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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 1-9 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction requirement in the reply filed on 6/23/2026.
Applicant's election with traverse of claims 10-13 and 15 in the reply filed on 6/23/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the prior art does not disclose or suggest at least two swirling elements, since applicant argues that Dahmen teaches one swirling element. This is not found persuasive, since Dahmen teaches multiple vanes, and further in view of Gravley et al. U.S. Patent No. 4,623,521, which also teaches multiple swirling elements (segments 84, 86, 88, to which vanes are fixed, 102, 104, 106; C5/L68). Therefore the prior art does teach at least two swirling elements and this technical feature does not make a contribution over the prior art.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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 10-13 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 10 recites “supplying a first fluid along the central longitudinal axis of the reactor” which is a limitation that lacks antecedent basis. Claim 10 does not previously recite a central longitudinal axis of the reactor. Claims 11-13 depend upon claim 10 and do not rectify the issue, so are similarly rejected due to indefiniteness. Claim 12 recites a limitation of a central longitudinal axis but this does not rectify the issue since this is recited as “a central longitudinal axis of a reactor” which is additionally indefinite because it is unclear whether this reactor is the same as the reactor recited in claim 10 or a different reactor.
Claim 13 recites “substantially homogeneous” which is a relative term; the instant specification does not provide a definition for the bounds of the term “substantially” and it would not be evident to one skilled in the art what constitutes a “substantially homogeneous” range of oxygen concentrations across a cross-section of the reaction chamber. Therefore this term is indefinite in scope.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 4,623,521, Gravley et al. 1986.
Regarding claim 15, Gravley teaches a method for producing carbon black (C2/L30-35) comprising using at least two swirling elements (segments 84, 86, 88, Figure 5) to obtain a swirled oxygen-containing gas for a better mixing of fuel with the oxygen-containing gas (“increase turbulence by increasing the mixing rate,” C1/L45).
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.
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.
Claims 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 4,623,521, Gravley et al. 1986, in view of U.S. Patent No. 5,188,806, Kuehner et al. 1993. Kuehner was provided on the IDS filed on 12/22/2023.
Regarding claim 10, Gravley teaches a method for producing carbon black (C2/L30-35) comprising:
injecting a second fluid by an injection means into a combustion chamber of a reactor (oil or hydrocarbon, C4/L8, which is the fuel supplied in a concentric pipe through the conduit to a reactor, C3/L58),
supplying a first fluid (oxidant fluid such as air, C4/L39) along the central longitudinal axis of the reactor through a tubular conduit (oxidant fluid from chamber 34 into combustion chamber 30, C4/L52-55) passing at least two swirling elements (segments 84, 86, 88, Figure 5) arranged in series along the longitudinal axis of the tubular conduit provided inside the tubular conduit (Figure 1, 5),
swirling the first fluid by the at least two swirling elements (C4/L4-6),
mixing the second fluid and the swirled first fluid (C4/L52-55)
receiving the hot combustion gases in a reaction chamber located along the central longitudinal axis of the reactor subsequent to the combustion chamber (C4/L4-7), and
injecting a feedstock for carbon black into the hot combustion gases received from the combustion chamber to form the carbon black in the reaction chamber (introducing a carbonaceous feedstock into converging chamber 42, C4/L23-25);
wherein the first fluid is oxygen-containing gas (air or combustion gases, C4/L6)
and the second fluid is fuel (oil or hydrocarbon, C4/L8, which is the fuel supplied in a concentric pipe through the conduit to a reactor, C3/L58).
Gravley does not teach the following limitation:
Combusting fuel in the combustion chamber to produce hot combustion gases
However, Kuehner teaches a method and apparatus for producing carbon black (title) wherein the method comprises mixing combustion oxidant and combustion fuel to result in a reaction that yields combustion products (C5/L45-47), and further teaches that the combustion fuel is any known fuel in the art such as natural gas (C8/L64), which is a hydrocarbon. Therefore Kuehner teaches a first fluid and second fluid as Gravley teaches. It would be obvious to one skilled in the art to use the combustion chamber 30 taught by Gravley for the combustion of the mixed fluids as they both arrive at the combustion chamber 30 as taught by Gravley (col. 4), as Kuehner teaches; one would be motivated to do so in order to obtain gases to react with the carbon black feedstock in order to produce carbon black, as both Gravley (C1/L25) and Kuehner (C1/L69) teach. Therefore one skilled in the art would arrive at the claimed invention prior to the effective filing date.
