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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 09 December 2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
It is acknowledged that claims 1, 8 and 11 have been amended and claims 7 and 10 have been cancelled by Applicant. Claims 1-3, 5-6, 8-9, and 11-12 are currently pending in this application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09 December 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The respective arguments are addressed below:
In response to applicant's argument that Nakamura is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor' s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, Nakamura is pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, which is the design and employment of a fluid distributor.
In response to applicant's argument that there is no reasonable expectation of success for the design principles used in Nakamura to work in a reactor such as in Soo, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
Applicant argued that Nakamura does not teach the precise claimed angles, but did not specifically address Examiner’s rationale as to why these angles would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention over Soo in view of Nakamura. Examiner encourages Applicant to review the claim 8 rejection in the previously filed Final office action, and/or the claim 8 rejection of this office action, where this limitation is discussed.
Applicant argued that Nakamura discloses the second connecting pipe connected to only one branch pipe. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner points applicant to Fig. 11 of Nakamura, which is annotated below the claim 1 rejection. In this figure, parts 141 and 142 are the first branch pipes, while the annotated arrows indicating the second connecting pipes are pointed to the second connecting pipes, that are each vertically connecting the first branch pipes (parts 141 and 142), respectively, to the second set of branch pipes. This is further exemplified in the annotated figure below the rejection of claim 11.
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.
Claims 1-3 and 5-6, 8-9, and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Soo (KR-20150133142-A) in view of Nakamura (JP-2017141675-A).
Regarding Claim 1, Soo discloses a polymerization reactor for production of a super absorbent polymer (see Soo [0001]), the reactor comprising: a composition supply part configured to supply a monomer composition solution (composition supply unit for supplying a monomer composition; see Soo [0018]); a central pipe connected to the composition supply part (see e.g. Soo, Figs. 1-3, Part 60) and has a tubular shape that is long in a direction of gravity (see e.g. Soo, Figs. 1-3, Part 60); a composition distribution part (composition distribution unit; see Soo [0024]) including a first connecting pipe that is connected to the central pipe at a first angle with respect to the central pipe (see e.g. Soo, Fig. 3, annotated below), and a pair of first branch pipes that are obliquely branched at a second angle with respect to the first connecting pipe (see e.g. Soo, Fig. 3, annotated below); a conveyor belt located under a discharge port of the first branch pipe and on which the composition solution is deposited (supplying the monomer composition onto a conveyor belt; see Soo [0009]); and an energy supply part (energy supply unit; see [0020]) configured to supply polymerization energy to the composition solution on the conveyor belt (conveyor belt in which the polymerization reaction occurs… energy supply unit for supplying light energy or thermal energy required for monomer polymerization; see Soo [0020]).
PNG
media_image1.png
663
640
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Soo does not explicitly teach the connecting pipe being obliquely connected to the central pipe or the branch pipes being symmetrical with respect to the connecting pipe. However, Nakamura discloses a first connecting pipe that is obliquely connected to the central pipe (see e.g. Nakamura [0053]) and first branch pipes being symmetrical with each other with respect to the first connecting pipe (see Figs. 3-4, parts 40-42), wherein a first angle is an angle between the conveyor belt and the connecting pipe, which is 30 to 60 degrees, and a second angle is an angle between the connecting pipe and each branch pipe, which is 30 to 45 degrees. Fig. 11 of Nakamura implicitly shows a range of angles that would include the claimed ranges. Part 140, when compared to the horizontal direction as shown below in the annotated figure, clearly makes an acute angle with the horizontal. This is analogous to the claimed first angle, and inherently falls within a range of 0 to 90 degrees, which overlaps with the claimed range of 30 to 60 degrees. Further, claim 8 defines the second angle as “between the connecting pipe and each first branch pipe”, and clarification drawn from Fig. 2 of the instant application shows that the second angle is between the center line drawn from the connecting point between each branch pipe and the connecting pipe. The analogous angle 2 is shown in annotated Fig. 11 below. This angle is clearly acute, therefore falling within a range of 0 to 90 degrees, which overlaps with the claimed range of 30 to 45 degrees. MPEP 2144.05.I states that in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Further, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to connect the pipes in such a way because doing so manipulates the order of the intake process (see e.g. Nakamura [0034]).
PNG
media_image2.png
567
780
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Soo and Nakamura are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because Soo and the instant application are in the same field of polymerization reactors, which employ a fluid distributor as disclosed by Nakamura. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Soo by incorporating the teachings of Nakamura and obliquely connecting the connecting tube to the central tube and making the branch pipes symmetrical. Doing so would prevent condensed water from accumulating in the chamber (see e.g. Nakamura [0053]) and allow for even distribution (see e.g. Nakamura [0037]), respectively.
Nakamura further discloses wherein the composition distribution part further comprises a pair of second connecting pipes each connected to the pair of first branch pipes (see e.g Nakamura [0032] and annotated Fig. 11 below); and a pair of second branch pipes branched from each of the pair of the second connecting pipes (see Nakamura [0032] and Fig. 11). This modification would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art because it allows the passage to be divided into a group of two blocks (see e.g. Nakamura [0033]).
PNG
media_image3.png
445
919
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 2, Soo and Nakamura together disclose the polymerization reactor according to claim 1. Soo further discloses the first branch pipe being inclined with respect to the central pipe at a first angle (see e.g. Soo, Fig. 3, annotated above).
