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 (RCE) 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 17 April 2026 has been entered.
Priority
This application is a 371 of PCT/JP2021/020693 which claims the benefit of JP 2020-098799 with an effective filing date of 05 June 2020 as reflected in the filing receipt mailed on 24 March 2023.
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-4 and 6-8 are pending.
Claims 1 and 4 are currently amended.
Claims 5 and 9 were previously cancelled.
Declaration
The declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 filed on 18 February 2026 is insufficient to overcome the rejection of claims 1-4 and 6-8 based upon “comments in order to explain that condensation is a vapor-to-liquid phase change phenomenon and does not occur on surfaces submerged in liquid” because:
It refers only to vapor-to-liquid phase change phenomenon and not to the individual claims of the application. Thus, there is no showing of objective evidence that nonobviousness is commensurate in scope with the claims, see MPEP § 716.
“In assessing the probative value of an expert opinion, the examiner must consider the nature of the matter sought to be established, the strength of any opposing evidence, the interest of the expert in the outcome of the case, and the presence or absence of factual support for the expert’s opinion”, see MPEP 716.01(c) III. In the affidavit on page 2 it is stated “a tubular member that is submerged in liquid would not experience condensation on its surface, in contrast to a tubular member exposed to a vapor phase”. However, this opinion is not reflective of a tubular member submerged in a liquid experiencing liquid, vapor, and gas phases throughout the liquid, which is the case of the apparatus/reactor liquids described by the instant specification. For example, US5776416, published 07 July 1998, to Oda teaches reactor 2 containing a mixture of liquid, vapor, and gas phases having an immersed gas/particle inlet pipe 30, where the gas is “heated to a temperature close to the temperature of the atmosphere in the reaction column 2” to prevent condensation in the particle discharge pipe and gas inlet pipe 30, see Fig. 1; Abstract; Col. 5, Ln. 35-Col. 7, Ln. 61. Therefore based upon the temperature of the portions of the pipe 30 that are not immersed, any vapor or gas within the liquid phase that may enter immersed pipe 30 may also condense within the immersed pipe 30, see MPEP 2112.
In view of the foregoing, when all of the evidence is considered, the totality of the rebuttal evidence of nonobviousness fails to outweigh the evidence of obviousness.
Response to Amendments
Applicant’s amendments filed 18 February 2026 and 17 April 2026 are acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Applicant's amendments to claims 1 and 4 filed on 18 February 2026 are sufficient to overcome the rejection of claims 1-4 and 6-8 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Claims 1 and 4 have been amended to correct the antecedent basis issues regarding the supply port. The rejection is withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Applicant’s amendments to claims 1 and 4 filed on 17 April 2026 adding wherein the oxygen-containing gas is supplied into the easily polymerizable compound-containing liquid through the one or more supply ports is not taught by Nishimura and is sufficient to overcome the rejections of:
Claims 1, 3, and 6 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishimura et al. (US6585862, cited by applicants 29 November 2022, hereinafter Nishimura) in view of Gugerli et al. (US20150110936, hereinafter Gugerli) and Shuhei et al (JP2005179352, published 07 July 2005, see machine translation, hereinafter Shuhei); and,
Claims 2, 4, 7, and 8 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishimura et al. (US6585862, cited by applicants 29 November 2022, hereinafter Nishimura) in view of Gugerli et al. (US20150110936, hereinafter Gugerli) and Shuhei et al (JP2005179352, published 07 July 2005, see machine translation, hereinafter Shuhei), as applied in the 35 USC 103 rejection of claims 1, 3, and 6 above, in further view of Labib et al. (US20040007255, hereinafter Labib).
Due to the amendments to claims 1 and 4, the above 35 USC 103 rejections are withdrawn, and new ground(s) of rejection is/are provided below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 18 February 2026 and 17 April 2026 have been fully considered but they are moot or not persuasive.
Applicant’s argue that Nishimura in combination with the teachings of Gugerli, Shuhei and/or Labib do not disclose the limitations as recited the claims. These arguments have been considered but are either moot or not persuasive for the reasons set forth in the new grounds of rejection below and the response to arguments below.
Applicant’s arguments throughout the remarks filed on 18 February 2026 and 17 April 2026 with respect to Nishimura have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on Nishimura applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
In response to applicant’s argument on page 10 of the remarks filed on 18 February 2026 and page 9 of the remarks filed on 17 April 2026 that the examiner’s conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant’s disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper, see In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971) and MPEP 2145 X.A. Only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was made has been applied to determine obviousness. For the reasons indicated above, applicant’s above argument is not persuasive.