Regarding claim 11, Gravley and Kuehner teach the method as applied to claim 10. Gravley further teaches that the injection means (pipe 24) is a fuel injection means (“a concentric pipe supplying fuel through the conduit to a reactor,” C3/L58), and that the first fluid is oxygen-containing gas (oxidant fluid such as air, C4/L39) and the second fluid is fuel (oil, C4/L8) as discussed for claim 10.
Regarding claim 12, Gravley and Kuehner teach the method as applied to claim 10. Gravley further teaches:
the fuel is injected by a fuel lance arranged along a central longitudinal axis of a reactor and extending through a tubular conduit into a combustion chamber of a reactor (member 24)
the oxygen-containing gas is supplied through a passageway defined by a gap between the inner surface of the conduit and the outer surface of the fuel lance to the combustion chamber (conduit/fuel burner assembly 4, “the vane width is less than half of the diameter of the conduit. This provides for the insertion of other vanes and also allows, in a preferred embodiment, for the use of a concentric pipe supplying fuel through the conduit to a reactor, as shown in FIG. 1,” C3/L55-60)
comprising swirling the oxygen-containing gas by the at least two swirling elements provided in the gap (“the flexible vane or vanes impart a swirl to the air or combustion gases which passes through the conduit and into the reaction chamber,” C4/L5).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gravley and Kuehner, as applied to claim 10, and in further view of Lewis et al. 2006, US 20060034748 A1.
Regarding claim 13, Gravley and Kuehner teach the method as applied to claim 10. Gravley further teaches that the swirling elements provides spiraling configurations for the air and fuel, which increases turbulence by increasing the mixing rate of the reaction mass (C1/L45).
Gravley and Keuhmer do not explicitly teach the property that the oxygen concentration in the hot combustion gases is substantially homogeneous across the cross-section of the reaction chamber when injecting the feedstock for carbon black into the hot combustion gases.
However, Gravley teaches that the mixing rate is improved by the presence of the swirling structure, which indicates that improved mixing of the gases is an objective of the invention and therefore would motivate one skilled in the art to find further improvements of mixing taught in the art.
Lewis further teaches a device which is analogous and relevant to the instant invention as well as the reactor taught by Gravley since Lewis teaches that the device is for use in an axial tread carbon black reactor (abstract). Lewis teaches specifically an oxidant diffusion device (abstract) which improves axial tread carbon black reactors by providing a more uniform combustion environment (0088) by reducing the concentration different of oxygen in the reactor (0088). It would be obvious to one skilled in the art to combine the teachings of Gravley and Lewis, by incorporating the device of Lewis in the reactor of Gravley, thus arriving at the claimed invention wherein an oxygen concentration in the hot combustion gases is substantially homogeneous across the cross-section of the reaction chamber when injecting the feedstock for carbon black into the hot combustion gases. One would be motivated to do so to improve mixing of the combustion gases and fuel, since Lewis teaches that this mixing is inadequate with conventional reactors (0104) and that the oxidant diffusion device improves air/fuel distributions (0089) and therefore the temperature across a cross-section (measurement plane, 0089) can approach the theoretical maximum when the oxygen concentration difference is reduced (therefore being more uniform and homogeneous). Therefore one skilled in the art would arrive at the claimed invention prior to the effective filing date of the present invention.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Eileen Moudou whose telephone number is (571)272-1768. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8 AM - 4 PM EST.
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, Sally Merkling can be reached at (571)272-6297. 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.
/Eileen Moudou/Examiner, Art Unit 1738
/SALLY A MERKLING/SPE, Art Unit 1738
Prosecution Insights