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 .
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1-5, 9-22, 24, 25 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.
In claim 1 lines 11 and 14, ‘respective’ is unclear in that implies some sort of correspondence. The term should be deleted.
The last 3 lines are unclear as to how it differs from the first condition. Are they trying to say that the product is reintroduced to the reactor that produced it? Further, it appears that ‘recirculated’ should actually be ‘circulated’.
Claim 2 is self-contradictory. If it is going to a different reactor, it is not being ‘recirculated’. The excessive verbosity of the claims causes undue confusion.
The use of both ‘respective’ and ‘recirculated’ in all the claims appears to be self-contradictory and unclear for the reason stated above. Moreover, if the process was truly a loop, then the terms ‘upstream’ and ‘downstream’ are inappropriate.
Claim 5 is unclear as to whether lines 6-7 refer to the same reactor.
Claim 9, while much more clear than the other claims, is self-contradictory in that ‘when present’ implies that the thing explicitly required is optional. In line 19, the second and third zones cannot be downstream from themselves. It appears that ‘downstream of said first reaction zone’ is meant, even though it would be repetitious and excessively verbose.
Claim 10 is awkward and should probably say ‘as a suspension’.
Claim 11 should refer to ‘said second’ reservoir for the SO2.
In claim 13 line 4, ‘being associated with’ is unclear and seemingly unnecessary.
In claim 14 lines 7 and 10, ‘otherwise associated with’ is unclear. ‘high thermal’ is subjective and thus unclear.
Claim 18 lines 3-4 and 10 are unclear in the ‘otherwise’ clause as to is required/entailed.
In claim 22 is unclear as to what ‘Model Predictive Control’ is and whether it is a computer system/apparatus made by applicant or a concept which is used in industry.
Claim 25 lines 3, 9 and 13 are unclear as to what ‘respective’ means. Perhaps ‘each reaction is performed in its respective reaction zone’ or the like is intended in lines 3-5.
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.
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.
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Norman et al. 4089939.
Norman teaches, especially in fig. 1 and col. 3-5, reacting H2O, I2 and SO2, sending the products to separate treatments (second and third reactors) to recover SO2 and I2 which are returned to the initial reactor (closing the loop). H2 and O2 are collected. HI and water form an azeotrope. The various fluids flow based on pressure and being ‘drawn off’ and ‘transported’, rendering obvious the fluid driving means. This describes the claimed ‘respective’ zones, noting the issues raised above.
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1-4, 9, 11-15, 17, 19, 24 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Norman et al. 4089939.
Norman teaches, especially in fig. 1 and col. 3-5, reacting H2O, I2 and SO2, sending the products to separate treatments (second and third reactors) to recover SO2 and I2 which are returned to the initial reactor (closing the loop). H2 and O2 are collected. HI and water form an azeotrope. The various fluids flow based on pressure and being ‘drawn off’ and ‘transported’, rendering obvious the fluid driving means. This describes the claimed ‘respective’ zones, noting the issues raised above.
For claim 2, sending the products for processing and returning materials to the main reactor is taught and is believed to be what claim 2 intends.
For claim 3, in that the main reaction must occur to create the products which are processed and recycled, which appears to be what claim 3 intends.
For claim 4, both H2SO4 and HI are treated in downstream reactions.
For claim 9, the three reaction zones are clearly specified. The output of the main reactor is split into 2 paths to treat the products to generate and separate new reactants, which are recycled, which is what claim 9 is believed to impart.
For claim 11, a pump is implied and obvious to move the fluids are required.
For claim 12, each reactant has its own feed line.
For claim 13, col. 6 teaches a Pt catalyst to decompose the H2SO4, which the decomposition of HI is done at high temperature.
For claim 14, the high temperature of HI decomposition renders the furnace obvious as does the distillation of the sulfuric acid.
For claim 15, distillation is taught.
For claim 17, while condensation of the water is not explicitly taught, the high temperatures form steam and the main reactor contains liquid water, so it is obvious to condense the steam.
For claim 19, the valves are not explicitly taught, however are obvious to control the flow of the fluids to and from the decomposition chambers and especially to control pressures.
For claim 24, hydrogen is separated and vented for collection.
For claim 25, in so far as the verbiage is unclear, no difference is seen versus the scheme of Norman, even though described in different terms. It is obvious to inject the reactants into the appropriate chambers.
Claim 10, 16, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Norman as applied to claims 1, 9 above, and further in view of Norman et al. 4089940.
The above does not teach a reservoir of reagents nor I2 in a liquid (claims 10, 20), however Norman ‘940 teaches, in col. 4-5, a similar scheme in which a source of reagents (‘reservoir’) is kept and which has iodine/water.
Using a reservoir in the above process is obvious to assure proper, continuous available flow of reagents and keeping iodine in water instead of a solid makes the reagent flow easier and predictable.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Norman as applied to claims 1, 9 above, and further in view of No et al. 8506925.
No teaches in col. 5 controlling process parameters to avoid creating sulfur. Using the claimed program to achieve this is obvious to control the process for best result.
Claims 5 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Norman as applied to claims 1, 9 above, and further in view of Heaton et al. 20050026008.
The above does not teach a heat exchanger, however Heaton teaches in fig. 2 a similar scheme and a heat exchanger in paras 28, 34 and 80. Using it in the above process is obvious to capture heat for economic efficiency and process control.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STUART L HENDRICKSON whose telephone number is (571)272-1351. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 9 to 5. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Anthony Zimmer, can be reached on 571-270-3591. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
The Davis article and Severinsky references are completely irrelevant and possibly were intended for a different application.
/STUART L HENDRICKSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1736
Prosecution Insights