New Rejections Based on the Amendments to the Claims and the RCE filed on 17 April 2026
In the Spirit of Compact Prosecution
Throughout prosecution the examiner has attempted to identify all objections and clarity issues amongst the claims, applicant is advised that some objections and clarity issues may still remain. Going forward, the examiner respectfully requests applicant to perform a detailed review of the claims regarding clarity, grammar, antecedent basis, word spacing, and spelling issues.
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.
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.
Claims 1 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yada et al. (US20060205979, published 14 September 2006, hereinafter Yada) in view of Gugerli et al. (US20150110936, published 23 April 2015, hereinafter Gugerli).
Yada is in the known prior art filed of preventing polymerization of an easily polymerizable “acrylic acid-containing liquid” by the injection of polymerization inhibitors, such as liquids and oxygen, in to a reactor through a tubular member immersed in the polymerizable liquid, see Abstract; Paras. [0034];[0051]-[0074];[0088]-[0092];[0102]; Figs. 1-4.
Regarding the limitations of instant application claims 1 and 6, Yada teaches a method for producing “high purity (meth)acrylic acid by preventing formation of a polymerized product of (meth)acrylic acid in the condensate obtained in production of high purity (meth)acrylic acid through distillation” by supplying “an oxygen-containing gas (air) containing oxygen is supplied to the condensate of acrylic acid in a reflux tank for receiving the condensate of acrylic acid”, see Abstract; Figs. 1-6, where the oxygen-containing gas is supplied to the tank containing the polymerizable liquid, such as acrylic acid, through gas supply line 45 outside of the tank connected to sparger 46 having a plurality of small-diameter holes/nozzles 47, a plurality of sprays 57, or a plurality of sintered metals 67 which are immersed in the polymerizable liquid in order to maximize the contact between the polymerizable liquid and supply of oxygen-containing gas into the polymerizable liquid through the sparger in order to prevent polymerization of the polymerizable liquid condensate, see Figs. 1-4; Paras. [0051];[0100]-[0113], meeting:
The method of producing an easily polymerizable compound and supplying the oxygen containing gas through a supply means having one or more supply ports in instant application claim 1;
The polymerization prevention step (3) in instant application claim 6; and,
The specific gas supply means and ports immersed in the easily polymerizable liquid that supplies the oxygen containing gas into the polymerizable liquid in instant application claim 1.
Yada does not teach:
The instant application claim 1 limitations of an area S (mm2) per one supply port is 0.1 or more and 20 or less, and a ratio V/S of a linear velocity V (m/s) of the gas at the supply port to the area S in the polymerization preventing step is 6.0 or more.
Gugerli is in the known prior art field of injecting diluent materials into a reactor via tubular members, see Abstract; Paras. [0011];[0075]-[0076], and Fig. 2, and is applied to teach the same.
Regarding the limitations of instant application claim 1, Gugerli teaches the injection inlet 18 forms a nozzle sized of from 0.3 to 0.8 mm or 0.07 to 0.50 mm2 for creating a jet of diluent at a linear velocity of from 10 to 50 m/sec, see Paras. [0075]-[0076] and Fig. 2, as calculated by the examiner a V/S ratio = (10/0.7) = 14 to (50/0.5) = 100, meeting and within the range of the supply port and V/S in instant application claim 1.
In reference to the above claims, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the injection apparatus of Yada to inject the oxygen containing gas from a supply port at a rate as taught by Gugerli with a reasonable predictability of success for the purpose of efficiently injecting the liquid and/or gas with sufficient shear force and mass transfer rates in order to dislodge and/or dissolve solid material within the tubing and/or reactor, see Gugerli, Para. [0017].
A rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art. Another rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that the substitution of one known element for another yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of modifying the injection apparatus of Yada by applying the known technique to inject the oxygen containing gas from a supply port at a rate as taught by Gugerli with a reasonable predictability of success for the purpose of efficiently injecting the liquid and/or gas with sufficient shear force and mass transfer rates in order to dislodge and/or dissolve solid material within the tubing and/or reactor, see Gugerli, Para. [0017]; and MPEP 2143 I. B-D.
