressed by the patent can provide a reason for combining the elements in the manner claimed." (Id. at 1742).
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 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.
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.
The instant office action conforms to the policies articulated in the Federal Register notice titled “Updated Guidance for Making a Proper Determination of Obviousness” at 89 Fed. Reg. 14449, February 27, 2024, wherein the Supreme Court’s directive to employ a flexible approach to understanding the scope of prior art is reflected in the frequently quoted sentence, ‘‘A person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.’’ Id. at 421, 127 S. Ct. at 1742. In this section of the KSR decision, the Supreme Court instructed the Federal Circuit that persons having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITAs) also have common sense, which may be used to glean suggestions from the prior art that go beyond the primary purpose for which that prior art was produced. Id. at 421–22, 127 S. Ct. at 1742. Thus, the Supreme Court taught that a proper understanding of the prior art extends to all that the art reasonably suggests, and is not limited to its articulated teachings regarding how to solve the particular technological problem with which the art was primarily concerned. Id. at 418, 127 S. Ct. at 1741 (‘‘As our precedents make clear, however, the analysis need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.’’). ‘‘The obviousness analysis cannot be confined . . . by overemphasis on the importance of published articles and the explicit content of issued patents.’’ Id. at 419, 127 S. Ct. at 1741. Federal Circuit case law since KSR follows the mandate of the Supreme Court to understand the prior art— including combinations of the prior art—in a flexible manner that credits the common sense and common knowledge of a PHOSITA. The Federal Circuit has made it clear that a narrow or rigid reading of prior art that does not recognize reasonable inferences that a PHOSITA would have drawn is inappropriate. An argument that the prior art lacks a specific teaching will not be sufficient to overcome an obviousness rejection when the allegedly missing teaching would have been understood by a PHOSITA—by way of common sense, common knowledge generally, or common knowledge in the relevant art. For example, in Randall Mfg. v. Rea, 733 F.3d 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2013), the Federal Circuit vacated a determination of nonobviousness by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or Board) because it had not properly considered a PHOSITA’s perspective on the prior art. Id. at 1364. The Randall court recalled KSR’s criticism of an overly rigid approach to obviousness that has ‘‘little recourse to the knowledge, creativity, and common sense that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have brought to bear when considering combinations or modifications.’’ Id. at 1362, citing KSR, 550 U.S. at 415–22, 127 S. Ct. at 1727. In reaching its decision to vacate, the Federal Circuit stated that by ignoring evidence showing ‘‘the knowledge and perspective of one of ordinary skill in the art, the Board failed to account for critical background information that could easily explain why an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine or modify the cited references to arrive at the claimed inventions.’’ Id.
From Norgren Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 699 F.3d 1317, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (‘‘A flexible teaching, suggestion, or motivation test can be useful to prevent hindsight when determining whether a combination of elements known in the art would have been obvious.’’); Outdry Techs. Corp. v. Geox S.p.A., 859 F.3d 1364, 1370–71 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (‘‘Any motivation to combine references, whether articulated in the references themselves or supported by evidence of the knowledge of a skilled artisan, is sufficient to combine those references to arrive at the claimed process.’’). In keeping with this flexible approach to providing a rationale for obviousness, the Federal Circuit has echoed KSR in identifying numerous possible sources that may, either implicitly or explicitly, provide reasons to combine or modify the prior art to determine that a claimed invention would have been obvious. These include ‘‘market forces; design incentives; the ‘interrelated teachings of multiple patents’; ‘any need or problem known in the field of endeavor at the time of invention and addressed by the patent’; and the background knowledge, creativity, and common sense of the person of ordinary skill.’’ Plantronics, Inc. v. Aliph, Inc., 724 F.3d 1343, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2013), quoting KSR, 550 U.S. at 418–21, 127 S. Ct. at 1741–42.
The Federal Circuit has also clarified that a proposed reason to combine the teachings of prior art disclosures may be proper, even when the problem addressed by the combination might have been more advantageously addressed in another way. PAR Pharm., Inc. v. TWI Pharms., Inc., 773 F.3d 1186, 1197–98 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (‘‘Our precedent, however, does not require that the motivation be the best option, only that it be a suitable option from which the prior art did not teach away.’’) (emphasis in original). One aspect of the flexible approach to explaining a reason to modify the prior art is demonstrated in the Federal Circuit’s decision in Intel Corp. v. Qualcomm Inc., 21 F.4th 784, 796 (Fed. Cir. 2021), which confirms that a proposed reason is not insufficient simply because it has broad applicability. Patent challenger Intel had argued in an inter partes review before the Board that some of Qualcomm’s claims were unpatentable because a PHOSITA would have been able to modify the prior art, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of increasing energy efficiency. Id. at 796–97. The Federal Circuit explained that ‘‘[s]uch a rationale is not inherently suspect merely because it’s generic in the sense of having broad applicability or appeal.’’ Id. The Federal Circuit further pointed out its pre-KSR holding ‘‘that because such improvements are ‘technology independent,’ ‘universal,’ and ‘even common-sensical,’ ‘there exists in these situations a motivation to combine prior art references even absent any hint of suggestion in the references themselves.’ ’’ Id., quoting DyStar Textilfarben GmbH v. C.H. Patrick Co., 464 F.3d 1356, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (emphasis added by the Federal Circuit in Intel). When formulating an obviousness rejection, the PTO may use any clearly articulated line of reasoning that would have allowed a PHOSITA to draw the conclusion that a claimed invention would have been obvious in view of the facts. MPEP 2143, subsection I, and MPEP 2144. Acknowledging that, in view of KSR, there are ‘‘many potential rationales that could make a modification or combination of prior art references obvious to a skilled artisan,’’ the Federal Circuit has also pointed to MPEP 2143, which provides several examples of rationales gleaned from KSR. Unwired Planet, 841 F.3d at 1003.
