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
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 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 1-3, 5, 10, 11, and 13-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Acharya et al. US 5,363,909.
Regarding claim 1, Acharya teaches a packing for a rotating packed bed (RPB), the packing comprising (Figure 1 and 5);
an elongate central aperture which extends along at least part of the length of the packing (open center of packing mass 3), wherein the packing is configured to rotate about an axis which extends along the length of the central aperture (column 3 lines 15-20, column 5 lines 15-25); and
a packing body (packing mass 3) which extends around the central aperture, wherein the packing body comprises:
a first body portion having a first side profile (upper tapered region of mass 3 in Figure 5); and
a second body portion having a second side profile, wherein the second side profile is different from the first side profile (outer vertical peripheral face of mass 3 in Figure 5).
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (second body portion)]
PNG
media_image1.png
203
398
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (third body portion)][AltContent: textbox (first body portion)]
Regarding claim 2, the shape of the first side profile is defined by a radius of the packing body which changes along at least part of the length of the first body portion (Sheets 14 and 15, the upper sloping boundary of mass 3 in Figure 5 changes its radial position as it extends axially, (column 5 lines 16-25).
Regarding claims 3 and 5, wherein the radius of the packing body increases along the length of the first body portion in a direction towards the second body portion and the radius of the packing body changes linearly (‘tapered’) between a first radius and a second radius at a position along the length of the first body portion. (Figure 5, column 5 lines 16-25).
Regarding claim 10, the shape of the second side profile is defined by a radius of the packing body which is substantially constant along at least part of the length of the second body portion (substantially vertical outer peripheral face of packing mass 3 in Figure 5).
Regarding claims 11, the packing further comprises: a third body portion having a third side profile, wherein the shape of the third side profile is defined by a radius of the packing body which changes along at least part of the length of the third body portion (lowered tapered region in Figure 5).
Regarding claims 13, the radius of the packing body decreases along the length of the third body portion in a direction away from the second body portion (Figure 5, the lower slope from the outer peripheral face toward the inner opening decreases in radius).
Regarding claims 14, the radius of the packing body decreases along the length of the third body portion in proportion to an increase in the radius of the packing body along the length of the first body portion (upper and lower tapers slopes in Figure 5).
Regarding claims 15, the first body portion and the third body portion are symmetrical about the second body portion (upper and lower tapers of mass 3 is symmetric about the midpoint of its outer face in Figure 5).
Regarding claims 16 and 17, the first body portion and the second body portion are integrally formed and the third body portion and the second body portion are integrally formed (sheets 14 and 15, (column 5 lines 25-40).
Regarding claim 18, Acharya teaches a rotating packing bed comprising:
a housing 4 comprising one or more fluid inlets 1 and one or more fluid outlets 9 through conduits (column 4 lines 5-25); and
a packing (packing mass 3) which is rotatably mounted within the housing (Figure 1 and 5, column 3 lines 10-25);
an elongate central aperture which extends along at least part of the length of the packing (open center of packing mass 3), wherein the packing is configured to rotate about an axis which extends along the length of the central aperture (column 3 lines 15-20, column 5 lines 15-25); and
a packing body (packing mass 3) which extends around the central aperture, wherein the packing body comprises:
a first body portion having a first side profile (upper tapered region of mass 3 in Figure 5); and
a second body portion having a second side profile, wherein the second side profile is different from the first side profile (outer vertical peripheral face of mass 3 in Figure 5).
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.
Claims 4, 6-9, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Acharya et al. US 5,363,909 in view of Qammar et al. Chem. Ing. Tech. 2019, 91, No. 11, 1663–1673.
Regarding claims 4, 6-9 and 12, Acharya does not explicitly teach
the radius of the first side profile changes non-linearly along the length of the first body portion;
the radius of the packing body changes hyperbolically along at least part of the length of the first body portion according to the claimed equation;
the non-linear change in the radius is an exponential change in the radius;
the shape of the second side profile is defined by a radius of the packing body which changes along at least part of the length of the second body portion; and
wherein the radius of the packing body changes hyperbolically along at least part of the length of the third body portion according to the claimed equation.
However, Qammar teaches changing the packing geometry to keep the available flow area substantially constant as the radius increases, thus improving gas flow and mass transfer (abstract, section 1.1).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the taper of Acharya’s packing to keep the available flow area substantially constant, for the benefit of improved gas flow and mass transfer as taught by Qammar. With a constant open-area fraction, the produced the claimed hyperbolic relationship.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHARON PREGLER whose telephone number is (571)270-5051. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9am - 5pm.
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, In Suk Bullock can be reached at (571) 272-5954. 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.
/SHARON PREGLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1772
Prosecution Insights