The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that “a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that product [was] not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense”, see MPEP 2143 I.E. Since patents are part of the literature of the prior art relevant for all they contain, see MPEP 2123, and Yada and Gugerli teach the injection of gas through nozzles in the reactor/apparatus cleaning industry, a person of ordinary skill in the art has good reason to modify Yada by relying upon Gugerli before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for knowledge generally available within the reactor/apparatus cleaning art regarding the gas injection rate, see MPEP 2143 B & G and 2141, for the benefit of efficiently injecting the liquid and/or gas with sufficient shear force and mass transfer rates in order to dislodge and/or dissolve solid material within the tubing and/or reactor, see Gugerli, Para. [0017]; and, MPEP 2141 and 2143 I. B-D.
As stated in Sakraida v. Ag Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273, 189 USPQ 449, reh’g denied,
426 U.S. 955 (1976), “[w]hen a work is available in one field of endeavor, design
incentives and other market forces can prompt variations of it, either in the same field
or a different one. If a person of ordinary skill can implement a predictable variation, §
103 likely bars its patentability. For the same reason, if a technique has been used to
improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it
would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its
actual application is beyond his or her skill”, see MPEP 2141.
Selection of a known material, such as a liquid or a gas cleaning agent, diluent, and/or polymerization inhibitor, based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945), see MPEP 2144.07.
In addition, “[i]t is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions,” such as injection supply line configurations and the injection rate, “or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions.” In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438, 4 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1929), see MPEP 2144.05.
Claims 2, 3, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yada et al. (US20060205979, published 14 September 2006, hereinafter Yada) in view of Gugerli et al. (US20150110936, published 23 April 2015, hereinafter Gugerli), as applied to claims 1 and 6 in the 35 USC 103 rejection above, in further view of Labib et al. (US20040007255, published 15 January 2004, hereinafter Labib) and Nishimura et al. (US6585862, published 01 July 2003, hereinafter Nishimura).
Claims 4 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yada et al. (US20060205979, published 14 September 2006, hereinafter Yada) in view of Gugerli et al. (US20150110936, published 23 April 2015, hereinafter Gugerli), in further view of Labib et al. (US20040007255, published 23 April 2015, hereinafter Labib) and Nishimura et al. (US6585862, published 01 July 2003, hereinafter Nishimura).
Yada is in the known prior art filed of preventing polymerization of an easily polymerizable “acrylic acid-containing liquid” by the injection of polymerization inhibitors, such as liquids and oxygen, in to a reactor through a tubular member immersed in the polymerizable liquid, see Abstract; Paras. [0034];[0051]-[0074];[0088]-[0092];[0102]; Figs. 1-4.
Regarding the limitations of instant application claims 4 and 8, Yada teaches a method for producing “high purity (meth)acrylic acid by preventing formation of a polymerized product of (meth)acrylic acid in the condensate obtained in production of high purity (meth)acrylic acid through distillation” by supplying “an oxygen-containing gas (air) containing oxygen is supplied to the condensate of acrylic acid in a reflux tank for receiving the condensate of acrylic acid”, see Abstract; Figs. 1-6, where the oxygen-containing gas is supplied to the tank containing the polymerizable liquid, such as acrylic acid, through gas supply line 45 outside of the tank connected to sparger 46 having a plurality of small-diameter holes/nozzles 47, a plurality of sprays 57, or a plurality of sintered metals 67 which are immersed in the polymerizable liquid in order to maximize the contact between the polymerizable liquid and supply of oxygen-containing gas into the polymerizable liquid through the sparger in order to prevent polymerization of the polymerizable liquid condensate, see Figs. 1-4; Paras. [0051];[0100]-[0113], meeting:
The method of producing an easily polymerizable compound and supplying the oxygen containing gas through a supply means having one or more supply ports in instant application claim 4;
The polymerization prevention step (3) in instant application claim 8; and,
The specific gas supply means and ports immersed in the easily polymerizable liquid that supplies the oxygen containing gas into the polymerizable liquid in instant application claim 4.
Yada does not teach:
The instant application claims 2 and 4 limitations of a cleaning step of supplying a gas to the gas supply means to clean the supply port; and a pressure difference across the supply port of the gas supply means in the cleaning step is 150 kPa or higher; and,
The limitations of instant application claims 3 and 7.
Yada teaches “[a]ir as an oxygen-containing gas was supplied to the sparger 46 at 1.5 Nm3/h” to “2 Nm3/h”, see Paras. [0051]-[0060];[0119];[0127].
Labib is in the known prior art field of a two phase flow of a gas and a liquid for cleaning pipelines, tubing or passageways used for industrial chemical processes and industries, see Paras. [0003]-[0004];[0013];[0222]; Fig. 4, and is applied to teach the same.