When considering the prior art in its entirety, note Allied Erecting v. Genesis Attachments, 825 F.3d 1373, 1381, 119 USPQ2d 1132, 1138 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("Although modification of the movable blades may impede the quick change functionality disclosed by Caterpillar, ‘[a] given course of action often has simultaneous advantages and disadvantages, and this does not necessarily obviate motivation to combine.’" (quoting Medichem, S.A. v. Rolabo, S.L., 437 F.3d 1157, 1165, 77 USPQ2d 1865, 1870 (Fed Cir. 2006) (citation omitted))). However, "the prior art’s mere disclosure of more than one alternative does not constitute a teaching away from any of these alternatives because such disclosure does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed…." In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201, 73 USPQ2d 1141, 1146 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
In view of the 103 policy outlined above, claims 10 and 12-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JAGGER et al. (US 10456711) in view of SMITH et al. (3385199) or GRAHAM, Sr. (US 7229207 B2).
JAGGER et al. discloses an injection type mixing system (100) configured to mix a fluid or a gas (from 112) into a mainstream (from 110), the mixing system comprises a distribution channel (106); an injection unit (500, see figure 5); a static mixing unit 108; the distribution channel has a main longitudinal axis which, in operation, determines the flow direction of the mainstream; the injection unit (500) comprises a manifold (504) and a plurality of injection tubes (502); the manifold is arranged inside the distribution channel and is disposed perpendicularly to the main longitudinal axis of said distribution channel, said manifold is adapted to receive said fluid or gas to be injected into the mainstream via the injection tubes (502); the injection tubes (502) extend perpendicularly from said manifold (504) and are disposed lengthwise forming at least one row along the length of said manifold (504); the injection tubes (504) are parallel to each other and are arranged so that for each row of tubes, each pair of consecutive tubes is made of two tubes of different length (see figure 5); wherein the number of rows is two and wherein the said two rows are arranged on the opposite sides of the manifold 504 (Figure 5 as reproduced below); the number of the plurality of injecting tubes 502 is between 6 and 24 or between 10 and 18 (Figure 5); the plurality of injection tubes 502 further include a plurality of metering openings 506 disposed lengthwise along the length of the injecting tubes 502; wherein the plurality of metering openings 506 are obtained as a cylindrical bore in the wall of the injecting tubes or as outlet pipe; and wherein the cross-sectional area of said manifold is at least twice as great as the sum of the cross-section area of all the injecting tubes (Figure 5).
Moreover, Figure 5 is a cross-sectional view of an embodiment of vessel 106 with aim distributor 500 disposed within mixing zone 102. Arm distributor 500 may comprise a plurality of distributor arms/tubes 502 extending axially from a central tube 504. Arm distributor 500 may comprise any number of distributor arms/tubes 502, depending, for example, on required flow rate of fluid, among other factors. Each distributor arm/tube 502 may comprise a plurality of holes 506 to allow fluid in the hollow interior of arm distributor 500 to flow into mixing zone 102. A flow path 508 defined by the follow interior of arm distributor 500 may fluidically link inlet 112 to holes 506. In some embodiments, fluid introduced through inlet 112 may flow through flow path 508 into each distributor arm 502 and through each of the plurality of holes 506 until the liquid reached end cap 510. End cap 510 may seal off the ends of each distributor arm 502 such that fluid in flow path 508 can only exit through holes 506. In some embodiments, each of the plurality of holes 506 may have an inductor 200 (e.g., illustrated in FIG. 2) attached or coupled to holes 506. In an embodiment where inductors 200 are present, fluid traversing flow path 508 may flow out of holes 506 and through an inductor 200 disposed at an exit of holes 506. Inductor 200 may be attached, or otherwise coupled, to holes 506 by any means, including, for example, screw threading, push fitting, flanged. In some embodiments, an inductor 200 may be present in all of holes 508 or, alternatively, in only some of holes 402.
Referring now to FIGS. 1, 2, and 5, in an embodiment, arm distributor 500 may be disposed within mixing zone 102 of vessel 106 and be fluidically coupled to inlet 112. As previously described, fluids may be introduced into vessel 106 through first inlet 110 and second inlet 112 respectively. The first liquid introduced through inlet 110 may comprise, for example, the relatively lighter, or less dense fluid. The second fluid introduced through inlet 112 may comprise the relatively heavier or denser fluid. In some embodiments, as the second fluid flows through atm distributor 500, the second fluid may be expelled through inductors 200 disposed in at least some of the holes 506 of aim distributor 500. The first liquid fluid present in vessel 106, introduced through inlet 110, may be drawn into a low pressure area (e.g., induction zone 508) created by inductor 200 thereby mixing the first and second liquids and expelling the mixed fluids into extraction zone 104 by way of second induction cone 212. The mixed first and second liquids may contact fiber bundle/static mixer 108 which may promote contact between the mixed first and second liquids such that mass transfer, chemical reactions, or both may occur.
