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 Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-7 and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ulber et al. (US 2019/0275494).
Regarding claim 1, the reference Ulber et al. discloses a catalytic reactor comprising:
a stack of catalytically active sheets (51) (see paras. [0011]; [0013]; [0070]; Figs. 1, 4, 5);
wherein the catalytically active sheets (51) are stacked in an axial direction (see paras. [0070]; [0073]; Figs. 1, 4, 5);
wherein each of the catalytically active sheets (51) includes a central opening (52) and at least some of the catalytically active sheets include an axially extending flange (54) arranged at least partially around the central opening (see para. [0073]; Figs. 4, 5);
wherein the flange (54) of one catalytically active sheet (51) extends into the central opening of an adjacent catalytically active sheet (see paras. [0070]; [0073]; Figs. 1, 4, 5).
Regarding claim 2, the reference Ulber et al. discloses the catalytic reactor, wherein each of the catalytically active sheets (51) comprises a radially extending portion (55) extending in a radial direction from the central opening (52) (see para. [0071]; Figs. 1, 4, 5).
Regarding claim 3, the reference Ulber et al. discloses the catalytic reactor, wherein the radially extending portion of one catalytically active sheet (55) is arranged with a gap to the radially extending portion of an adjacent catalytically active sheet (55) (see para. [0070]; Figs. 1, 4, 5).
Regarding claim 4, the reference Ulber et al. discloses the catalytic reactor, wherein the radially extending portion (55) is flat (i.e., the radially extending portion 55 extends radially on a flat support plate 53) (see paras. [0070]-[0072]; Figs. 1, 4, 5).
Regarding claim 5, the reference Ulber et al. discloses the catalytic reactor, wherein the radially extending portion (55) extends from the central opening (52) to a periphery of the catalytically active sheet (see paras. [0070]-[0072]; Figs. 1, 4, 5).
Regarding claim 6, the reference Ulber et al. discloses the catalytic reactor, wherein the flange (54) is tapering towards a free end thereof (see Figs. 4, 5).
Regarding claim 7, the reference Ulber et al. discloses the catalytic reactor, wherein the flange (54) extends continuously around the entire central opening (52) (see paras. [0070]; [0073]; Figs. 4, 5).
Regarding claim 9, the reference Ulber et al. discloses the catalytic reactor, wherein each of the catalytically active sheets includes a radially extending portion that is provided with through apertures distributed around the central opening (see paras. [0011]; [0027]).
Regarding claim 10, the reference Ulber et al. discloses the catalytic reactor, wherein the catalytically active sheet is a mesh (see paras. [0011]; [0027]).
Regarding claim 11, the reference Ulber et al. discloses the catalytic reactor, wherein the catalytically active sheet is made of a plate material (see paras. [0011]; [0027]).
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.
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 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ulber et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hums (US 4,847,234).
Regarding claim 12, the reference Ulber et al. is silent with respect to each of the catalytically active sheets comprising a substrate and a ceramic layer adhered to the substrate; wherein the ceramic layer is formed with pores provided with a catalytically active material. The reference Hums teaches a plate-shaped catalyst comprising a substrate (1) and a ceramic layer (2) adhered to the substrate; wherein the ceramic layer (21) is formed with pores provided with a catalytically active material (3) (see col. 3, lines 1-11 and lines 34-50; Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Ulber et al. and Hums, and have each of the catalytically active sheets comprising a substrate and a ceramic layer adhered to the substrate; wherein the ceramic layer is formed with pores provided with a catalytically active material, as taught by Hums, and claimed by applicant, since the reference Ulber et al. teaches that the catalytically active sheets can be made of metal foils coated with a catalytically active material (see para. [0013]). Furthermore, the reference Hums teaches that the ceramic layer advantageously provides rough and porous surfaces for applying a catalytically active material thereto (see col. 3, lines 34-47).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-12 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 13-22 of copending Application No. 18/566,867 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instantly claimed catalytic reactor recited in claims 1-12 is taught by claims 13-22 of the reference application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 14-15 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 13-22 of copending Application No. 18/566,867 in view of McMullin et al. (US 3,477,833).
Regarding claims 14-15, claims 13-22 of the reference application are silent with respect to the catalytic reactor comprising a reactor vessel having an inlet for a first reactant, at least one inlet for a second reactant, and at least one outlet; wherein the stack of catalytically active sheets is arranged inside the reactor vessel; wherein the inlet for the first reactant is arranged at one end of the stack and is aligned with the central openings of the catalytically active sheets, and wherein at least the central opening is blocked at an opposite end of the stack.
The reference McMullin et al. teaches a catalytic reactor comprising a reactor vessel having an inlet (14) for a first reactant (see col. 4, lines 4-13; Figure), at least one inlet (13) for a second reactant (see col. 3, lines 65-69; Figure), and at least one outlet (17); wherein a plurality of annular catalyst beds (3) having a central opening is arranged inside the reactor vessel (see 3, lines 48-65; Figure); wherein the inlet (14) for the first reactant is arranged at one end of the annular catalyst bed and is aligned with the central opening of the catalyst beds (see Figure), and wherein at least the central opening is blocked at an opposite end of the plurality of catalyst beds (see Figure). The reference McMullin et al. further teaches that the inlet (13) for the second reactant is arranged radially outside the inlet (14) for the first reactant (see Figure).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the catalytic reactor taught by claims 13-22 of the reference application to include a reactor vessel having at least two reactant inlets and at least one outlet in configuration as taught by McMullin et al., and claimed by applicant, to similarly carrying out a catalytic reaction utilizing the discloses stack of catalytically active sheets.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 13 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. Claim 13 would be allowable because the prior art of record does not disclose or fairly suggest the feature: wherein the catalytically active sheet comprises a first material and particles of a second material having a higher melting point than the first material; wherein the ceramic layer is adhered to the substrate through the first material and the particles of the second material being partially embedded in the first material and projecting into the ceramic layer, as recited in claim 13.
Claims 16-18 are allowed.
Regarding claims 16-18, the claims are allowed because the prior art of record does not disclose or fairly suggest the process steps of: a) feeding a first reactant in an axial direction into a central opening of a catalytically active sheet of a stack of catalytically active sheets; b) guiding some of the first reactant through an axially extending flange arranged at least partially around some of the central openings and extending into the central opening of an adjacent catalytically active sheet in the axial direction; and c) guiding some of the first reactant radially outward from the flange and into contact with a second reactant to provide the catalytic reaction, as recited in claim 16.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Lessanework T Seifu whose telephone number is (571)270-3153. The examiner can normally be reached M-T 9:00 am - 6:30 pm; F 9:00 am - 1:00 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, Claire Wang 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.
/LESSANEWORK SEIFU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1774
Prosecution Insights