Regarding the limitations of instant application claims 2-4 and 7, Labib teaches a two phase flow of a gas and a liquid for cleaning pipelines, tubing or passageways used for industrial chemical processes and industries, see Paras. [0003]-[0004];[0013];[0222]. The cleaning process cleans supply line pipes, such as pipes 402, 406, 408, 412, 414, with air and/or liquid in the pipe, see Paras. [0074]-[0079];[0097], and Fig. 4, where air is supplied at a pressure of 30-50 psig or 207-344 kPa, see Para. [0108], meeting:
The cleaning of supplying air and/or liquid to the pipe in instant application claim 2, in instant application claim 3, in instant application claim 4, and in instant application claim 7; and,
Within the pressure range of the gas cleaning in instant application claim 2 and in instant application claim 4.
In reference to the above claims, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Yada to clean the pipes and injection apparatus by including feeding the liquid and/or gas at a pressure as taught by Labib, see MPEP 2144.05 II., with a reasonable predictability of success for the purpose of efficiently injecting the liquid and/or gas with sufficient shear force and mass transfer rates in order to dislodge and/or dissolve solid material within the tubing and/or reactor, see Labib, Para. [0230].
A rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art. Another rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that the substitution of one known element for another yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of modifying the injection apparatus of Yada by applying the known technique to clean the pipes and injection apparatus by including feeding the liquid and/or gas at a pressure as taught by Labib with a reasonable predictability of success for the purpose of efficiently injecting the liquid and/or gas with sufficient shear force and mass transfer rates in order to dislodge and/or dissolve solid material within the tubing and/or reactor, see Labib, Para. [0230]; and MPEP 2143 I. B-D.
The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that “a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that product [was] not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense”, see MPEP 2143 I.E. Since patents are part of the literature of the prior art relevant for all they contain, see MPEP 2123, and Yada and Labib teach the injection of gas through nozzles in the reactor/apparatus cleaning industry, a person of ordinary skill in the art has good reason to modify Yada by relying upon Labib before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for knowledge generally available within the reactor/apparatus cleaning art regarding the gas injection rate, see MPEP 2143 B & G and 2141, for the benefit of efficiently injecting the liquid and/or gas with sufficient shear force and mass transfer rates in order to dislodge and/or dissolve solid material within the tubing and/or reactor, see Labib, Para. [0230]; and, MPEP 2141 and 2143 I. B-D.
As stated in Sakraida v. Ag Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273, 189 USPQ 449, reh’g denied,
426 U.S. 955 (1976), “[w]hen a work is available in one field of endeavor, design
incentives and other market forces can prompt variations of it, either in the same field
or a different one. If a person of ordinary skill can implement a predictable variation, §
103 likely bars its patentability. For the same reason, if a technique has been used to
improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it
would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its
actual application is beyond his or her skill”, see MPEP 2141.
Selection of a known material, such as a liquid or a gas cleaning agent, diluent, and/or polymerization inhibitor, based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945), see MPEP 2144.07.
In addition, “[i]t is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions,” such as pressures and injection rates, “or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions.” In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438, 4 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1929), see MPEP 2144.05.
Yada does not teach:
The instant application claims 2 and 4 limitations of a pressure difference across the supply port of the gas supply means in the polymerization prevention step is 100 kPa or lower.
Yada teaches “[a]ir as an oxygen-containing gas was supplied to the sparger 46 at 1.5 Nm3/h” to “2 Nm3/h”, see Paras. [0051]-[0060];[0119];[0127].
Nishimura is in the known prior art field of “an apparatus for handling an easily polymerizable compound such as (meth)acrylic acid which includes a tubular member” see Abstract, where the apparatus prevents condensation and promotes cleaning in the reactor apparatus inlet and outlet tubular members in order to inhibit polymerization, see Col. 3, Lns. 4-8; Col. 4, Lns. 19-24; Figs. 2 and 6, the polymerization is inhibited by adding “a molecular-oxygen-containing gas and/or a polymerization inhibitor, which are conventionally used as polymerization inhibitors” to the tubular members, see Col. 3, Ln. 65-Col. 4, Ln. 16, and the polymerization inhibitor is “a polymerization-inhibitor-containing liquid”, see Col. 4, Lns. 48-54, and is applied to teach the same.