PNG
media_image1.png
508
456
media_image1.png
Greyscale
JAGGER et al. does not disclose each of the plurality of injection tubes is provided with an aperture configured to eject said fluid or gas with a flow direction perpendicular to the main longitudinal axis of the distribution channel, i.e., from an open distal end of each injection tube.
SMITH et al. discloses in Figure 5 seen below an injection type mixing system with an injection tube 140 having a plurality of metering openings 144 disposed lengthwise along the length of the injecting tube 140 and an open distal end proximate 148 for injecting a fluid from the open distal end of the injection tube 140.
PNG
media_image2.png
371
975
media_image2.png
Greyscale
GRAHAM, Sr. discloses an injection type mixing system seen in Figures 8-11 below with injection tubes 92 and 94 having a plurality of metering openings 110, 136 disposed lengthwise along the length of the injecting tubes and an open distal end proximate 98, 124 for injecting a fluid from the open distal end of the injection tubes.
PNG
media_image3.png
494
439
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
584
441
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the injection tubes of JAGGER et al. to have open distal ends as disclosed by SMITH et al. or GRAHAM, Sr. such that each of the plurality of injection tubes in JAGGER et al. is provided with an aperture configured to eject said fluid or gas with a flow direction perpendicular to the main longitudinal axis of the distribution channel, i.e., from an open distal end of each injection tube for the purpose of injecting the fluid from both the metering openings and the open distal end of the injection tubes to thereby inject the fluid over a larger cross-sectional of the distribution channel.
Moreover, the omission of and element and Its function is obvious if the function of the element is not needed or desired, as in the injection devices of SMITH et al. or GRAHAM, Sr. as outlined above. Such omission of the end caps 510 from the injection tubes 502 of JAGGER et al. to enable injecting the fluid from both the metering openings and the open distal end of the injection tubes 502, sans the end cap 510, is well within the realm of obviousness. See Ex parte Wu, 10 USPQ 2031 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1989) (Claims at issue were directed to a method for inhibiting corrosion on metal surfaces using a composition consisting of epoxy resin, petroleum sulfonate, and hydrocarbon diluent. The claims were rejected over a primary reference which disclosed an anticorrosion composition of epoxy resin, hydrocarbon diluent, and polybasic acid salts wherein said salts were taught to be beneficial when employed in a freshwater environment, in view of secondary references which clearly suggested the addition of petroleum sulfonate to corrosion inhibiting compositions. The Board affirmed the rejection, holding that it would have been obvious to omit the polybasic acid salts of the primary reference where the function attributed to such salt is not desired or required, such as in compositions for providing corrosion resistance in environments which do not encounter fresh water.). See also In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 144 USPQ 347 (CCPA 1965) (Omission of additional framework and axle which served to increase the cargo carrying capacity of prior art mobile fluid carrying unit would have been obvious if this feature was not desired.); and In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) (deleting a prior art switch member and thereby eliminating its function was an obvious expedient).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JAGGER et al. (US 10456711) in view of SMITH et al. (3385199) or GRAHAM, Sr. (US 7229207 B2) as applied to claim 10 above and further in view of ZHANG et al. (US 2013/0104519).
Modified JAGGER et al. discloses an injection type mixing system capable of mixing fluids but does not disclose wherein said manifold is connected to an ammonia feed and the distribution conduct is connected to an air supply unit so that said fluid or gas is an ammonia feed whilst said mainstream is an air stream.
ZHANG et al. discloses an injection type mixing system with a manifold 44, 86 that is connected to an ammonia feed 64 and the distribution conduct [sic, channel] is connected to an air supply unit 41 so that said fluid or gas is an ammonia feed from 64 whilst said mainstream is an air stream 26.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have provided JAGGER et al. with the manifold being connected to an ammonia feed and the distribution channel being connected to an air supply unit so that said fluid or gas is an ammonia feed whilst said mainstream is an air stream as disclosed by ZHANG et al. for the purpose of reacting the air stream in the distribution channel with the ammonia feed in the presence of oxygen to produce nitrogen and water, thereby reducing emissions of the air stream ¶ [0002].
Allowable Subject Matter
No claims stand allowed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited prior art discloses injection type mixing systems.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLES COOLEY whose telephone number is (571) 272-1139. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30 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. New USPTO policy limits time for interviews to one per new application or RCE (utility), when during prosecution, the examiner conducts an interview. More than one interview and additional time will only be granted if it is ensured “that the interviews are being used to advance prosecution”.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, CLAIRE X. WANG can be reached at 571-272-1700. 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.
/CHARLES COOLEY/
Examiner, Art Unit 1774
DATED: 1 SEP 2026
Prosecution Insights