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 § 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.
Claim 1 is 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.
Regarding claim 1, the scope of the claim is unclear because the body of the claim has not been set forth by a proper transitional phrase, such as “comprising”. See MPEP § 2111.03.
Furthermore, “the liquid phase” (at line 10) lacks proper positive antecedent basis.
Furthermore, “the vapor phase” (at line 11) lacks proper positive antecedent basis.
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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dente et al. (EP 0 495 418 A1) in view of McCarthy (US 2,332,243).
Dente et al. describes a conventional vertical urea reactor, wherein the reactor includes internal separation baffles which divide the inside of the reactor into compartments (i.e., the cylindrical shell of a known reactor for the synthesis of urea is divided into compartments by seven perforated flat plates; see column 1, lines 23-49). Dente et al. also describes certain disadvantages of the known internal separation baffles, including a non-uniform gas distribution that causes a reduced urea yield (see column 1, line 50, to column 2, line 40).
Thus, Dente et al. discloses a new internal separation baffle (i.e., a plate SP1, SP2, SP3; see FIG. 1) for replacing at least one internal separation baffle in the conventional vertical urea reactor, wherein the new internal separation baffle (see FIG. 3-5) comprises:
a plurality of individual tiles (i.e., individual lozenge shaped elements EL1 ... ELn);
wherein each tile comprises side walls (i.e., walls 4 and 4’) and a top face (i.e., wall 2);
wherein at least one side wall 4,4’ comprises first perforations (i.e., perforations Fi for the flow of liquid; see FIG. 5A) and the top face 2 comprises second perforations (i.e., perforations fi for the flow of gas; see FIG. 5);
wherein the second perforations fi are smaller than the first perforation Fi (see column 4, lines 11-19);
wherein the tiles are distributed over the baffle (see FIG. 3) and adjacent tiles are separated by gaps (i.e., gaps (shown) between two facing side walls 4 and 4’ of adjacent lozenge shaped elements EL1 ... ELn); and
wherein the first perforations Fi provide a preferential route for the liquid phase and the second perforations fi provide a preferential route for the vapor phase in the reactor (note the liquid level, shown in FIG. 4A).
The new baffle provides a more even distribution, with a permanent flow, of the gas bubbles, avoiding their coalescing between a baffle and the next baffle and the adverse effects of a two-phase movement with showers of bubbles alternating with a continuous liquid flow, and thereby results in an increase in the urea yield and the urea reactor’s production potential (see column 3, lines 5-14; see also the Example, at column 4, line 32, to column 5, line 19, which illustrates the improvement in yield when a model urea reactor was modified to include the new internal separation baffles). Dente et al. therefore discloses a method for revamping a vertical urea reactor that includes internal separation baffles which divide the inside of the reactor into compartments, wherein the method includes replacing at least one baffle of the reactor with the new baffle, for increasing the production potential in reactors in existing plants (see column 2, lines 24-26).
The new baffle of Dente et al. is the same as the claimed new baffle, except that Dente et al. fails to disclose that the new baffle comprises “an array” of individual tiles, wherein the tiles are distributed over the baffle with “a two-dimensional pattern”, and wherein the adjacent tiles are separated by gaps. In contrast, Dente et al. discloses that the individual tiles EL1… ELn are elongated and extend along the full length of each baffle (see FIG. 3).
McCarthy discloses a column for vapor-liquid processing, wherein the column (see FIG. 1) comprises a vertical cylindrical shell 10, and the shell includes internal separation baffles that divide the inside of the shell into compartments (i.e., a series of trays 11 divides the shell into compartments; each tray comprises a horizontal plate 12 with a man-way opening 25 normally closed by a cover 26). Specifically, McCarthy discloses that each baffle comprises an array of individual tiles (i.e., an array of bubble caps 23), wherein the individual tiles are distributed over the baffle (i.e., the bubble caps 23 are distributed over both the horizontal plate 12 and the cover 26 portions of each tray 11) with a two-dimensional pattern (e.g., a pattern of three rows by four columns, as shown), and adjacent tiles 23 are separated by gaps (shown).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the new baffle in the method of Dente et al. to comprise an array of individual tiles, wherein the tiles are distributed over the new baffle according to a two-dimensional pattern and adjacent tiles are separated by gaps, because the array of the smaller, individual tiles would have allowed for a manway with a removable cover to be provided through each of the internal separation baffles, so that the interior of the vertical urea reactor may be made more conveniently accessible by workmen for cleaning, inspecting, repairing, or replacing parts of any or all of the internal separation baffles, without requiring the removal of the baffles from the reactor, as taught by McCarthy et al. (see column 1, lines 1-9 and lines 23-54).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Guyer et al. (CH 340502 A) is cited to illustrate a conventional urea reactor.
Mizobata et al. (JP 59-193115 A) is cited to illustrate an internal baffle for a gas-liquid processing apparatus, wherein the baffle suitably comprises perforated wall elements that are elongated and arranged in parallel (see, e.g., FIG. 2-4) or, alternatively, an array of perforated wall elements comprising smaller individual elements arranged in a two-dimensional pattern, wherein adjacent elements are separated by gaps (see FIG. 5-6).
* * *
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER A LEUNG whose telephone number is (571)272-1449. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:30 AM - 4:30 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, CLAIRE X 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.
/JENNIFER A LEUNG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1774