Regarding Claim 3, Soo and Nakamura together disclose the polymerization reactor according to claim 1. Nakamura further discloses a diameter of a first connection pipe injection port relatively adjacent to the central pipe is larger than a diameter of a first connection pipe discharge port relatively adjacent to the first branch pipe (opening portion 52 formed in the connecting portion 51 with the EGR introduction port 33 in the EGR chamber 32 is larger than the passage cross sectional area Sa of the EGR introduction port 33; see Nakamura [0049]). This modification would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because it makes it difficult for accumulation to occur (see e.g. Nakamura [0050]).
Regarding Claim 5, Soo and Nakamura together disclose the polymerization reactor according to claim 1. Soo further discloses the composition supply part further comprising a raw material supply part (Raw material supply part 40; see Soo [0091]), a solvent supply part (solvent supply part 50; see Soo [0091]), and a monomer composition mixing part (monomer composition mixing part 60; see Soo [0091]).
Regarding Claim 6, Soo and Nakamura together disclose the polymerization reactor according to claim 1. Soo further discloses the energy supply part being configured to supply light energy (see Soo [0020]).
Regarding Claim 8, Soo discloses a polymerization reactor for production of a super absorbent polymer (see e.g. Soo [0001]), the reactor comprising: a composition supply part configured to supply a monomer composition solution (see e.g. Soo [0019]); a central pipe connected to the composition supply part (see e.g. Soo, Figs. 1-3, Part 60) and has a tubular shape that is long in a direction of gravity (see Figs. 1-3, Part 60); a composition distribution part (see e.g. Soo [0024]) connected to the central pipe (see e.g. Soo, Fig. 3, annotated previously), and a pair of first branch pipes that are obliquely branched at an angle with respect to the first connecting pipe (see e.g. Soo, Fig. 3, annotated previously); a conveyor belt configured to receive the composition solution deposited from the composition distribution part (see e.g. Soo [0009]); and an energy supply part configured to supply energy for polymerization to the composition solution on the conveyor belt (see e.g. Soo [0020]).
Soo does not explicitly teach a pipe connected in a plurality of stages. However, Nakamura discloses a pipe connected in a plurality of stages, wherein each of the stages comprises a connecting pipe and a pair of branch pipes branched to both sides based on the connecting pipe (see e.g. Nakamura [0032] and Fig. 11), wherein the connecting pipe is obliquely connected with a first angle between the conveyor belt and the connecting pipe (see Fig. 11, which shows the first connecting pipe (part 140) disposed at an oblique angle to both the vertical and horizontal axes, and therefore would be at an oblique angle to the conveyor when modifying Soo), and the pair of first branch pipes are obliquely branched at a second angle between the connecting pipe and each first branch pipe (see Fig. 11 which shows parts the first branch pipes 141 and 142 connected obliquely to the connecting pipe 140). This modification would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because doing so manipulates the order of the intake process (see e.g. Nakamura [0034]). Regarding the limitations claiming “wherein the first angle is within a range of 30 to 60 degrees” and “the second angle is within a range of 30 to 45 degrees”, Fig. 11 of Nakamura implicitly shows a range of angles that would include the claimed ranges. Part 140, when compared to the horizontal direction as shown below in the annotated figure, clearly makes an acute angle with the horizontal. This is analogous to the claimed first angle, and inherently falls within a range of 0 to 90 degrees, which overlaps with the claimed range of 30 to 60 degrees. Further, claim 8 defines the second angle as “between the connecting pipe and each first branch pipe”, and clarification drawn from Fig. 2 of the instant application shows that the second angle is between the center line drawn from the connecting point between each branch pipe and the connecting pipe. The analogous angle 2 is shown in annotated Fig. 11 below. This angle is clearly acute, therefore falling within a range of 0 to 90 degrees, which overlaps with the claimed range of 30 to 45 degrees. MPEP 2144.05.I states that in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists.
PNG
media_image2.png
567
780
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The limitation claiming, “and wherein a first stage of the composition distribution part comprises a first connecting pipe connected to the central pipe, and a pair of first branch pipes branched from the first connection pipe, and a subsequent stage connected to the first stage comprises a pair of second connecting pipes each connected to each of the pair of the first branch pipes of the first stage, and a pair of second branch pipes branched from each of the pair of the second connecting pipes” does not exceed limitations claimed in claim 1. Please refer to the claim 1 rejection as the rejection of this limitation follows the same rationale.
Regarding Claim 9, Soo and Nakamura together disclose the polymerization reactor according to claim 8. Nakamura further discloses in the connecting pipe, a diameter of an injection port through which the composition solution is injected is larger than a diameter of a discharge port through which the composition solution is discharged (the entrance portion of each EGR introduction port 33 is formed in a funnel shape; see [0049]). This modification would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because it makes it difficult for accumulation to occur (see e.g. Nakamura [0050]).
Regarding Claim 11, Soo and Nakamura together disclose the polymerization reactor according to claim 9. Nakamura further discloses the first connecting pipe diameter being larger than the second connecting pipe diameter, while the first set of branch pipe diameters is larger than the second set of branch pipe diameters (see e.g. Nakamura, Fig. 11 annotated below).
PNG
media_image4.png
485
588
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 12, Soo and Nakamura together disclose the polymerization reactor according to claim 8. Soo further discloses the connecting pipe and the branch pipes being connected symmetrically with respect to the central pipe (see e.g. Soo, Fig. 3).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALYSSA LEE KUYKENDALL whose telephone number is (571)270-3806. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday 9:00am-5:00pm.
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 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.
/A.L.K./Examiner, Art Unit 1774
/CLAIRE X WANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1774
Prosecution Insights