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 Status
Claims 1-3, 5-7, 9-14, 17-19 and 21-24 are pending:
Claims 1-3 and 5-7 are rejected.
Claims 9-14, 17-19 and 21-24 have been withdrawn
Election/Restrictions
Claims 9-14, 17-19 and 21-24 have been withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected groups II-III, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 07/28/2026.
Applicant’s election without traverse of group I (claims 1-3 and 5-7) in the reply filed on 07/28/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Objection
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “the interior volume that results from a contact”; consider rephrasing to – the interior volume that result[[s]] from a contact – to correct grammatical error and for consistency with other claim language.
Claim 1 recites “the one or more reactants contacts”; consider rephrasing to – the one or more reactants contact[[s]] – to correct grammatical error and for consistency with other claim language.
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 2-3 and 5-7 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. Dependent claims are hereby rejected due to dependency from rejected claim 2.
Claim 2 recites “a recycle line connected with the interior volume of the reaction vessel”; it is unclear what component of material is being recycled? It is unclear how the other end of the recycle line is interconnected? Does this interconnection include any connection between the recycle line and the connection unit?
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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noyes (US 2016/0016800) in view McGuire (US 2015/0224485).
Regarding claim 1, Noyes teaches a continuous reaction system comprising:
a reaction vessel (112) comprising:
an inlet line (inlet 108) to provide one or more reactants to an interior volume of the reaction vessel such that the one or more reactants contacts at least a portion of …particles contained in interior volume (“he reactive gases have a velocity sufficient to sweep the solid product from the surface of the inner chamber 112, but a velocity below the entrainment velocity of the catalyst material so that the catalyst material stays in the inner chamber 112”, see ¶31 and Fig. 1);
an outlet line (product discharge 110, tail gas exit 118) to remove one or more products from the interior volume that results from a contact between the one or more reactants and the …particles (“a product discharge 110 through which a solid product and, in some embodiments, a portion of the reactive gases may flow when the reactor 100 is in operation”, see ¶26), the one or more products being in a solid state (“a product discharge 110 through which a solid product”, see ¶26); and
a sieve material (support 116 may be porous and may be, for example, a sintered ceramic or metal disk or a packing such as quartz fiber) disposed on the outlet line within the interior volume (see Fig. 1), the sieve material configured to reject the …particles and allow the one or more products to pass therethrough into the outlet line (“the support 116 allows gases to pass through, but may prevent solids or liquids above a selected particle size from passing through. The support 116 may be porous and may be, for example, a sintered ceramic or metal disk or a packing such as quartz fiber. The support 116 may be selected so that the catalyst particles will be retained”, see ¶35).
Noyes does not teach that the particles are inert scaffold particles.
In a related field of endeavor, McGuire teaches a catalyst for pyrolysis feedstock (see ABS) comprising inert scaffold particles (“the hydrogenation catalyst may be a base metal or base metal oxide supported by Al2O3, silica, or other inert matrix”, see ¶44 and “ the pores of microspheres comprised of an inert matrix such as calcined kaolin clay”, see ¶47).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the particles of Noyes to be inert scaffold particles as disclosed by McGuire because hydrogenation can occur with reactive monoaromatics in-situ, with the presence of hydrogen gas which is generated by a water-gas shift catalyst (McGuire, see ¶45).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-3 and 5-7 would be allowable if rewritten 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 and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The closest prior art references of record are Noyes (US 2016/0016800), McGuire (US 2015/0224485), Mitsuhashi (CN 1239099) and Hettinger (USPN 4,406,773).
The combination of Noyes and McGuire does not teach “continuous reaction system …comprising: a comminution unit having an inlet line connected to the reaction vessel; and a recycle line connected with the interior volume of the reaction vessel; wherein the comminution unit is configured to reduce a particle size of one or more products in the solid state subsequent to the one or more products passing through the sieve material” as required claim 2.
In a related field of endeavor, Mitsuhashi teaches a continuous manufacturing method (see ABS) having a crystallizer which produces a crystallized product send to a grinder for further processing (see pg. 9).
In a related field of endeavor, Hettinger teaches a magnetic separation of high activity catalyst (see ABS) comprising a recycle line connected with an interior volume of a reaction vessel (see Fig. 2).
It would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Noyes (as modified by McGuire) by incorporating a comminution unit (i.e. grinder) as disclosed by Mitsuhashi and a recycle line as disclosed by Hettinger because there is not motivation or suggestion to combine; and a combination would lead to improper hindsight reconstruction. Therefore claim 2 contains allowable subject matter. Dependent claims are hereby allowable due to dependency from claim 2.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EKANDRA S. MILLER-CRUZ whose telephone number is (571)270-7849. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7 am - 6 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, Benjamin L. Lebron can be reached at (571) 272-0475. 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.
/EKANDRA S. MILLER-CRUZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1773
Prosecution Insights