Regarding the limitations of instant application claims 2 and 4, Nishimura teaches polymerization is prevented by injecting an oxygen containing gas, a polymerization inhibitor, and/or a liquid/fluid into a specially designed tubular member 1a in order to prevent the build-up of condensate 3 in the supply port 1 tubing, i.e., cleaning the port, and to inhibit polymerization throughout the apparatus 2 containing the easily polymerizable fluid, see Col. 1, Lns. 15-25 and 40-67; Col. 3, Lns. 4-35; Col. 3, Ln. 65-Col. 4, Ln. 3; Col. 5, Lns. 1-5; Figs. 1 and 2, where the pressure of the supply port tubular member is equalized by a pressure equalizer and the reaction pressure is up to 8.67 kPa, see Col. 5, Lns. 1-5 and Lns. 35-67, meeting and within the range of the lower limit of 0 pressure difference in the polymerization prevention step in instant application claim 2 and in instant application claim 4.
In reference to the above claims, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the oxygen-containing gas injection pressure and rate of Yada to a pressure as taught by Nishimura, see MPEP 2144.05 II., with a reasonable predictability of success for the purpose of efficiently inhibiting polymerization throughout the apparatus by “injecting the molecular-oxygen-containing gas and/or the polymerization inhibitor” at a rate that will disperse the molecular-oxygen-containing gas and/or the polymerization inhibitor throughout the polymerizable liquid, see Nishimura, Col. 2, Lns. 21-24; Col. 3, Ln. 56-Col. 4, Ln. 16; Col. 5, Lns. 35-67; Fig. 5.
A rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art. Another rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that the substitution of one known element for another yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of modifying the injection apparatus of Yada by applying the known technique of the injection pressure of the oxygen-containing gas as taught by Nishimura with a reasonable predictability of success for the purpose of efficiently inhibiting polymerization throughout the apparatus by “injecting the molecular-oxygen-containing gas and/or the polymerization inhibitor” at a rate that will disperse the molecular-oxygen-containing gas and/or the polymerization inhibitor throughout the polymerizable liquid, see Nishimura, Col. 2, Lns. 21-24; Col. 3, Ln. 56-Col. 4, Ln. 16; Col. 5, Lns. 35-67; Fig. 5; and MPEP 2143 I. B-D.
The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that “a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that product [was] not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense”, see MPEP 2143 I.E. Since patents are part of the literature of the prior art relevant for all they contain, see MPEP 2123, and Yada and Nishimura both teach inhibiting polymerization throughout the apparatus by injecting a molecular-oxygen-containing gas and/or a polymerization inhibitor in the reactor/apparatus polymerization inhibition and/or cleaning industry, a person of ordinary skill in the art has good reason to modify Yada by relying upon Nishimura before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for knowledge generally available within the reactor/apparatus polymerization inhibition and/or cleaning art regarding the gas injection rate and pressure, see MPEP 2143 B & G and 2141, for the benefit of efficiently inhibiting polymerization throughout the apparatus by “injecting the molecular-oxygen-containing gas and/or the polymerization inhibitor” at a rate that will disperse the molecular-oxygen-containing gas and/or the polymerization inhibitor throughout the polymerizable liquid, see Nishimura, Col. 2, Lns. 21-24; Col. 3, Ln. 56-Col. 4, Ln. 16; Col. 5, Lns. 35-67; Fig. 5; and, MPEP 2141 and 2143 I. B-D.
As stated in Sakraida v. Ag Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273, 189 USPQ 449, reh’g denied,
426 U.S. 955 (1976), “[w]hen a work is available in one field of endeavor, design
incentives and other market forces can prompt variations of it, either in the same field
or a different one. If a person of ordinary skill can implement a predictable variation, §
103 likely bars its patentability. For the same reason, if a technique has been used to
improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it
would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its
actual application is beyond his or her skill”, see MPEP 2141.
Selection of a known material, such as a liquid or a gas cleaning agent, diluent, and/or polymerization inhibitor, based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945), see MPEP 2144.07.
In addition, “[i]t is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions,” such as pressures or injection rates, “or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions.” In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438, 4 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1929), see MPEP 2144.05.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Y. Lynnette Kelly-O'Neill whose telephone number is (571) 270-3456. The examiner can normally be reached Tuesday-Friday, 8:30 a.m. - 6:30 p.m., EST, with Flex Time.
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, Scarlett Yen-Ye Goon can be reached at (571) 270-5241. 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.
/YO/Examiner, Art Unit 1692
/FEREYDOUN G SAJJADI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1699
Prosecution Insights